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.
Rebirth =/= separation of body + mind
Talisman
Veteran
Some of the things I have read lately in regards to rebirth, try to create arguments asserting the validity of the concept in terms of a separation of the body and mind or separation of the material and the immaterial. In my opinion, this is not only a very difficult concept to prove, I think it goes against the nature of reality.
In my understanding, belief in this kind of duality is a function of "name and form" itself arisen from the funtion to discern (consciousness.) There is, in reality, no way to separate form from the other clinging aggregates. I have read recently that there is a belief in the dissolving of the body at death, but that consciusness remains and is reborn again in a new body. But this like saying "form" dissolves but consciousness, volition, perception, and feeling abide.
As far as I have come to understand, all 5 clinging aggregates are dissolved at death. It is not consciousness that is reborn. There is no "thing" that is reborn. The clinging to self, a discernable and "living" function, gives rise to the effect - specifically, rebirth/reformation/continuation/reconstitution/reconstruction of consciousness, form, perception, volition, and feeling. The aggregates are born as the fruit of karma (prior volition.)
The Buddha's ability, upon awakening, to discern his prior "abodes," would be like remembering a road upon which you have walked, stretching back into eternity. Not so much, "I was this animal at this time," more, "there was an animal at this time whose volition gave rise to me." There is no inherent or abiding "selfness" in any prior, present, or future incarnations.
Am I making any sense? I'm at work and writing this between calls.
In my understanding, belief in this kind of duality is a function of "name and form" itself arisen from the funtion to discern (consciousness.) There is, in reality, no way to separate form from the other clinging aggregates. I have read recently that there is a belief in the dissolving of the body at death, but that consciusness remains and is reborn again in a new body. But this like saying "form" dissolves but consciousness, volition, perception, and feeling abide.
As far as I have come to understand, all 5 clinging aggregates are dissolved at death. It is not consciousness that is reborn. There is no "thing" that is reborn. The clinging to self, a discernable and "living" function, gives rise to the effect - specifically, rebirth/reformation/continuation/reconstitution/reconstruction of consciousness, form, perception, volition, and feeling. The aggregates are born as the fruit of karma (prior volition.)
The Buddha's ability, upon awakening, to discern his prior "abodes," would be like remembering a road upon which you have walked, stretching back into eternity. Not so much, "I was this animal at this time," more, "there was an animal at this time whose volition gave rise to me." There is no inherent or abiding "selfness" in any prior, present, or future incarnations.
Am I making any sense? I'm at work and writing this between calls.
0
Comments
http://media.bswa.org/mp3/Brahmavamso_2001_07_13.mp3
"try to create arguments asserting the validity of the concept in terms of a separation of the body and mind"
OK. I'll give it a try. ^_^
First argument:
Imagine (really) that you wake up one morning. You get out of bed, go to your bathroom and look at the mirror and...suprise! You can't see yourself. :-O You try to touch your head but it isn't there, you try to speak but hear no sound.
The fact that you can imagine a story about yourself without your body indicates that what you call consciousness(mind) and body are logically different.
Try imagining a story about a block of wood without a block of wood: you can't. That's because a block of wood is just a block of wood: it can't exist and not exist and make sense. But mind can exists without body and make sense. They are logically different concepts. (i.e. mind is not an appendix of the body).
Second argument:
This one presupposes you believe in free will. The universe is deterministic. If you kick a ball in normal circumstances it will move - there is no "choice" involved.If your body is deterministic (which it obviously is), for your mind to be a part of your body it wouldn't be able of having free will. (BTW I don't see how denying free will is compatible with Buddhism :P)
Third argument:
Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?
(P1) Any and every piece of physical knowledge in regards to human color vision has been obtained (by the test subject, Mary) prior to her release from the black-and-white room. She has all the physical knowledge on the subject.
(P2) Upon leaving the room and witnessing color first-hand, she obtains new knowledge.
(C) There was some knowledge about human color vision she did not have prior to her release. Therefore, not all knowledge is physical knowledge. Therefore, the Universe is not entirely physical, and neither is the mind.
Have fun debunking me. lol
Just to respond specifically to your third example, because it was the most fun, Mary obviously was not able to determine all physical knowledge about the color red from witnessing it from a black and white screen. Her tools for studying the color red were insufficient. She required additional tools in order to obtain further experiential knowledge pertaining to the color red.
Her experience with the color red after leaving the room is still a physical reaction, specifically, light making contact with the retina and being transmitted as data to her brain.
There is no reason why the "material" and the "immaterial" must be discerned as existent in order to assert the function of rebirth after death.
They say we have experiences in the bardo after death (NDE's) because at that time we inhabit a new subtle body.
:clap: :om:
*Mitochondria, up to a point in time, were not perceived through observation (no microscope) and couldn't be inferred logically.
*It makes no sense however, in saying they were immaterial up until one point in history and then materialized, because one thing that exists can't come from something that doesn't exist.
*Hence materiality, as stated in the first line, is not a logical concept. (unless you have a better concept of materiality, that is. Exchanging perceived for perceivable just points towards the same conclusion, because there is no way we can infer everything that will be perceivable by all sentient creatures until the end of time)
What I am saying is that the seed consciusness is not something separate from the same fabric of reality that gives rise to form and the other clinging aggregates as well. There is ultimately no body and mind, no material and immaterial, no physical and spiritual, no name and form without the unskillful discernment arisen from volition and ignorance.
@compassionate_warrior Good point. One possible theory is that memory is stored in the very subtle conciousness as well and not in the brain. Not sure if that's a Buddhist notion or not though. And I'm not sure why we don't easily all remember our past lives in that case.
We spend all of our time trying to figure out this rebirth thing instead of looking at what is here now to even be reborn!
We cannot know or comprehend some happenings in this universe and there is no pint on dwelling on them. However, the buddha, (founder of this religion, and it is a religion), and the dalai lama both speak of rebirth in different realms, both non physical and non physical.
In a book I have written by his holiness, he speaks of how the mind does in fact separate the body, I myself have thought, well if everything is one then how can it be separate? My personal conclusion at this moment in time is that the fabric of the universe is consciousness, one consciousness. Maybe we all share it and the mind is just like a part of a machine, I do not know.
Also, on awakening the buddha stated he could see past lives eons back through the past he had been in.
Form is conditioned and transient, mind is conditioned by form (we don't talk about mind floating around, it is always arisen dependent on form), consciousness as a factor of mind is conditioned by both mind and form (requires contact with an object), so how could any of those transient things be any ground-of-being? Only emptiness seems to fit the bill. Nothing we can point to lasts; nothing we can point to is independent (self).
Dalai Lama: Yes. Now that very subtle consciousness, which is the self, heads into the next life.
Varela: Where is the memory of that consciousness?
Dalai Lama: Memories based on grosser levels of mind and therefore of body are already gone. More subtle memory which is related to more subtle consciousness is carried on. Certain meditators are able to bring the grosser levels of mind down to a subtler, deeper level at which their awareness is heightened and they begin to see the events of their past lives. If one is able to bring the mind to such a subtle level, one is able to link this life with both past and future.
An explanation is given from the Tantric point of view: according to Buddha, every living being can naturally have the experience of clear light at the time of death, but this experience can be caused through meditative techniques as well. One point to remember is that the experience of clear light takes place in the heart, not up in the head.
So maybe why reincarnated lamas have some recollection of their items is they're more in touch with the subtler states of mind. Though that still leaves the question of why some ordinary children can remember past lives. The key to that may be that most normal children that remember their previous lives seem to have had a sudden and traumatic death.
Sorry for getting a little off topic.
Of course, this is the Tibetan perspective, which seems to be unique in Buddhism. I don't know what other Mahayana schools teach.
But yes, I study Mahayana (both the prajnaparamita and tathagatagarba) literature extensively and practive zazen. I also study the pali sutras extensively as well. The Boddhisattva should be learned in many skillful means and perfected in the discernment and instruction of all Dharma gates.
What is this "field potentiality"? It sounds a bit like that science article, that presented consciousness and an energy field permeating the universe. The Zen perspective would be interesting to understand, as a comparison to the Vajrayana view.
When you throw a baseball, it's field of potential placement, volocity, etc. is determined by the prior energy placed upon it and the direction it is thrown (among many other factors.)
When a person is born, the field of potential quality of birth is determined by prior thoughts, actions, and spoken words.
This potentiality is effected by karma, in the way that seeds planted in a field are effected by the gardner. Those that are watered and cultivated will flower and bloom. The different potentialities of the store consciousness (which contains the infinite potentiality of the universe) may also be watered and cultivated by our thoughts, actions, and spoken words. In this way the "gross mind" waters the seeds of the "subtle mind." However, neither the gross mind nor the subtle mind are "things" to which one may direct any form of selfhood.
Does that make sense?
action A leads to result B, the potential for result B is conditioned by action A
The store consciousness (subtle mind) is the process that transforms action A into result B
The store consciousness? How does this "process" work, then? Sounds like the store consciousness is a constant of some sort.
I'm picking this apart to see what makes it tick, like a fine watch. maybe I'm just stuck (conditioned) in another mode of thought, and am having trouble making the transition to Zen theory.
What you say makes sense from the simple teaching that rebirth is conditioned by previous life, or previous karma, or previous attachment.
In reality, the forces that help to construct the rebirth of consciousness are inseperable from both the process of rebirth and the newly arisen consciousness (and other clinging aggregates.) The actions we take are "we." Do you understand?
They say that that the subtle mind (the store consciousnes) combines with the union of the sperm and egg to create new life in the process of rebirth. In my understanding the union of the sperm and egg is, itself. the fruition of one's karma. There doesnt need to be a third entity, essence, consciousness, etc.
I'm off work now and on to my weekend.
Peace be with you all
This makes much more sense than speculative views that hold to a personal transmigration of consciousness, which the Buddha slapped one monk upside the head for thinking (MN 38). Of course if we're still possessed of self-view, we're going to find a way to keep it personal, and bicker until the bitter end without getting satisfaction. Satisfaction comes in penetrating Anatta/Not-Self directly.
On one occasion, the Buddha was invited by the Brahmin Bharadvaja for alms to his house. As invited, the Buddha visited the house of the Brahmin. Instead of entertaining Him, the Brahmin poured forth a torrent of abuse with the filthiest of words. The Buddha politely inquired:
"Do visitors come to your house, good Brahmin?"
"Yes," he replied.
"What do yu do when they come?"
"Oh, we prepare a sumptuous feast."
"What do you if they refuse to receive the meal?"
"Why, we gladly partake of them ourselves."
"Well, good Brahmin, you have invited me for alms and entertained me with abuse which I decline to accept. So now it belongs to you."
From the Akkosa Sutta
The Buddha did not retaliate but politely gave back what the Brahmin had given Him. Retaliate not, the Buddha advised. "Hatred does not cease through hatred but through love alone they cease."
www.viewonbuddhism.org/rebirth_reincarnation.html
"Death is in Tibetan Buddhism defined as 'the separation of the most subtle Body and Mind from the more gross aspects of the Body and Mind'. As the separation is a gradual process, death is not a point in time, like in Western thought, but it describes a period during which this separation occurs. ... {After a time in the bardo state...] the most subtle body/mind is connected to the fertilized egg", to begin a new rebirth.
These words are limiting... but, hopefully someone will get what I'm trying to get at here. There is not a real separation between mind and body, it's just a body is a more relative manifestation of a less relative personal mind, so the seeming lifespan is shorter. If you were to identify the person with the elements, you would think that as soon as the heart stops beating, that there is no one there anymore. This is not so, well really there never was anyone there, but it's just that level of relative manifestation of mind ceased to function like before and is now going to function as food for plant life, or burnt into a crisp and tossed as some ashes, but nothing has really changed but the form of the ongoing process of life.
Through awareness of connections. That doesn't mean there is some inherent mind there. Awareness is a product of consciousness, which is a product of the fermentation of the subtle aspects of the elements rolling around due to the fact of endless sentient as well as endless enlightened beings. The unconscious and the karmic seeds one is not conscious of, is the very same, it's not like a container and it's product, it's that the product is the container held there due to formless levels of self grasping, which are the seeds themselves.
The loop of dependent origination described in the pali suttas reveals a continuum, so your consciousness is simultaneous with the arising of all things, it's not so linear. Though we discuss using the term levels, i.e.; gross, subtle and very subtle so that we can have an understanding, but it's not quite like that on the experiential level when one has that glimpse over and over again with "right view" for contemplation. This is understood directly through meditation in the formless jhanas with "right view" as the platform for contemplation after meditative experience has finished. You'll see that there is nothing there, subtle mind and all it's levels are equally empty, including your awareness of it, it's just that our awareness is generally focused on what is physical, but by inverting awareness we enter into other dimensions of mind that are not physical. This does not make these other levels of mind any more real than the gross though, it's all equally empty of inherent existence and all inter-relative in manifestation.
The Dalai Lama is not talking about an inherent self existence, he's a Gelugpa for the most part and they are not Shentog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhentong. Though, you could say that because the continuum is continuous that it's all just existence rumbling, so there is no inherent emptiness either as it's relative to relativity, but there is also no inherent consciousness, it's all relative but continuous. It's all instant presence. At this point, words just won't do any justice, which is what I think the Shentog view is getting at in order to help people not get too extreme with their view of emptiness. The "click on" to understanding this directly has to happen within a persons mind stream through direct experiential contact with the deepest fact of these things, of course.
Words are tricky!
"Oh, he said self! he said self! That means he's not Buddhist, or that means he's reifying something in an Eternalistic sense!" So you see, further elaboration is generally necessary. Which is why I don't find Dzogchen teachings to be any different from what the Buddha taught, just more direct with what the experience of what the Buddha taught actually is, rather than just the preliminary contemplations and precepts, which by the way are important too... if you need them.
Well first off... It did not come to Buddhism via Bon, not in the Buddhist tradition. It is originally from North India in Udiyyana, maybe more like modern day Pakistan or Kashmir. Supposedly Bon has it's own lineage of Dzogchen, but Bon these days is no different from Buddhism really.
There are no elements of Dzogchen as taught from the Nyingmapa Vajrayana (literally "the old ones" directly from India) tradition that is decipherable from it's original North Indian style of practice, with Mantra, Mudra, and Visualization other than the Tulku element. As well as Yantra Yoga practices which is originally from India, known as the oldest form of systematized yoga in the world, even pre-dating systematized Hatha Yoga.
Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche has a good book on Bon, as he's a scholar of the Bon traditions as well as Buddhist traditions of Tibet. But, he teaches Buddhist Dzogchen from the Nyingmapa tradition directly related to it's Indian Buddhist roots.
We even chant most everything in Sanskrit. There is very little Tibetan chanting in his teachings, even though even the Tibetan words all have very Buddhist meanings to them.
This book though is strictly from Bon sources, so would be more accurate than Buddhist sources which were kind of the imperialist totalitarians of the time, sadly. Good thing the teachings weren't lost even though the politicians didn't seem to reflect much of them?
http://www.amazon.com/Drung-Deu-Bon-Narrations-Languages/dp/8185102937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306190495&sr=8-1