Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Regarding rebirth threads, the membership has done quite well in the recent threads, compared to the past. The recent threads have been incredibly informative, and quite amicable. Letting the newbies have their turn at the topic has worked out well.
That is good to hear - online discussion as a source of information is perilous for anyone seeking though, in my opinion. Questions like this one I find indicative of online discussions - offline new practitioners whom I meet do not wish to formulate such questions which I have found is due to offline instruction and experience.
But when we look at how the Buddha actually used the image of extinguished fire in his teachings, we find that he approached the Vedic idea of latent fire from another angle entirely: If latent fire is everywhere all at once, it is nowhere in particular. If it is conceived as always present in everything, it has to be so loosely defined that it has no defining characteristics, nothing by which it might be known at all. Thus, instead of using the subsistence of latent fire as an image for immortality, he uses the diffuse, indeterminate nature of extinguished fire as understood by the Vedists to illustrate the absolute indescribability of the person who has reached the Buddhist goal.
My personal interpretation of that: If nirvana is non-duality, emptiness, unrestricted awareness or whatever name you want to call it, then there is nothing left that could be called a Buddha, because if there was, then it would not be non-duality or emptiness. Does that make sense?
It makes sense to me.
I would like to ad that it makes equally sense for someone who reached the goal and has not died yet. “The absolute indescribability of the person who has reached the Buddhist goal” does not begin with the dissolution of his/her body imho.
When someone reaches Nirvana, where do they go when they die? I'm going to assume there are several answers to this question, seeing that one can't prove or disprove it. I'm sure many buddhists believe in heaven, from what I've heard too. Someone enlighten me, lol
When someone reaches Nirvana, where do they go when they die? I'm going to assume there are several answers to this question, seeing that one can't prove or disprove it. I'm sure many buddhists believe in heaven, from what I've heard too. Someone enlighten me, lol
I believe it's somewhere in the Bay Area.
Actually, Master Seung Sahn usually answered the question, "Where do we go when we die?" with "To the cemetery." But it was done with laughter, and might sound snippy online.
I've been looking through that sutra, at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html and see nothing that says this. He was only rejecting all of the views because they were based on him actually being something separately existing in the first place. "Tathagata" is just a conventional label; there is no Tathagata.
Unless I'm missing something, which I await breathlessly for someone to point out to me. I think people are just drawing conclusions from all the No's in order to make a Yes, to say well if it's none of those things he must've meant that "this" exists after death, because they're of the presupposition that there's some kinda transmigration going on.
if IRC, the tathagata also denied the nihilistic/materialistic view.
The state of Nibbana after the death of the arahant is nowhere discussed in the Paali Canon. The four alternatives put forward regarding this state, namely: Does the Perfect One exist after death, does he not, does he and does he not, does he neither exist nor not exist after death, are all left aside unanswered. These questions are put aside because they are not useful to human happiness and understanding, not concerned with the Dhamma, not helpful for the higher life, not conducive to disenchantment and detachment, not conducive to cessation of misery, to tranquillity of the mind, to higher knowledge, to insight, and to peace (Nibbana).[94]
"These are not the things you should be concerning yourself with"
Being raised a theist, dogmatic views have always been a part of my thinking. Even when finding Buddhism my mind still tried to understand the new "Belief" in the framework of that which came before.
During the time of The Buddha, dogma was just as strong then as it is today. Siddhartha followed the same path by trying these other practises & believes not finding a cure to the "samvega" he felt.
Thus the night he sat under the bodhi tree & meditated, he focused his mind on the only question that really mattered. Freedom from suffering... letting go of all the past ways of thinking.
These thoughts i feel falls under the tree roots of suffering as "Delusion". Nobody can or will ever be able to tell\proof to you what happens after death & thus there should be no reason for you to waste time on such things. Rather... experiance the world of here & now. Consintrate on the task at hand, the task that brough you here. All other things are compounded....
"These are not the things you should be concerning yourself with"
You have to realize that whenever he was asked this question, the Buddha refused to answer, mainly because (correct me if I'm wrong) he didn't know, and he didn't feel it was important to know.
So my answer to your question is simply this: eh, who cares.
I see nirvana as a state of mind, of self-transcendence, of being 'one with nature'. Nothing to do with what happens after you die, except to say that when you die your constituent elements are recycled into nature, which could be said to be what they call 'parinirvana', the final entry into nirvana, the final state of being 'one with nature'. I don't believe in rebirth except in this sense of constituent elements being constantly recycled, as per the teachings of physics.
By the way, the whole idea that 'life IS suffering', that our goal is simply to 'cease to exist', that the only thing stopping us from killing ourselves in order to achieve this is the belief that we will literally just be reborn again, and therefore that Buddha's teachings are just about stopping this process of rebirth so that we can finally simply 'not be', is deeply, profoundly, gratuitously nihilistic and depressing. It provides endless ammunition to Buddhism's critics and is as sure-fire a way to bring about Buddhism's extinction if ever I heard one. Buddha's teachings should be about overcoming suffering and achieving well-being in THIS life. Only then can Buddhism be non-nihilistic and therefore relevant as a path to overcoming suffering.
You don't get it, Prometheus. You are not the body. Carefully consider the following.
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
When someone reaches Nirvana, where do they go when they die? I'm going to assume there are several answers to this question, seeing that one can't prove or disprove it. I'm sure many buddhists believe in heaven, from what I've heard too. Someone enlighten me, lol
Actually, there aren't any answers to this question Many Buddhists do believe in Heavenly realms and wish to be reborn there. However those heavenly places are just a place from which one can more easily get Nirvana, not nirvana itself. "Where does a Buddha go" is considered one of the "undeclared things" because the question is not applicable and the answer is not connected with the ending of suffering.
"But, Master Gotama, the monk whose mind is thus released: Where does he reappear?"
"'Reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."
"In that case, Master Gotama, he does not reappear."
"'Does not reappear,' Vaccha, doesn't apply."
"...both does & does not reappear."
"...doesn't apply."
"...neither does nor does not reappear."
"...doesn't apply."
"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked ...he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."
"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"
"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"
"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata (Buddha) would describe him:... is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.
I agree with seeker242's answer. In another sutta, the Buddha mentioned that he haven't revealed about the state of Arahant at the end of his life because it is not conducive to Nibbana. However, he did mentioned that the ones that haven't reach the state of Full Enlightenment ( Arahantship) but only Non-Returning ( third stage of enlightenment) go to the Pure Abodes after they die and don't have to return to any lower planes. They stay there as long as they want until full enlightenment
You don't get it, Prometheus. You are not the body. Carefully consider the following.
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
Sorry, I don't see your point. Your quote seems to be talking about the doctrine of no-self, where 'you are not the body' does not mean 'you' must be something else, it means the entire concept of 'you' is an illusion in the first place, for you have no existence independent from the rest of nature that you can truly call 'you'. Which is perfectly compatible with what I said.
God only knows why you assume that anything said or quoted means "'you' must be something else". Where on Earth did that come from? However, you did say "when you die your constituent elements are recycled into nature". Surely, you aren't talking about an illusion's constituent elements, now are you? Right? You are talking about the body dying and that is not you. See that thought identifies with the body.
By the way, the whole idea that 'life IS suffering', that our goal is simply to 'cease to exist', that the only thing stopping us from killing ourselves in order to achieve this is the belief that we will literally just be reborn again, and therefore that Buddha's teachings are just about stopping this process of rebirth so that we can finally simply 'not be', is deeply, profoundly, gratuitously nihilistic and depressing. It provides endless ammunition to Buddhism's critics and is as sure-fire a way to bring about Buddhism's extinction if ever I heard one. Buddha's teachings should be about overcoming suffering and achieving well-being in THIS life. Only then can Buddhism be non-nihilistic and therefore relevant as a path to overcoming suffering.
the Dharma as explained by the tathagata isn't nihilistic. what is nihilistic is some buddhists.
I agree with seeker242's answer. In another sutta, the Buddha mentioned that he haven't revealed about the state of Arahant at the end of his life because it is not conducive to Nibbana. However, he did mentioned that the ones that haven't reach the state of Full Enlightenment ( Arahantship) but only Non-Returning ( third stage of enlightenment) go to the Pure Abodes after they die and don't have to return to any lower planes. They stay there as long as they want until full enlightenment
With Metta,
under nihilistic and materialistic interpretations, it is better to be an anagami than a buddha
I've always thought that one might be reborn on another planet. since being reborn here in any form, means that you have negative karma yet to ripen. purhaps there is a planet that is a paradise and that you won't likely be reborn there because you haven't earnt enough good merit to live a life of so little suffering. this planet might be off in some distant galaxy or in another dimensional reality. being reborn on this planet wouldn't require a specific religious pratice only enough good merit.
I know this isn't actual buddhist teaching, but considering the implications of literal rebirth this makes sense to me.
I've always thought that one might be reborn on another planet. since being reborn here in any form, means that you have negative karma yet to ripen. purhaps there is a planet that is a paradise and that you won't likely be reborn there because you haven't earnt enough good merit to live a life of so little suffering. this planet might be off in some distant galaxy or in another dimensional reality. being reborn on this planet wouldn't require a specific religious pratice only enough good merit.
I know this isn't actual buddhist teaching, but considering the implications of literal rebirth this makes sense to me.
Not all disciples of the Buddha aim for full enlightenment. There are those who aim for Non-returning ( third level enlightenment). The Non-returners go to Pure Abodes . These are the only planes where you don't have to come back to be reborn in lower realms but remain there until Arahantship. But it takes more than good merits to get there. The practice of the full Eightfold Path is necessary.
I agree with seeker242's answer. In another sutta, the Buddha mentioned that he haven't revealed about the state of Arahant at the end of his life because it is not conducive to Nibbana. However, he did mentioned that the ones that haven't reach the state of Full Enlightenment ( Arahantship) but only Non-Returning ( third stage of enlightenment) go to the Pure Abodes after they die and don't have to return to any lower planes. They stay there as long as they want until full enlightenment
With Metta,
under nihilistic and materialistic interpretations, it is better to be an anagami than a buddha
Nibbana can be difficult to grasp for many who haven't experience it. In that case it is best to aim for Non-Returning and continue to Arahantship from there. It is not bad at all. Both non-returning and arahantship are encouraged by the Buddha.
Nibbana can be difficult to grasp for many who haven't experience it. In that case it is best to aim for Non-Returning and continue to Arahantship from there. Unless you're Mahayana. Then aiming for bodhisattvahood (which involves a conscious and compassionate choice to return) would be considered "best". I wonder if any of the hidden bodhisattvas among us recall where they went after achieving Nirvana, and passing away.
God only knows why you assume that anything said or quoted means "'you' must be something else". Where on Earth did that come from? However, you did say "when you die your constituent elements are recycled into nature". Surely, you aren't talking about an illusion's constituent elements, now are you? Right? You are talking about the body dying and that is not you. See that thought identifies with the body.
"Where on earth did that come from"? It came from trying to understand what on earth the point was you were trying to make with that quote. If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but then I don't know what you did mean. Yes, I as a matter of fact was talking about how the constituent elements that together form the illusion of 'I' are recycled into nature. Yes, I was talking about the body dying, and about how the body being a distinct 'I' is an illusion. I see these claims as being the same claim. But you speak as though they are mutually exclusive claims. Therefore I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
for those that think we (whichever concept of "self") cease to exist, remember that's the materialistic view... which is considered (in the sutras) as wrong view.
Right, there is the relative self, but not an essential self.
The idea of absolute non-existence would be an extreme view. Your view also requires material reality as it is perceived through the 5 senses to be the only reality. Physics has already disproved that theory to a certain degree that is ever evolving as physics goes deeper and deeper into material constituents.
Well, if life IS suffering, that makes perfect sense.
Buddha didn't teach that life is suffering.
Right, I feel the Buddha taught more that ignorance about the nature of life as a multi-dimensional web of inter-dependent phenomena is akin to psychological suffering and the possible future of psychological suffering once the conditions for pleasure wear off if wisdom is not there to cut that possibilities root, which is ignorance.
Basically I'm saying that ignorance of the nature of phenomena and mind is the cause of suffering, not life itself.
I think nihilistic and materialistic interpretations of Buddhism are wrong view.
Nihilistic interpretations? Yes. Materialistic interpretations? Only if by 'materialism' you mean consumer-materialism, which is about gaining more material wealth and possessions. But if you mean philosophical-materialism, then no. Philosophical-materialism all on its own implies a world-view involving impermanence, no-self and suffering, which is all that Buddhism requires. In fact, it's possible to argue that philosophical-materialism is more compatible with these truths than is its antithesis (philosophical-dualism).
Buddha says not to worry about things like this. He says that whats most important to think about is suffering, the cause of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering: the four noble truths. I hope you find happiness. -Tikal
Comments
I would like to ad that it makes equally sense for someone who reached the goal and has not died yet.
“The absolute indescribability of the person who has reached the Buddhist goal” does not begin with the dissolution of his/her body imho.
I'm excited to read your blog. Thanks for the link.
Metta,
bucky
The state of Nibbana after the death of the arahant is nowhere discussed in the Paali Canon. The four alternatives put forward regarding this state, namely: Does the Perfect One exist after death, does he not, does he and does he not, does he neither exist nor not exist after death, are all left aside unanswered. These questions are put aside because they are not useful to human happiness and understanding, not concerned with the Dhamma, not helpful for the higher life, not conducive to disenchantment and detachment, not conducive to cessation of misery, to tranquillity of the mind, to higher knowledge, to insight, and to peace (Nibbana).[94]
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html
"These are not the things you should be concerning yourself with"
Being raised a theist, dogmatic views have always been a part of my thinking. Even when finding Buddhism my mind still tried to understand the new "Belief" in the framework of that which came before.
During the time of The Buddha, dogma was just as strong then as it is today. Siddhartha followed the same path by trying these other practises & believes not finding a cure to the "samvega" he felt.
Thus the night he sat under the bodhi tree & meditated, he focused his mind on the only question that really mattered. Freedom from suffering... letting go of all the past ways of thinking.
These thoughts i feel falls under the tree roots of suffering as "Delusion". Nobody can or will ever be able to tell\proof to you what happens after death & thus there should be no reason for you to waste time on such things. Rather... experiance the world of here & now. Consintrate on the task at hand, the task that brough you here. All other things are compounded....
"These are not the things you should be concerning yourself with"
So my answer to your question is simply this: eh, who cares.
By the way, the whole idea that 'life IS suffering', that our goal is simply to 'cease to exist', that the only thing stopping us from killing ourselves in order to achieve this is the belief that we will literally just be reborn again, and therefore that Buddha's teachings are just about stopping this process of rebirth so that we can finally simply 'not be', is deeply, profoundly, gratuitously nihilistic and depressing. It provides endless ammunition to Buddhism's critics and is as sure-fire a way to bring about Buddhism's extinction if ever I heard one. Buddha's teachings should be about overcoming suffering and achieving well-being in THIS life. Only then can Buddhism be non-nihilistic and therefore relevant as a path to overcoming suffering.
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?"
"This question is not proper," said the Exalted One.
I do not teach that there is one who feels.
If, however, the question is put thus:
'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
With Metta,
However, you did say "when you die your constituent elements are recycled into nature". Surely, you aren't talking about an illusion's constituent elements, now are you?
That IS Nirvana.
That IS Nirvana.
what is nihilistic is some buddhists.
I like this sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.04.olen.html
I know this isn't actual buddhist teaching, but considering the implications of literal rebirth this makes sense to me.
s/he has completed the Practice of Noble Eightfold Path and
s/he is full of compassion for other sentient beings
in other words, from the moment of full enlightenment we can see them as normal human beings but they are Arahnts (without greed, hate or delusion)
where do they go does not apply
With metta,
With metta,
Basically I'm saying that ignorance of the nature of phenomena and mind is the cause of suffering, not life itself.
-Tikal