A Naturalistic Approach to Karma & Rebirth

DT Strain said:
I have just finished an essay by this title and thought I'd post it here for those who may be interested. We could have a discussion on it in this thread if folks like.

http://dtstrainphilosophy.blogspot.com/2006/05/naturalistic-approach-to-buddhist.html

Thanks :)
Daniel
Click to expand...

Friend,

I love your essay! Taking a naturalistic approach to karma and rebirth is extremely necessary if Buddhism is to be transplanted to the west and thrive. Have you read Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor?
He goes a bit too far in suggesting that we jettison karma and rebirth altogether but he does say that seeing rebirth as a PSYCHOLOGICAL rebirth will go a long way in ensuring that Buddhism speaks to the secular west.

Thanks for taking the time to write your insightful essay. I'm telling you that naturalistic religion is hear to stay and the fossilized institutions of the past (but not their core) are on their way out.

Namaste,
Tony
 
Thanks for reading Tony. I'm glad you liked my essay. I have not read Batchelor's book, but it sounds interesting. It sounds similar to a recent article by Sam Harris in "Shambhala Sun" called "Killing the Buddha".

I think it is important we not be intolerant of those Buddhists who do have a more mystical or transcendental approach though. One thing I enjoy about Buddhism is its diversity and flexibility in being useful to a variety of people. If Buddhism is to evolve this way or that, it should be allowed to do so naturally according to the proclivities and inclinations of its practitioners, without dogmatism or imposition from either camp. I think you might agree, but I just thought this was worth mentioning. :)

With Compassion,
Daniel
 
namaste,

i must say that i really enjoyed reading your essay. to me, it was very insightful and very well worded. i even passed the link onto other friends who i thought would be interested in reading it. i assume that u wouldnt mind my doing that b/c you posted it up here for all of us to read, however, if you would not like me passing the link on, please let me know and i will not. i look forward to reading your other essays (which unfortunately i havent had the time to do thus far) and i also look forward to more of your posts on this forum.

i would like to talk with you about quantum mechanics, if you wouldnt mind. i dont know a whole lot about it, and im not sure how much of it you have studied, but i remember you mentioning it in your essay and its a topic that im very interested in. so, if you would like to talk about it a bit to a novice, i would greatly appreciate it. i have i bit of knowledge on it due to a movie that i watched called, 'what the bleep do we know?'. however, that movie seems to go against what you said in your essay. to my understanding, the scientists in that movie seem to come to the conclusion that quatum mechanics proves that you make your own reality based on many different factors. however, i could be wrong.

but again, thank you for posting your essay on here. i learned much from it.

be well in peace
 
I like it!!

that was good!!

Although I did not read the whole thing.
I love it!!
Sorry to say I have a lot of things to do and am barely online.
Have to get ready for exam now
I sure do get sleepy on the last month of school.

Adios amigo!
Me gustaba mucho!!
 
Hello Toujur!

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. Please feel free to forward to anyone you like.

Quantum mechanics is a wonderfully exciting thing to me as well. I am no scientist, but for a lay person, I'm fairly well-read in physics and biology, simply because it's something I've spent a lot of time reading out of interest. Most of this is on a conceptual level (rather than in depth mathematics).

The film you refer to unfortunately suffers from some rampant misconceptions about quantum mechanics. One of these misconceptions is that our consciousness somehow determines reality.

I believe this misconception got going because of a misunderstanding about the use of words in describing QM. One can often read that "our measurements collapse an indeterminate wave function into a specific value." This would seem to mean that a particle is a wave with no definite real position until we look at it. But this isn't the case.

When physicists talk about "wave functions" they don't mean physical things. As professor Dan Styer has said in his paper, "Philosophy of my first-semester junior-level quantum mechanics course":

"The vector state (or wavefunction) is an algorithmic tool for calculating probabilities, not a physical entity... The 'collapse of the wavefunction' is no more worrisome than is throwing out scratch paper."

-- http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/TeachQM/QMCourse/Philosophy.pdf

Unfortunately, many have taken this wording and extrapolated it into a sort of postmodern conception of reality where there's nothing in the closet until we open it, or where our minds can create reality. Some of this has been honest misunderstanding, and some of it has been by New Age quacks and
charlatans exploiting a gap in understanding of the public to claim their spiritual or supernatural ideas have some scientific backing they don't actually have. Whichever is the case for the film you mention, I'm afraid it seems to be more pseudoscience than science.

There is plenty to be amazed by QM as it is, however. If you'd like to learn more, I would recommend The Cosmic Code: Quantum Physics as the Language of Nature by Heinz R. Pagels. It's good at communicating the real scientific nature of QM in a conceptual way that doesn't require a mathematics or science degree to understand. I'm sure there are plenty of others, but please beware the pseudoscience and New Age sources, as they are typically misleading.

With Compassion, :)
Daniel
 
thank you vry much daniel for the book title. ill be sure to check that out soon. can i find 'the cosmic code' in any bookstore, like barnes and noble?

what u have warned me about with the pseudoscience and new age theories is basically what the movie that i mentioned is about. it talks a lot about wave fuctions and how something like a basketball is actually in many different places at the same time until we check on it and actually see it in the one place (this was an actual example used in the movie, by the way). i do believe that some of the theories that the movie claims to be fact, could possibly be fact, however the new information that u have given me about the misconception of QM in the movie really makes me question the rest of it. the way the director of this documentory/movie was he used many scholars in their feild of QM to verify information and use brief snipits of what they actually said to prove it, which mislead me to believe that everything that they were saying was the truth. its very hard to doubt someone who has spent their entire life on something. but, i would suggest that u check the movie out b/c it does have some very interesting viewpoints in it which i would love to discuss with u more.

so u said that u have spent a lot of time studying QM out of pure interest? thats very astounding to me since where i live i very rarely find people who have even heard of QM, much less anyone who knows anything about it. unfortunately, i doubt that i could really carry on an intellegent conversation with u about it since i really only know what ive been told thus far, however im hoping to change that here very soon. what else do u study, if u dont mind me asking?

well, i must be going, but i do appreciate the time that u have taken to explain all of this to me. i hope that we can talk again sometime.

be well in peace
jon
 
DT Strain said:
Thanks for reading Tony. I'm glad you liked my essay. I have not read Batchelor's book, but it sounds interesting. It sounds similar to a recent article by Sam Harris in "Shambhala Sun" called "Killing the Buddha".

I think it is important we not be intolerant of those Buddhists who do have a more mystical or transcendental approach though. One thing I enjoy about Buddhism is its diversity and flexibility in being useful to a variety of people. If Buddhism is to evolve this way or that, it should be allowed to do so naturally according to the proclivities and inclinations of its practitioners, without dogmatism or imposition from either camp. I think you might agree, but I just thought this was worth mentioning. :)

With Compassion,
Daniel
Click to expand...

Hi Daniel!

Thanks for your reply. I definitely agree with your comment on tolerating the mystical and transcendental approaches that other Buddhists have concerning Ultimate Reality. According to my POV, I take more of a pragmatic approach to spirituality...if it works (and is wholesome) then do it.

Have you read the Quantum and the Lotus? It is available in most book stores and is a great read. Another QM book that is fantastic (and I have been lucky enough to meet the author and have dinner with him) is The Physics of Consciousness by Evan Harris Walker...also available in stores. His theory states that...in a nutshell...consciousness can be accounted for by the activity of electrons tunneling throughout the brain. By using this theory, he is able to explain why we sleep and why melanin is found all around brain tissues. A large portion of his book is devoted to Zen koans too. It really is fascinating stuff!

I'm looking forward to reading your past and any subsequent articles.

With metta,

Tony
 
Hey Toujour,

It seems to me what the film did was present actual experts to present one aspect of QM, then switch to other folks when they expounded on what the experts said. So, what you have left are things being said that, while *based* upon the initial thing the experts said, wouldn't really agree with them. I remember at the time this film came out that many of the scientists involved were dismayed, but that's just a crude memory if I recall correctly.

I've always had an interest in science and took it upon myself to read up on Relativity, QM, evolution, cosmology, history, and a little anthropology. People are impressed sometimes, but I like to remind them that what I know isn't all that different from knowing a lot about which baseball players played for which teams, their records, etc. It's just my area of interest (and I know nothing about sports!).

And, I like to stress too that, to a scientist, I'd appear quite ignorant. My info is on a conceptual level more than applied (although I can calculate how much mass and time dialation would happen at a given percentage of light speed for a given duration). But I try to at least keep my laymans' info consistent with the applied level info without undue exrapolation, distortion, or exaggeration.

My primary interest is in philosophy, and as a Humanist I value learning. I've always thought that our philosophy should be backed up and in agreement with what we can measure and see around us if it is to be useful. This is something Buddhism holds as well I think. Therefore, a study of science makes for a good backing if one is going to be philosophizing.

Please feel free to email me if you'd ever like to discuss anything else (my email is on my website).

Sincerely,
Daniel
 
Hi YNOT,

Thanks much. I think pragmatism is an excellent approach.

Having not read it, I can't speak to all of what you mentioned, but thanks for the references. I think we have to be careful we aren't jumping the gun. There seem to be two dangers to look out for in this: (1) taking what science says and exaggerating or imagining it to mean something extra than what it literally means, and (2) trying to "fill in gaps" in scientific knowledge with our personal ideas about how things work. That's ok for speculation, as long as we don't dogmatize it if something new comes up or if we find we've misunderstood something in science. Fortunately, surprisingly much of Buddhism makes wonderful sense without doing any of that.

I'm not saying you or your references do any of this - just that it's something I like to watch out for and be aware of :)

With Compassion,
Daniel
 
Hello,

It's been a while. I'm glad to see you're all still here and apparently well. I would highly, highly, super highly recommend seeing a documentary called "The Elegant Universe". It's the best route to go for the novice such as myself who doesn't have the drive or technical knowledge to sit through a book. Although, if you really want to, there is a book out by the same name.

The documentary was a special on PBS in the states a while back and it was so good that they decided to market the DVD. Best visual I've seen on the subject.
 
You're very welcome DT.

I have to admit, I don't too much support a more naturalistic approach to Buddhist beliefs ultimately. But perhaps it would be beneficial to start westerners off with a more naturalistic aproach. I truly feel that everything I have come across in my study and practice is there for a very good reason and are very valuable tools along the path, such as the idea of rebirth. Buddhists don't typically believe in rebirth just because we're told that it's the correct view but because it's beneficial to us to hold that belief.

The Elegant Universe documentary goes into super-string theory in detail but all in laymen's terms with nice computer effect visuals. It's amazing to me how close science is getting to Buddhist ideals, theoretically. They're almost at emptiness. It seems that they're just doing a multi-century analytical meditation on emptiness. Right now, they think that all of creation is made up of tiny strings, invisible to our most sensitive microscopes. How much would anyone like to bet that in the next hundred years there will be some form of scientific realization of emptiness?

Namaste:)
 
Ooh, post #99!

Anyway, I like this and think it relates. I'm not sure exactly where it comes from. Enjoy!

The Buddha’s penetrating insight attracted many intellectuals, one of whom, Malunkyaputra, grew more and more frustrated as the Buddha failed to settle certain basic metaphysical questions. Finally he went to the Buddha in exasperation and confronted him with the following list:
“Blessed One, there are theories which you have left unexplained and set aside unanswered: Whether the world is eternal or not eternal; whether is it finite or infinite; whether a person who has attained nirvana exists after death or does not, or whether perhaps he both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not.
The fact that the Blessed One has not explained these matters neither pleases me nor suits me. If the Blessed One will not explain this to me, I will give up spiritual disciplines and return to the life of a layman.”
“Malunkyaputra”, the Buddha replied gently, “when you took to the spiritual life, did I ever promise you I would answer these questions?”
Malunkyaputra was probably already sorry for his outburst, but it was too late. “No, Blessed One, you never did.”
“Why do you think that is?”
“Blessed One, I haven’t the slightest idea!
“Suppose, Malunkyaputra, that a man has been wounded by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and family are about to call a doctor. ‘Wait!’ he says. ‘I will not let this arrow be removed until I have learned the caste of the man who shot me. I have to know how tall his is, what family he comes from, where they live, what kind of wood his bow is made from, what fletcher made his arrows. When I know these things, you can proceed to take the arrow out and give me an antidote for its poison. ‘What would you think of such a man?”
“He would be a fool, Blessed One,” replied Malunkyaputra shamefacedly. “His questions have nothing to do with getting the arrow out, and he would die before they were answered.”
“Similarly, Malunkyaputra, I do not teach whether the world is eternal or not eternal; whether it is finite or infinite; whether a person who has attained nirvana exists after death or does not, or whether perhaps he both exists and does not exist, or neither exists nor does not. I teach how to remove the arrow: the truth of suffering, its origin, its end, and the Noble Eightfold Path.”
 
Hey Vaj,

Glad to "see" you again and glad you liked it. I hope I'm not coming across as "above" worldly speculation, the reason I have that quote because I've often found myself spending too much time contemplating unanswerable questions that only serve to strengthen my delusions and attachments to this world. But I was hoping you might know where it came from? :)
 
Namaste Rdwillia,

there are several places within the canon where Buddha Shakyamuni uses the similie of the arrow:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-105-tb0.html

in this Sutta, Buddha is likening the arrow to tanha.

however, the similie that you are asking about is the one concerning speculative views:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-063-tb0.html

(excerpt)

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

.....

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me.

"And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

metta,

~v
 
Indeed, these passages of the Buddha are exactly what I was referring to in my article when I said that he was concerned with this life and this world, and why so many of the Buddhist concepts are applicable for the naturalist.

As for non-naturalists of various sorts, there's no doubt that we all at least interface in this world, and so anything compatible with it must also be useful to everyone, even if they may have additional beliefs on top of that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top