Caspian ji,
First, know that I am coming not from the Sikh perspective, but a Buddhist one, where the idea of karma and rebirth is an accepted fact.
You said in response to:
Quote: Anyway, what about what goes on at the molecular, atomic or whatever level that science has managed to break things down to? Isn’t it an accepted fact that at those levels, things are in a state of constant coming to be and breaking down? If so, why would you believe in the ability to maintain the life of any living being, indefinitely?
Caspian: Because it is already a naturally occuring phenomena. From the wiki article on "biological immortalty" : <snip>
“Turritopsis_nutricula is a small (5 millimeters (0.2 in)) species of Jellyfish which uses Transdifferentiation to replenish cells after Sexual_reproduction . This cycle can repeat indefinitely, potentially rendering it biologically immortal. It originated from the Caribbean sea, but has now spread around the world.”
Caspian: The above two organisms have naturally exhibited biological immortality even before we decided to try it out on other animals.
Confused: I should have distinguished the general idea of “immortality” from that of “biological immortality”. This latter, I’d not debate with you or anyone about, even though here it looks like a case of surmising from theoretical extrapolation. But when this is taken as ground for denying rebirth, then I must object.
Science / biology can make statements about birth, life, living beings and death, but it will never come to know what these are in the ultimate sense. What best it can do is infer from observations made within certain set criterions. Ultimate truth on the other hand is the result of direct understanding and insight.
Take for example this:
According to the Buddha’s teachings, matter is conditioned to arise in one of four ways, heat or the fire element, nutritive essence, karma and consciousness. What we take for the human body is composed of matter conditioned by all these four factors, whereas inanimate objects, including plants and bacteria, are conditioned purely by heat or the caloric order. Biology does not make this distinction and therefore in some cases take for a ‘living being’ what is not.
You and probably everyone else here will no doubt not accept this, and what I say will indeed sound like I’m trying to defend a cherished set of beliefs. I’d like to be able to provide the necessary groundwork, but this is not the time and place to do this. So I’ll go ahead without doing that.
In the case of your jellyfish, one of the following two explanations could be used. One, death occurred at the particular stage and rebirth followed (which can happen not only by way of conception in a womb or egg, but also moisture and spontaneously) manifesting as polyp (?). The other is that ‘death’ didn’t in fact occur, but matter of a different type conditioned by more than one factor, started to form. In other words, in the first case, given just the right conditions, a new being was born, and in the second case, the same stream of consciousness continued, but now with a different material base.
I’m inclined towards the latter but do not think that this process could go on indefinitely, although it could for a long, long time. In other words, what I could say is that the life span of this jellyfish is indeed extremely long. Transdifferentiation may be a fact, and ‘biological immortality’ may be a valid concept within the particular system of measure, however to translate this as meaning that a being could “live” forever is to insist on a meaning with regard to life, living beings and death, not in line with how these in reality are.
As I suggested in my last message, life is an instance of consciousness one following the other on and on. So in the case of say the human being, it is not this body which is ‘living’. Nor is it that the cells and tissues are ‘alive’. What is “life” is sentience and this can ever happen only*one at a time*, meaning, you can’t hear and see at the same time, nor seeing and thinking ever arises together. They arise very fast in close proximity, but due to ignorance, the impression is of many things happening at the same time. And they are extremely fleeting, but the general perception is of lastingness. Indeed the concept of “time” is based on the arisings and falling away of these fundamental units of experiences, whereas science on the other hand, studies objects exiting in time.
My point here is that, the observation science and biology makes is of what I call “wholes”, be this the organism, tissue, cells or the relationship between different parts. This will therefore only ever be about concepts one built on the other and never about discrete and ephemeral realities. In other words, all that is ever observed are conceptual manifestations of what in the final analysis are functions and characteristic of ultimate realities and relationship between these.
Science will therefore always miss the mark when it tries to make statements about such things as birth, life and death. Indeed I compare science in general to being like the seven blind men each holding the different parts of an elephant. Each one is wrong about what is being experienced, but even if they were to suddenly realize this and decide to share their knowledge in order to arrive at what the whole might be, they will never be able to do so. On the other hand, were they to hear the Buddha’s teachings, they could in fact begin to understand such ultimate realities as touch (a kind of consciousness), the earth element (a material reality), thinking (a mental reality) and such things as sound, feeling, perception, heat and so on. And so it is that while science moves in darkness, the truth as taught by the Buddha allows us to gradually begin to see.
----------
Caspian: As for the rest of what you said. I think I only vaguely grasped it. If your talking about the problem of conciousness and how we know for sure whether a person has died in the concious sense—indeed that can be a philosophical problem.
Confused: No need to make it into a philosophical problem, instead one could see the uselessness of pursuing such line of enquiry and decide to drop it. The only valid object of study is what arises and falls away *now*.
----------
Caspian: None the less, as it is a naturally occuring phenomena—its only a matter of time before we unlock the secrets to allow for humans to live indefinitely.
Confused: There is no place for such kind of thinking for someone who sees the danger of ignorance and the need to develop understanding of the way things are.
-----------
Caspian: When that day comes, and you had the option to become immortal or lead ur regular life—what would ur choice be? I'm just curious, and this question applies to everyone.
As for me, I would choose to be immortal
Confused: The Buddha was enlightened to the Four Noble Truths and these are Dukkha; the cause of this, which is craving; Nirvana or the unconditioned; and the Path. The first two are all that we ever experience, and this means that the most pleasant of feelings are as unworthy of pursuit as are the unpleasant ones. But of course this understanding can be had only when the last of the Four Truths has arisen to any extent. And sure, the blind pursuits due to the wrong perceptions of permanence in that which is impermanent, happiness in what in fact is suffering, self in that which is non-self and beauty in what is in reality unbeautiful, continues until the third of these Truths is experienced. And when this has happened, the goal at that time would for sure not be to have more and more experiences, let alone becoming immortal, but the only logical one, which is ‘final extinction’ thereby ending this senseless going round in the cycle of existence.
Caspian ji, most other members know that I am a student of the Buddha’s teachings, but you it appears, didn’t know this, and here I am, thrusting so many ideas at you in one shot. This was unavoidable, but still I think I should express my apology. ;-)
:book1:
