Rebirth

It's interesting to me (in a good way) that a simple discussion about our current thoughts about the possibility of rebirth, has evolved into a discussion more about potential motivations for affirming or denying the position. This is encouraging to me, and it shows the maturity of our members. I agree that whether rebirth does or does not occur is less relevant than what one's position means for them. That is, does having this view help or harm you in your practice.

I think the answer will come on a case by case basis. I also think that in can be a helpful belief at certains times of one's life, and perhaps harmful in others - though not necessarily in that order.

Something else that I find interesting about Tucker's book is how he makes it clear that the research in no way confirms the specific beliefs of any religious or spiritual tradition. In fact, the evidence they've collected doesn't really support the assumptions about rebirth found in either the Theravada or Tibetan Mahayana teachings, as far as I can tell. The mechanism of rebirth, if there is such a thing, may have very little to do with the various Buddhist hypotheses.

The implications of this research seems less significant for religious traditions than it does for the metaphysics of scientific materialism. If conscious can survive the physical body in some form, than consciousness is not an emergent property, produced by the human nervous system. The latter hypothesis has yet to receive much support, but it fits the going paradigm, so it's often clung to without challenge. That's a shame, to me. Dogmatism in any form is a shame, because it arrests progress.

So, personally, I'm less interested in the spiritual/religious side of things as I am in how these findings have the potential to aid in dismantling materialistic views. But, for all I know, someone could find the neural correlates to consciousness tomorrow, or even today. It's wise to not be overly invested outcomes

You can count me among those who find rebirth horrifying. I have always found the notion of sangsara to be perfectly sensible and elegant; that is, the endless cycle of rebirth is a perfect fractal for the endless cycle of daily existence, the striving, craving, contention and suffering that we unenlightened beings engage in. My practice has always been about escaping the latter and thus the former has always been a totally self-evident emblem and model for practice.

That said, to answer the original question, that's all it is for me—an emblem and model. I do not believe in rebirth and I do not disbelieve in rebirth; rather, it is a question beyond my empirical ability and thus I see no reason to take any position at all on its existence, even agnosticism. Singsapa-wise, its objective truth-value is a leaf that stays on the ground. In terms of what I am willing to assert is true or false, I am broadly a scientific materialist like all the rest; but the asserting mind has no place in my practice.

On the other hand, I do find great value in acting as though I believed in it; it is a great motivator for practice, both in anticipation of future births and gratitude for karma before this present birth, and it's also one of the only seemingly coherent arguments against suicide. So its existence is a rule that I have assumed, in the ways that I have assumed the existence of many rules in this life: the reality of karma, the possibility of nibbana. I have found that these assumptions—that is, that acting as though these doctrines were true, rather than acting on my so-called beliefs*—creates a better mind for practice, and I have found empirically that practice creates a more peaceful existence. So they are skillful things to believe even if they aren't true things to believe.

* this question is somewhat complicated by the fact that I do not believe in belief at all; I do not believe, philosophically, that human beings can be meaningfully said to hold beliefs in isolation from their physical behavior and moment-to-moment mental behavior.

That questioner sounds familiar.

...
* this question is somewhat complicated by the fact that I do not believe in belief at all; I do not believe, philosophically, that human beings can be meaningfully said to hold beliefs in isolation from their physical behavior and moment-to-moment mental behavior.


-cruxdestruct

I think it is (at least potentially) quite wise not to be hung up on beliefs (at least in the context of dharma practice). Being really really sure that this or that belief is true tends to make one try to shoehorn experience and understanding into a belief system. While that can be a helpful encouragement at times, I think it can also become its own impediment to allowing experience to reveal truth unimpeded by preconceptions.

Thoughts on this?

I honestly, quite directly, can't create a philosophical model of concrete belief that makes sense to me. Beliefs aren't knowledge, that is, presumably verifiable assumptions you make about the world; they're not preferences. The only thing I can imagine them as being is a sort of speech act, and a pleonastic one at that: that is, one is said to believe something by continuously affirming through (linguistic, mental or spoken) behavior that one is a person, or the sort of person, who believes in something.

So I find the more conventional Christian model, where specific beliefs are so utterly critical, to be completely baffling. What does a recitation of the Nicene Creed actually entail? Surely the words themselves are mere symbols; I could recite it right now and nobody who knows me would for a moment agree that I could be said to actually hold those beliefs. And yet we know that I can't simply begin to act AS THOUGH I believed them—say the creed, take communion, et cetera. The very quiddity of belief is that it has the quality of sincerity; a complete apparent disconnect between my belief is and my actions is not only fully allowed by the nature of belief but indeed it's preferable that I should believe it sincerely and act in total lack of accordance, than vice versa.

This is not just a question of religious belief, I should mention. I also don't understand what is entailed by the statement 'I believe America is the greatest country on Earth.' beyond an attempt at inclusion, in the eyes of the speaker and their audience, in the known set of people who believe America is the greatest country on Earth.

I suppose it does generally mean that. "I have an opinion that is allied with the position of a group (and is therefore deeply true, because it's not just me thinking it."

Like the difference between saying "I think the death penalty is generally a good thing." versus saying "I believe in the death penalty."

But it seems we can do that identification with a group thing without using the word 'belief.' "I am a Zen Buddhist (or hipster or artist or goth or fan of Barry Manilow or whatever)" even if you wouldn't say "I believe in Zen Buddhism." It's still something different than "right now the teachings I hear from Zen Buddhists are the ones that seem best suited to describing my inclinations and guiding my practice." and it suggests you've bought the gadgets, clothes and books required, committed yourself to membership, got the certificate, made the donations, etc.

Do you think that *that* is an impediment to practice? I think in the end if one is too wrapped up in what it means to be (say) a Zen Buddhist, it too can be a sticky spot. Though I'd guess that with any such identity the key is not to be hung up on it, and that doesn't necessarily mean you have to walk away from it. Just like being aware of attachment to being thought good looking doesn't mean the solution has to be living in sackcloth and ashes and hiding your face. Then you risk getting attached to being the kind of person who demonstrates their penitence for all to see...

I would say that for most, the potential attachment to views and opinions or the potential attachment to rites and rituals inherent in explicit self-identification 'I am a Zen Buddhist' are outweighed by the amount of focus and generation of effort that can be encouraged by thinking of oneself that way. For most, of course; for some people it's tipped in the other direction. The assumption of a coherent, persistent self in 'I am a Zen Buddhist' is a further potential pitfall; but I think for most beginning and mid-level practitioners there is still a value in cultivating a skillful self-image for the reasons above. And of course for very subtle minds theres the ability to say 'I am a Zen Buddhist' and mean ' The body and mind that form this human being have inherited the karma of a form engaged in Zen practice and continue to produce the skillful karma leading to the end of karma.' Bit of a mouthful without the 'I', though.

@crux, yes, this is where I think beliefs (stories) are so helpful. Like maps, they provide guidance, encouragement, structure, directed effort, discipline, moral training, advice, etc.

I would guess it's quite common for any belief (or ritual) to have a very different meaning and purpose to a beginner, to an intermediate, to an advanced practitioner. If it's a useful belief, in any case, it should help lead the beginner along, and reveal deeper meaning or changing understanding as they develop. Which is another way of saying, perhaps, that one tends to let go of the previous understanding as the new understanding reveals itself through direct experience.

I'm with ona. As long as belief facilitates practice or does not interfere with practice, I don't think there's a problem. I had the thought this morning that belief doesn't really matter as long it keeps you practicing. In fact, beliefs matter so little, are so secondary, it's interesting how often they are the subject of our conversations. I can't really say yet why I am so interested in metaphysics and paranormal stuff. All I know is that I have been interested in it since I was a child.

Moreover, as you say ona, beliefs can be altered with changing experiences. Maybe I will become more of a materialist as time goes on based on my experience. Who knows.

I also think of Jeffery Martin's work where he found that awakeness was not dependent on belief. Agnostics, Buddhists, atheists, Scientologists could all be awake.

I also think of Meister Eckhart who seemed to have been very awake and say Ramana Marharshi. Two very different belief systems, but similar level of awakening. The interpretation doesn't matter that much at all. It's the experience first and foremost.

I don't know why it says "guest" (maybe I am no longer welcome here as a member after saying I gobble up women.... ) But it was Jake who posted that, whoever he is.

What do you mean Chris? In that raw experience is before words, and the moment we articulate it we are moving into the realm of our beliefs, which color how we interpret the experience as well as how we explain it to others?

Not too far from what I meant. I get it. I like the "honesty" - nice way to think of it. I think it was Florian who likes to say "not fooling yourself".

I think this process is what Ona meant by saying that our experiences alter our beliefs as we see through them. This leads to the the groundless ground of experience that is non-verbal. To articulate this though, one can utilize a belief system as a tool, as long as it only remains a tool and one can take it or leave it.

There may also be beliefs that are fortified by experience as well. So if one harbors a belief that reincarnation is a working phenomenon and without provocation suddenly sees images that are intuited to be past lives, then this sensory data can fortify that belief. Of course, depending on the belief system, this sensory data can be interpreted in a totally different way. This doesn't negate that the same two people with two different belief systems have the same exact experience. If you can see through the beliefs so that they are held at a distance and used as interpretative tools that you are detached from, then I don't see beliefs to be a problem. It's more one's relation to them.

I had an interesting "sit" once while in a taxi, related to Chris's starbucks episode. The driver had a movie playing on the dashboard. I couldn't see the screen (I was seated behind the driver), but I could hear the audio. All of a sudden one of the characters started screaming in utter terror. I noticed a huge surge of adrenaline, heart rate skyrocketed, breathing increased, and my mind started running through the database at high speed: there seems to be danger, based on the screaming, so we need to guess what kind of danger so we can decide if it's possible to help defend the victim, or run away. Task number one is to figure out what the attacker is. If it's an alien with a ray gun, we don't have much chance of helping, and should run away. If it's a vampire, we can look for a stake or silver bullet. If it's a guy armed with a knife, do we have a big stick or other weapon we can try to use? I'm being a bit silly, but literally I could see my mind throwing up images, trying to find one that might offer some useful interpretation of the danger.

Rather than tell the driver to turn it off, I sat with the situation for the next twenty minutes. It was really interesting to observe that whole response.

Epistemologically, there's a really big difference between the filling-in-the-blanks that the perceiving mind does during the act of perception, and a belief like 'Rebirth is real.' Getting beyond the first, or, more likely, being able to recognize it as not-self and thus of a provisional utility, is great dharma practice but doesn't necessarily say much to me about the latter.

My original point was that I have thus far been unable to create a credible account of what the latter type of belief actually LOOKS like—that is, I'm not yet sure that there is such a thing as that kind of belief. So my real concern here is not that beliefs are good, or bad, or helpful as stories but not good justifications for things—but that we keep talking about things that don't obviously exist to me in the first place. Can any of you provide your working definition for belief? Functionally speaking, I mean—if belief is, say, holding a proposition to be true, then what is the act of holding? Is it a conscious affirmation that you make to yourself, in the course of linguistic thought, once in a while? Is it a constantly running subconscious thought process? Where does belief exist? Does it occupy the same space of recall as memory? These are the things that concern me.

I have the beginnings of an intuition that beliefs are essentially low-level 'aesthetic' attractors; inclinations, grooves to direct the categorizing mind—probabilistic schema. Sunyata's example of the past lives visions is a useful one; in this model, the belief itself doesn't have any necessary fundamental mental existence, save as a tendency in interpretation of phenomena. If I believe in rebirth (or reincarnation anyway) then I am more likely to intuitively sort these visions as past life experiences. But my belief in rebirth doesn't actually come into active existence until the moment that the phenomena are experienced; this moment of sense-contact provides the necessary vehicle for the belief to express itself and provide intuitive guidance.*

If this is true then discussion of beliefs is as inconsequential as discussion of favorite foods. If beliefs are essentially 'aesthetic', that is, pre-conscious preferences, things that 'turn me on' without my really having a say in it, then it's silly to discuss my beliefs as though they themselves were a) real and b) possessed a positive or negative value. After all, you could no more point a gun to my head and say, 'believe that communism is the optimal form of government!' than you could say, 'like the taste of bananas!' All you could do is encourage me to expose myself to communistic stimuli and hope that my beliefs shift themselves, over time, as a result; much as I might attempt, with no real knowledge of whether it'll stick, to get myself to like bananas by eating them without liking them over and over again.

And if this is the case, then my position on rebirth is valid; bananas are good for me and thus I'll eat them while hating them. Maybe I'll come to like them; maybe I'll never like them but the hating them doesn't say anything objective about either me or the bananas. It's just the way my brain formed, or if you like, my karma; my taste in women and food and art are not choices I made. Similarly, behavior that stems from belief in rebirth is good for me, for reasons mentioned above. So it is within my power and, it seems, in my best interests to act always from an assumption of the truth of rebirth as a factor of right view. My personal, pre-conscious preferences are rigorously empirical and materialistic, and an active affirmation of rebirth contradicts them. But my personal, preconscious materialistic bias doesn't say anything about me or the bananas—I mean, or the rebirth.


*And thus, my belief is fundamentally not of the form 'Rebirth is real'; rather, At any specific instance you might ask me, 'Do you believe in rebirth?' and I undertake the active, conscious behavior of considering the proposition 'Rebirth is real' by analyzing the sentence, considering its factual implications, running those implications through my 'belief apparatus', that is, the set of 'predilections' as Sunyata says below that constitute my core beliefs, and coming up with, 'That doesn't seem right to me,' so I say 'No.' Objectively speaking I have just lied to you: 'I don't believe in rebirth', or its effective synonym 'I disbelieve in rebirth' both imply either states or continuous behaviors, but no state and no behavior exist as an inherent characteristic of the mind. All I've really said is that given the make-up of my current aesthetic–intuitive predilections, rebirth doesn't fit. Let my predilections shift (and they will), ask me again, and the answer might be different.

I didn't say beliefs were backed up by other beliefs. I said that beliefs that one may harbor may receive some support through experience, based on how that experience is interpreted. How the experience is interpreted is based on the predilections of the experiencer. So if someone is a materialist an experience may be dismissed as a meaningless string of images, whereas a metaphysicist might see a string of past lives. Experience can also provide evidence against holding a belief, as long as one is willing to let go of the belief itself. Thus, the importance of keeping beliefs at arm's length.

I don't think it's much different from science fundamentally. Science formulates laws, which are in essence beliefs that have held up to scrutiny so far. These beliefs are always subject to change with the discovery of new evidence, just as the beliefs of the meditator are always subject to change with the discovery of new evidence along the path.

I think there is also a mechanism of knowledge acquisition here that you refer to as "judgement", but that I think is a direct apprehension of an image-experience as to its validity without any reference to previous experience. The validity of something is immediately known. This is what I meant by "intuited" above. I think this mechanism is beyond judgement and is more readily accessed in higher levels of awakening.

"Can any of you provide your working definition for belief? Functionally
speaking, I mean—if belief is, say, holding a proposition to be true,
then what is the act of holding? Is it a conscious affirmation that you
make to yourself, in the course of linguistic thought, once in a while?
Is it a constantly running subconscious thought process? Where does
belief exist? Does it occupy the same space of recall as memory?" - crux

I suppose we should also be cautious to speak from our own experience and not speculate about what other people mean when they say "I believe xyz."

For the sake of playing with the questions, let's take "I believe in angels." I'll use this example because I have had experiences which I have described as interactions with angels. Though to say "I believe in angels" makes me feel like I'm joining a club or team whose sole purpose is to cheer on the angels or gather weekly to worship them. It sounds kind of weird.

In any case, it seems to me that when I invoke and angel and then have an interaction with the angel (which can consist of trance, visions, altered states, etc.), that it is perfectly likely that is the same basic altered-states brain function anyone in any culture can access if they practice a little. But for me it feels like, smells like and results like an angel, and that has been a useful practice for me at times (devotional practice in general seems to be not unrelated to metta practice and letting go/surrender type practices in function). Do I believe the angel is there? I suppose. I'm not so committed to it being real that I'd die fighting for the idea. I don't think it matters much if angels are real, except if it is helpful to someone to think that they are or pretend that they are for the sake of helping themselves or others.

In a Buddhist context, what about metta practice. When you wish other beings to be safe, happy, etc. do you believe (!) that your words have any direct effect on other beings? Or does the practice just help you learn to be a nicer person?

Just exploring. I don't feel like I have many useful ideas here.