Buddhist Rebirth

Can anyone here actually explain to me what rebirth in the buddhist context is in clear american english? I have went through several articles and all of them are very confusing..

Nope.

I can give you the sort of new age quasi-scientific Buddhist explanation.

It is that consciousness is an actual principle dimension of the universe. We do not come into the world, we come out of it. What we think of as ourselves is simply a focused point of consciousness within a giant unified pool of it. Our consciousness disperses when we die and regroups in new ways.

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

At 6/23/2012 1:16:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I can give you the sort of new age quasi-scientific Buddhist explanation.

It is that consciousness is an actual principle dimension of the universe. We do not come into the world, we come out of it. What we think of as ourselves is simply a focused point of consciousness within a giant unified pool of it. Our consciousness disperses when we die and regroups in new ways.

Is that Alan Watts?

At 6/23/2012 1:02:18 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Can anyone here actually explain to me what rebirth in the buddhist context is in clear american english? I have went through several articles and all of them are very confusing..

Two words: bull shat

At 6/23/2012 1:16:43 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

Sig'd, lol

At 6/23/2012 1:16:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I can give you the sort of new age quasi-scientific Buddhist explanation.

It is that consciousness is an actual principle dimension of the universe. We do not come into the world, we come out of it. What we think of as ourselves is simply a focused point of consciousness within a giant unified pool of it. Our consciousness disperses when we die and regroups in new ways.

That's interesting. lol It's better to understand then the articles I read.

At 6/23/2012 1:16:43 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

No. I was being serious. No one can. If they try, they are only confusing you further.

At 6/23/2012 1:17:38 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:02:18 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
Can anyone here actually explain to me what rebirth in the buddhist context is in clear american english? I have went through several articles and all of them are very confusing..

Two words: bull shat

That's not been neither proved or disproved. :P

At 6/23/2012 1:17:01 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:16:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I can give you the sort of new age quasi-scientific Buddhist explanation.

It is that consciousness is an actual principle dimension of the universe. We do not come into the world, we come out of it. What we think of as ourselves is simply a focused point of consciousness within a giant unified pool of it. Our consciousness disperses when we die and regroups in new ways.

Is that Alan Watts?

That sentence is.

At 6/23/2012 1:19:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:16:43 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

No. I was being serious. No one can. If they try, they are only confusing you further.

Oh OK thanks I guess i'll just have to ask the Dalai Lama..

At 6/23/2012 1:22:30 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:19:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:16:43 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

No. I was being serious. No one can. If they try, they are only confusing you further.

Oh OK thanks I guess i'll just have to ask the Dalai Lama..

It's not a problem on the teller's part. It's a problem on the receiver's part.

Actual Buddhism is not a system of beliefs of mental deconstructions.

At 6/23/2012 1:24:07 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:22:30 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:19:32 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:16:43 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Nope.

Anyone who's not FREEDO? I would really appreciate it.

No. I was being serious. No one can. If they try, they are only confusing you further.

Oh OK thanks I guess i'll just have to ask the Dalai Lama..

It's not a problem on the teller's part. It's a problem on the receiver's part.

What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

At 6/23/2012 1:21:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:17:01 AM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:16:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I can give you the sort of new age quasi-scientific Buddhist explanation.

It is that consciousness is an actual principle dimension of the universe. We do not come into the world, we come out of it. What we think of as ourselves is simply a focused point of consciousness within a giant unified pool of it. Our consciousness disperses when we die and regroups in new ways.

Is that Alan Watts?

That sentence is.

Oh. That's really the only sentence I recognized anyways.

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Naw, dude. You just have to remember harder.

@OP- maybe Geo will come to the rescue :)

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

At 6/23/2012 3:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

Understanding facial expressions? Rooting reflex? Sex?

I'm not sure what he is getting at with that.

At 6/23/2012 3:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

"knowledge which constitutes the basic requirements of living, such as a baby instinctually realising it must breath within minutes of it's birth in order to survive" http://www.helium.com...

At 6/23/2012 3:20:56 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

"knowledge which constitutes the basic requirements of living, such as a baby instinctually realising it must breath within minutes of it's birth in order to survive" http://www.helium.com...

but...that isn't knowledge though. Knowledge is an active possession of a fact. The baby does not "know" it must breathe, it compulsively breathes because biology dictates that it must.

At 6/23/2012 3:25:08 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:20:56 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

"knowledge which constitutes the basic requirements of living, such as a baby instinctually realising it must breath within minutes of it's birth in order to survive" http://www.helium.com...

but...that isn't knowledge though. Knowledge is an active possession of a fact. The baby does not "know" it must breathe, it compulsively breathes because biology dictates that it must.

Says who? There's no good reason to believe that knowledge has to be something consciously possessed, it just has to be there. I'm just spit balling here, but if there is an objective path to enlightenment then it has to be a path innate to human nature like FREEDO said.

I know that I am breathing because I observe myself breathing automatically. I don't know that I must breathe until I observe what happens when I don't.

At 6/23/2012 3:31:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
I know that I am breathing because I observe myself breathing automatically. I don't know that I must breathe until I observe what happens when I don't.

No, babies automatically breath because they know that they have to. They don't have to know why, and chances are they couldn't rationally realize they must breathe because its uncomfortable if they dont. The knowledge of why you must do as you do is a different matter entirely...learned knowledge, not instinctual knowledge

At 6/23/2012 3:29:54 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:25:08 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:20:56 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 3:16:55 PM, 000ike wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:44:39 PM, thett3 wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:17:28 PM, socialpinko wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:15:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 2:10:15 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:34:06 AM, FREEDO wrote:

At 6/23/2012 1:27:04 AM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
What am I suppose to do in order to understand it?

By stopping.

Huh?

One does not achieve understanding. The understanding is already there. It's a matter of seeing through the fog.

Plato was full of sh1t when he argued that. Knowledge ain't inherent hombre.

Certain knowledge is instinctual. I'm not familiar with buddhism, but if enlightenment is something all humans can achieve the path to getting there must be inherent, no?

What would be an example of instinctual knowledge?

"knowledge which constitutes the basic requirements of living, such as a baby instinctually realising it must breath within minutes of it's birth in order to survive" http://www.helium.com...

but...that isn't knowledge though. Knowledge is an active possession of a fact. The baby does not "know" it must breathe, it compulsively breathes because biology dictates that it must.

Says who? There's no good reason to believe that knowledge has to be something consciously possessed, it just has to be there. I'm just spit balling here, but if there is an objective path to enlightenment then it has to be a path innate to human nature like FREEDO said.

The only thing babies know instinctively is how to do things that prevent them from dying or suffering immediately (ie. blink, breathe, cry). The only reason why they possess this knowledge is because natural selection inculcates it in the brain.

The kind of knowledge you and FREEDO are talking about is of a sophisticated nature and unrelated to natural selection. Therefore it must be learned