The Cycle of Birth and Death

Kunga

It seems to me that Buddhism tells us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death. If we can escape this cycle, we will find eternal peace, happiness, and bliss.

But what if Buddhism is wrong?

What if the only Good that exists in this universe is dependent on the cycle of Birth and Death? What if that cycle is the source of all joy and beauty in the universe? What if the elimination of birth and death would simply be the end. Sure, suffering would end, but I'm not sold yet on the promise of enlightenment... the promise that joy and bliss can exist without suffering. What if Buddhism, and other major religions, are just promising us some kind of escape from something which if we did escape from... there would be nothing left.

Perhaps what we are really afraid of is death, of losing what we have, of going out of existence and leaving all of our loved ones behind. Maybe what we need to see is that if we never had to leave our friends, if we could all go on forever, then life would have no meaning to begin with, and there would be no reason to want it to continue.

So maybe we need to find the middle way. I think that maybe we should embrace life, while recognizing that its true value comes from death. Thats the catch-22. Thats the paradox. The more we value life, the more we try to hold on to it. But the more we try to hold on it, the less value life has. So thats seems to me to be the balancing act. Maybe the real "middle way" is the cycle of birth and death.

Kunga

There's something not quite right about my post here. I don't like the idea of setting up my view as counter-buddhism when I think the core of it may actually fit very nicely with Buddhism. I just sometimes feel like Buddhism is missing something, and I'm having a hard time understanding where that feeling is coming from.

Malachy12

Don't be sold on the promise of enlightenment and you are already on the path towards a healthy Buddhism. It's good that you think for yourself and are wary of buying into an idea right off the bat.

federica

"I'm having a hard time understanding where that feeling is coming from. "

Previous conditioning and influence.

hermitwin

Enjoy life to the fullest while you can.
When you had enough, become a thai forest monk.

Cloud

We get bound up in thoughts. Thoughts even arise that thoughts are us, reflect who we are. They're just thoughts. If you saw the written words "You Are Dead", would you take them as reality? They're just sights. Thoughts are no different, they depend on conditions and aren't you/self.

I'd shelve all of the speculation and theories and meditate (suggest Vipassana) on the Three Characteristics; not on them as concepts, but how they apply to each experience you have. How each experiences comes and goes (impermanence) of its own accord (not-self) and is unsatisfactory (dukkha); there is always some craving for things to be different from how they are at this very moment.

DhammaDhatu

It seems to me that Buddhism tells us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death. If we can escape this cycle, we will find eternal peace, happiness, and bliss.

But what if Buddhism is wrong?

Buddhism is not wrong. But your understanding of the words "birth" and "death" may be wrong.

GuyC

It seems to me that Buddhism tells us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death. If we can escape this cycle, we will find eternal peace, happiness, and bliss.

But what if Buddhism is wrong?

Buddhism is not wrong. But your understanding of the words "birth" and "death" may be wrong.

With respect, your understanding of these words may also be wrong, DD.

federica

fine. but let's not get into that until we get a response from Kunga, to clarify, given that the comment was addressed to Kunga.


Different understandings bring different perspectives....

DhammaDhatu

With respect, your understanding of these words may also be wrong, DD.

I have complete confidence my understanding is not wrong.

Each experience of suffering involves taking birth as "I" & "mine" in respect to a sense object and experiencing the sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair that occurs in association with the aging & death of that object.

All suffering without expectation is due to this kind of birth & death.

For example, if a person gets married, due to attachment, they "become" and take "birth" as a husband or wife. Then if their partner leaves them or dies, the attached person suffers from aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair because they took birth as a husband & wife.

Other people do not suffer because they have not taken birth as that person's husband or wife.

But each experience of being alive & dying is not necessarily suffering.

My understanding is certainly not wrong. If you examined your experiences of suffering, you would realise that.

For example, each time I show Ajahn Brahm is wrong, I trust your mind experiences the dejection that comes with a small death of your attachment to him.

What I post is not wrong. My mind is not brainwashed. My I post accords with the verifiable reality of suffering.

With metta

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html

Sabre

So, Dear kunga,

Good thread. Your questions can be kind of arranged in the 4 noble truths. I'm sure most are familiar with them, but let me repeat them once again:

1. Life means suffering.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment.
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.
4. The path to the cessation of suffering is the 8-fold path.
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

It seems to me that Buddhism tells us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death. If we can escape this cycle, we will find eternal peace, happiness, and bliss.

You recognize the suffering (1st noble truth), but the cause of suffering is not samsara itself, the cause of suffering is attachments to it (2nd noble truth). The word eternal you are using here already goes against one of the Buddha's main teaching which is impermanence. Nothing will last forever. So if you have a happy moment, enjoy it, but don't forget it also will not last. This is the nature of life, you have already experienced that a lot of times, probably. You can wish it to be different, but it isn't, sadly.

There may be times you think you've got it all together, but even those times come crashing down. Your partner leaves you, your job gets boring, you crash your car, you're out of money, you want to eat a pizza but the Italian restaurant is closed, or whatever. There is always something wrong.

What if Buddhism, and other major religions, are just promising us some kind of escape from something which if we did escape from... there would be nothing left.

Yes, indeed it promises is a way out, an escape! (3rd noble truth) That's exactly the point. All the time getting born and reborn again, going from one life to another, suffering all the time from dying, sickness, loss of loved ones, not having pizza when you want it. Well all of that is what the Buddha didn't really like, so he found a way out which is the 8-fold path. (4th noble truth)

So maybe we need to find the middle way. I think that maybe we should embrace life, while recognizing that its true value comes from death.

Suffering comes from our attachments, and the biggest attachment is probably the attachment to life. Not a lot of people are willing to die (give up attachment to life) to find true peace. But you know, nothing gets born and nothing dies, so there is nothing to fear.

You might like to watch the movie "The Fountain". This is a brilliant movie that taught me an incredible lot about the four noble truths while not even realizing. Quote: "Death is the road to awe."

federica

Several posts deleted, due to verbal spat developping.
Take it to PMs guys, or I'll just keep deleting.
By all means disagree, but don't turn someone else's thread into a verbal tit-for-tat two-person diatribe.

DhammaDhatu

:dunce:

DairyLama

Each experience of suffering involves taking birth as "I" & "mine" in respect to a sense object and experiencing the sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair that occurs in association with the aging & death of that object.

In the suttas the Buddha did not talk about birth, ageing and death in this way. He talked about suffering as grasping at the 5 aggregates.

P

fivebells

...your understanding of these words may also be wrong, DD.

It is just barely possible (though extremely unlikely) that Dhatu's understanding of the terms is incomplete in the sense that post-mortem rebirth also happens. But any effective meditation practice will eventually bring up convincing evidence for the moment-to-moment interpretation of dependent origination. Those that argue solely for the post-mortem interpretation of rebirth probably haven't been practicing effectively.

GuyC

Hi Fivebells,

...your understanding of these words may also be wrong, DD.

It is just barely possible (though extremely unlikely) that Dhatu's understanding of the terms is incomplete in the sense that post-mortem rebirth also happens. But any effective meditation practice will eventually bring up convincing evidence for the moment-to-moment interpretation of dependent origination. Those that argue solely for the post-mortem interpretation of rebirth probably haven't been practicing effectively.

Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.

Metta,

Guy

aMatt

Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.

Metta,

Guy

Guy,

I wonder if distinctions like primary and secondary come from an ego's grasping at some ultimate truth. Its certainly both and neither, and is descriptive, not attributional.

Also, try not to get sucked into fighting a capital I. Understanding is often second place to still and peaceful resonance, which has no ego centric force to it.

With warmth,

Matt

GuyC

Hi Matt,

Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.

Metta,

Guy

Guy,

I wonder if distinctions like primary and secondary come from an ego's grasping at some ultimate truth. Its certainly both and neither, and is descriptive, not attributional.

Also, try not to get sucked into fighting a capital I. Understanding is often second place to still and peaceful resonance, which has no ego centric force to it.

With warmth,

Matt

Obviously the Buddha attributed some meaning to his words or else he would have kept his mouth shut. But fortunately, out of compassion, the Buddha didn't keep his mouth shut. He did speak and when he spoke he had some intended meaning behind the words which he chose.

I believe that trying to come to a correct interpretation of the Buddha's intended Teachings is an important part of the Spiritual Path...this was not an issue for early Buddhists because, if they were uncertain about the intended meaning of a particular Teaching they have heard, they could ask the Buddha what he meant. As we see in the Suttas people often did get things wrong, I think it is highly likely that people continue to misinterpret the Buddha's words today.

There is a good chance that somewhere in what I think are "The Buddha's Teachings" is a wrong view (or two or three...) of some sort.

I agree, peace is important, but so is truth (and I am not claiming that I have a firm grasp on either).

Metta,

Guy

aMatt

I believe that trying to come to a correct interpretation of the Buddha's intended Teachings is an important part of the Spiritual Path

Guy,

Yes, this comes through well from your potent and well focused mind! This sounds to me to be leftover baggage... looking for a concrete set of scriptures to follow from mom and dad. What if a quest for a correct interpretation of his words were more of a hinderance? Leaves in the forest...

I would consider the goal to be to still your attributional habits, then the view of the buddha becomes obvious. His insight arose from a still mind, not from reading and recounting the truth in suttas. They move you to a point (8fp) to build your raft, but you need to hop in eventually and leave words behind. From there, you might notice that the actual words don't matter as much as you thought they did... in fact staring too long leads to the ego's absorbtion in knowingness, rather than the still clarity of wisdom.

With warmth,

Matt

GuyC

Hi Matt,

I believe that trying to come to a correct interpretation of the Buddha's intended Teachings is an important part of the Spiritual Path

Guy,

Yes, this comes through well from your potent and well focused mind! This sounds to me to be leftover baggage... looking for a concrete set of scriptures to follow from mom and dad. What if a quest for a correct interpretation of his words were more of a hinderance? Leaves in the forest...

I would consider the goal to be to still your attributional habits, then the view of the buddha becomes obvious. His insight arose from a still mind, not from reading and recounting the truth in suttas. They move you to a point (8fp) to build your raft, but you need to hop in eventually and leave words behind. From there, you might notice that the actual words don't matter as much as you thought they did... in fact staring too long leads to the ego's absorbtion in knowingness, rather than the still clarity of wisdom.

With warmth,

Matt

I appreciate what you are saying.

Yes, I meditate, but I also study the Suttas. I believe the two are mutually supportive.

The Suttas are like the map and the meditation is like (part of...) the journey. If we were journeying through unfamiliar terrain it would make sense to periodically check the map to see if we are on the right track.

A balance of practice, study and reflection (on both experience and views) is important in my opinion.

Metta,

Guy

aMatt

Guy,

Yes, of course... and I do agree with the roots of your observation. Remember the comment that sparked this tangent:

Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.

Metta,

Guy

Isn't it enough to see? The pattern that things arise and fade, and we feel manic happiness or intense lamentation depending on whether what is born is projected as favorable or unfavorable is enough, right?

Primary usage? Intent? He's dead and gone, who cares? Does it matter what or if or how of rebirth?

Kunga

Thank you everyone for your replies.

"You recognize the suffering (1st noble truth), but the cause of suffering is not samsara itself, the cause of suffering is attachments to it (2nd noble truth)."

Yes, this makes a great deal of sense. As I said previously, "The more we value life, the more we try to hold on to it. But the more we try to hold on it, the less value life has". So perhaps this constant struggle, this push and pull, this attachment to birth and death is what causes suffering, because it seems that all our efforts leave us feeling unsatisfied. We can never get it just right. So maybe this is where the Buddha's teaching comes in. We can just let go of the whole struggle altogether.

I think my main difficulty is that I see a lot of beauty and good in change and impermanence. In light and darkness. In life and death. Without change, without vibration, there would be no music, no colors, no life. So this is where I'm having a hard time squaring that view with the Buddha's teachings.

GuyC

Hi Matt,

Primary usage? Intent? He's dead and gone, who cares? Does it matter what or if or how of rebirth?

It may not matter to you but it matters to me to try to come to a correct understanding of the Buddha's Teachings.

Metta,

Guy

GuyC

Hi Kunga,

I think my main difficulty is that I see a lot of beauty and good in change and impermanence. In light and darkness. In life and death. Without change, without vibration, there would be no music, no colors, no life. So this is where I'm having a hard time squaring that view with the Buddha's teachings.

The perception that impermanence is a beautiful and good thing is also impermanent.

There is an aspect of impermanence which is a "beautiful and good thing" though (at least, in my view) - i.e. that an unawakened person can Awaken.

Metta,

Guy

SherabDorje

It's a big scriptural and conceptual leap from Theravada to Mahayana, but what I see here is largely a Theravada interpretation. The proposition:

"What if the only Good that exists in this universe is dependent on the cycle of Birth and Death?"

IMO, this proposition is equally valid in the Mahayana/Vajrayana as exemplified in the figure of the Bodhisattva and the Buddha-Nature, that is, the possibility that all of us can become Buddhas at some point in our existence. There is nothing wrong with experiencing joy, in the moderation or middle-way sense that you suggest, as long as there is not excessive attachment to it.

Does that address your point?

Sabre

Dear Kunga,

I think my main difficulty is that I see a lot of beauty and good in change and impermanence. In light and darkness. In life and death. Without change, without vibration, there would be no music, no colors, no life. So this is where I'm having a hard time squaring that view with the Buddha's teachings.

Dear Kunga,

Yes, impermanence is certainly the beauty behind all things. Without change there wouldn't be anything. But that also means, without no-life there wouldn't be life. Without nothing you can not have something. Do you see it? Where did you come from? If you realize you once came from nothing it is also not so bad to go back to nothing. We all have to die someday, might as well be prepared

It doesn't mean you need to dismiss everything, of course. The Buddha also didn't renounce life. Well at first he did, extreme ways of meditation by starving himself to death. He tried all that but decided that wasn't the right way. Also the endless life (like Brahmanism) he saw wasn't the truth, because it didn't end suffering, didn't end samsara. It is the middle way, the way that leads to love, understanding and peace.

I know this is heavy stuff, if you have a teacher better talk with him about it.

With metta,
Sabre

aMatt

Hi Matt,

It may not matter to you but it matters to me to try to come to a correct understanding of the Buddha's Teachings.

Metta,

Guy

And what, dear friend, is doing the learning?

GuyC

Hi Matt,

And what, dear friend, is doing the learning?

Just the five aggregates.

Metta,

Guy

compassionate_warrior

Does Buddhism really tell us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death? The question of whether or not the Buddha taught that there was a cycle of birth and death is hotly debated, as evidenced by so many threads thrashing out the subject. One of the mods posted on a thread that the cycle of birth and death is a Hindu belief, and was not what the Buddha himself believed. In any case, as someone already noted, suffering is caused by attachment, not by any postulated rebirths.

Sabre

Well said Compassionate_warrior.

The most funny thing is, the attachment to rebirth is the cause of it happening. :crazy:

aMatt

Just the five aggregates.

Metta,

Guy

Haha!

hermitwin

A basic premise of Buddha is to escape the cycle of rebirth.

Change is always there whether you like it or not.
What is no change? There is no such thing.

compassionate_warrior

A basic premise of Buddha is to escape the cycle of rebirth.

This is what I used to think until reading the debates on this forum, and the suttra material people provided. Now I doubt that is what the Buddha taught, or believed.

SherabDorje

A basic premise of Buddha is to escape the cycle of rebirth.

This is what I used to think until reading the debates on this forum, and the suttra material people provided. Now I doubt that is what the Buddha taught, or believed.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but from a Mahayana/Vajrayana point of view, it may be more about accepting the cycle of birth and rebirth for what it is but not being "caught" by it, living in samsara mindfully, openly, "embracing it", if you will, but not being caught up in it. For instance, according to the Heart Sutra, nirvana and samsara are "two sides of the same coin", if you will.

Sabre

A basic premise of Buddha is to escape the cycle of rebirth.

This is what I used to think until reading the debates on this forum, and the suttra material people provided. Now I doubt that is what the Buddha taught, or believed.

This kind of intellectual doubt is sometimes good. Don't believe what you can't accept by heart, but don't throw it away either just because your mind begins to wander in thoughts.

The Buddha-nature is in your heart and there you can find the answers, not on this board (that of course includes my posts ) or in a sutta. If your mind is absolutely clear you can ask yourself if you were here before, and it might give an answer.

Or it may not Then leave the issue, it isn't that important anyway.

With metta,
Sabre

DhammaDhatu

Each experience of suffering involves taking birth as "I" & "mine" in respect to a sense object and experiencing the sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair that occurs in association with the aging & death of that object.

In the suttas the Buddha did not talk about birth, ageing and death in this way. He talked about suffering as grasping at the 5 aggregates.

P

I already quoted the suttas, as follows: Plese read carefully:

The Buddha said:
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html

30] “On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favoring and opposing, whatever he feels he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_Mahatanhasankhaya_Sutta.htm

DhammaDhatu

Does Buddhism really tell us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death? The question of whether or not the Buddha taught that there was a cycle of birth and death is hotly debated, as evidenced by so many threads thrashing out the subject. One of the mods posted on a thread that the cycle of birth and death is a Hindu belief, and was not what the Buddha himself believed. In any case, as someone already noted, suffering is caused by attachment, not by any postulated rebirths.

I can only suggest to study the teachings, such as the following:

Attachment is just the beginning of suffering.

"Then, monks, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

“On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favoring and opposing, whatever he feels he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being [comes to be]; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_Mahatanhasankhaya_Sutta.htm

"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

DhammaDhatu

The Buddha-nature is in your heart...

If that is the case, have you found the "rebirth" you always talk about in your heart?

If that is the case, are you saying the experiences of enlightenment described in the scriptures are different to those in your heart?

If that is the case, are you declaring your heart's experiences are true enlightenment and those the Buddha described are not?

DhammaDhatu

With respect, your understanding of these words may also be wrong, DD.

Hello GuyC

My understanding accords with that of Ajahn Chah.

Your understanding accords with that of Ajahn Brahmavaso.

So it looks like its DD & Ajahn Chah versus GuyC and Ajahn Brahma.

"Becoming" (bhava) means "the sphere of birth." Sensual desire is born at sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and thoughts, identifying with these things. The mind holds fast and is stuck to sensuality.

If you were to ask them, "Why were you born?" They'd probably have a lot of trouble answering, because they can't see it. They're sunk in the world of the senses and sunk in becoming (bhava). Bhava is the sphere of birth, our birthplace. To put it simply, where are beings born from? Bhava is the preliminary condition for birth. Wherever birth takes place, that's bhava.

For example, suppose we had an orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider them to be "our own" trees... then we are going to be "born" as a "worm" in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one, even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send out "tentacles" into every one of those trees.

Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house "dies" along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the "birth." The "sphere of birth" is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our own. We are "born" right at the point where we consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner down.

Whatever we cling to we are born right there, we exist right there. We are born as soon as we "know." This is knowing through not-knowing: we know that someone has cut down one of our trees. But we don't know that those trees are not really ours. This is called "knowing through not-knowing." We are bound to be born into that bhava.

Vatta the wheel of conditioned existence, operates like this. People cling to bhava, they depend on bhava. If they cherish bhava, this is birth . And if they fall into suffering over that same thing, this is also a birth. As long as we can't let go we are stuck in the rut of samsara, spinning around like a wheel. Look into this, contemplate it. Whatever we cling to as being us or ours, that is a place for birth.

There must be a bhava, a sphere of birth, before birth can take place. Therefore the Buddha said, whatever you have, don't "have" it. Let it be there but don't make it yours. You must understand this "having" and "not having," know the truth of them, don't flounder in suffering.

The place that we were born from; you want to go back there and be born again, don't you? All of you monks and novices, do you know where you were born from? You want to go back there, don't you? Right there, look into this. All of you getting ready. The nearer we get to the end of the retreat the more you start preparing to go back and be born there.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/Ajahn_Chah_Food_for_the_Heart.htm

DhammaDhatu

To become glad , is to be born; to becomes dejected, is to die. Having died, we are born again ; having been born . we die again . This birth and death from one moment to the next is the endless spinning wheel of samsara.



If you trained properly, you wouldn't feel frightened when you fall sick, nor upset when someone dies. When you go into the hospital for treatment, determine in your mind that if you get better, that's fine, and that if you die, that's fine, too. I guarantee you that if the doctors told me I had cancer and was going to die in a few months. I'd remind the doctors, " Watch out, because death is coming to get you, too. It's just a question of who goes first and who goes later. " Doctors are not going to cure death or prevent death. Only the Buddha was such a doctor, so why not go ahead and use the Buddha's medicine?



http://www.ajahnchah.org/pdf/no_ajahn_chah.pdf

Kunga

"Now, how do we know that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees down, the owner over there in the house "dies" along with the tree. He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the "birth." The "sphere of birth" is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our own. We are "born" right at the point where we consider them to be our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees, if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner down."

Yes, but can we still value the orchard trees and find beauty in them without clinging to them or labeling them as ours? Can we take pleasure in the fact that those trees can be enjoyed by all sentient beings, even though we know at some point those trees will all die? Does that have to cause us so much pain when we can reflect on how much pleasure they brought us, and how very little we had to give up in order to enjoy them?

pearl

It seems to me that Buddhism tells us that the cause of suffering is the cycle of birth and death. If we can escape this cycle, we will find eternal peace, happiness, and bliss.

But what if Buddhism is wrong?

What if the only Good that exists in this universe is dependent on the cycle of Birth and Death? What if that cycle is the source of all joy and beauty in the universe? What if the elimination of birth and death would simply be the end. Sure, suffering would end, but I'm not sold yet on the promise of enlightenment... the promise that joy and bliss can exist without suffering. What if Buddhism, and other major religions, are just promising us some kind of escape from something which if we did escape from... there would be nothing left.

I think that maybe we should embrace life, while recognizing that its true value comes from death. Thats the catch-22. Thats the paradox. The more we value life, the more we try to hold on to it. But the more we try to hold on it, the less value life has. So thats seems to me to be the balancing act.

Hi Kunga,

I just wanted to say that I enjoyed your post, it made me think.

To me, it seems that the freedom Buddhist practice offers actually comes from really understanding and accepting that things change. It's not so much we're trying to escape this ever changing world for some perfect heaven, but rather we're aiming to align ourselves with the reality of change, which is SOOO much harder than it sounds. In a way, you could say that knowing and accepting reality is enlightenment.

Kunga

Pearl, I think that's a fantastic way to view it.

To bring the analogy home, maybe we can take pleasure in existence while acknowledging that existence is not something which inherently belongs to us? I think a lot of us may view life as something which we own and is going to be taken from us, whether we like it or not. Therefore, to escape suffering, we feel as though we should just give it all up, then when someone comes to take it from us, there will be nothing left to take.

What if, instead, we saw life as a gift rather than something which inherently belongs to us. And rather than death being something which forcibly takes life away from us, we can see it as an opportunity to pass the gift on. When I look at the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of life and the universe, it seems to me that this is the very process by which life evolves. Something is given form, then creates something more beautiful with that form, then passes that form onto something else. So we go from pure light to stars to planets to rock and oceans to water and trees to insects and animals, including human beings. What will the next evolution of life bring? And what is our role in that process?

So sorry for ranting! These are just some ideas I have. Not entirely sure how related to Buddhism they are.

Yacababy

Kunga I REALLY enjoyed the analogy of life being a gift. I think it is a good way clarify a bit. I will continue to ponder this.

pearl

To bring the analogy home, maybe we can take pleasure in existence while acknowledging that existence is not something which inherently belongs to us? I think a lot of us may view life as something which we own and is going to be taken from us, whether we like it or not. Therefore, to escape suffering, we feel as though we should just give it all up, then when someone comes to take it from us, there will be nothing left to take.

What if, instead, we saw life as a gift rather than something which inherently belongs to us. And rather than death being something which forcibly takes life away from us, we can see it as an opportunity to pass the gift on. When I look at the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of life and the universe, it seems to me that this is the very process by which life evolves. Something is given form, then creates something more beautiful with that form, then passes that form onto something else. So we go from pure light to stars to planets to rock and oceans to water and trees to insects and animals, including human beings. What will the next evolution of life bring? And what is our role in that process?

This is a beautiful perspective to have. Interestingly, your idea of lack of ownership is very similar to a Buddhist idea of not self. You definitely have wisdom, and you found it from your own reflections. Amazing.

A bow to you,
Pearl

Sabre

The Buddha-nature is in your heart...

If that is the case, have you found the "rebirth" you always talk about in your heart?

If that is the case, are you saying the experiences of enlightenment described in the scriptures are different to those in your heart?

If that is the case, are you declaring your heart's experiences are true enlightenment and those the Buddha described are not?

Dear DD,

Whatever I found/experienced is not important. I just wanted to say it is more important to do our practice than to argue about this matter, it's not such an important issue anyway. You've got to work with what you've got. For most people moment-to-moment rebirth is quite obvious, that's one of the reasons why a lot of teachers teach it mainly in this way when speaking to large audiences. For some other people life-to-life may be just as obvious.

So let's just say we are both right and both interpretations fit the suttas. Buddhism is not about you vs. me. You don't have to defend your view the whole time and find suttas or quotes to support it. I respect your view and I hope you respect that of others as well.

I wish you well and good meditation,

Sabre

Sabre

Pearl, I think that's a fantastic way to view it.

To bring the analogy home, maybe we can take pleasure in existence while acknowledging that existence is not something which inherently belongs to us? I think a lot of us may view life as something which we own and is going to be taken from us, whether we like it or not. Therefore, to escape suffering, we feel as though we should just give it all up, then when someone comes to take it from us, there will be nothing left to take.

What if, instead, we saw life as a gift rather than something which inherently belongs to us. And rather than death being something which forcibly takes life away from us, we can see it as an opportunity to pass the gift on. When I look at the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of life and the universe, it seems to me that this is the very process by which life evolves. Something is given form, then creates something more beautiful with that form, then passes that form onto something else. So we go from pure light to stars to planets to rock and oceans to water and trees to insects and animals, including human beings. What will the next evolution of life bring? And what is our role in that process?

So sorry for ranting! These are just some ideas I have. Not entirely sure how related to Buddhism they are.

I like it.
:clap:

fivebells

Perhaps the concept of rebirth can be appropriated and used as a metaphor for the so-called "moment-to-moment rebirth", but whether or not this was the Buddha's intended primary usage is debatable.

Whether or not it's the intended primary usage is also irrelevant to a serious practitioner, at least until said practitioner starts to experience some kind of evidence for post-mortem rebirth. Whereas a beginner experiences the moment-to-moment version the first time the attention returns to the breath...

GuyC

Hi DD,

My understanding accords with that of Ajahn Chah.

Your understanding accords with that of Ajahn Brahmavaso.

So it looks like its DD & Ajahn Chah versus GuyC and Ajahn Brahma.

My views neither represent nor necessarily reflect Ajahn Brahm's or anyone elses. I am not interested in taking sides, I am only interested in Truth.

Metta,

Guy

fivebells

Damn, I was hoping for a two-on-two steel-cage death match.

GuyC

Damn, I was hoping for a two-on-two steel-cage death match.

LOOOOOOOL :grr: :rarr: :banghead: :ninja: :pirate: :sawed: