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.
BIG TOPIC :P :Do you believe in the existence of a soul within a human being?
Fascinating, Jeffrey. We had some discussion of the 8th consciousness before, but I didn't really get it. Now it's clear, in the context of this discussion. "The 'I' layer", like HHDL said: the "self". This is what's reborn. And probably, this is what experiences Enlightenment? Or carries the memories of prior practice as one advances over lifetimes?
As I recall, some schools posit a 9th consciousness, someone from Nichiren, I think, posted about that. But it's not widely accepted.
"Although these terms are often used interchangeably, there is a significant conceptual difference between the two. On the whole, Buddhists believe in rebirth while Hindus, Jains, and some Christians believe in reincarnation. Strictly speaking, reincarnation means the assumption of another body by a permanent, eternal self (the Hindu notion of atman or the Christian notion of soul). Most Buddhists do not believe in a permanent self (anatman or anatta, without enduring self) but believe human consciousness (the "I" or self) dissolves at death and that only a subtle mindstream remains. The mindstream carries with it karmic imprints from prior lives (but not memories and emotions associated with prior lives, unless the person is a highly developed spiritual practitioner, in which case reincarnation is possible) and it is this subtle mindstream that conjoins with a new life-form after death. Thus, rebirth does not mean an identifiable human being assuming a new human body. Moreover, in Buddhism, rebirth is not always accomplished in human form. Depending on karmic circumstances, a human being can be reborn as an animal or as a being in any of the upper or lower realms."
If, like the Buddha, you don't teach the transmigration of a consciousness as being rebirth (see MN 38), there are only 6 types of consciousness. Consciousness of sight, of sound, of taste, of tactile sensations (touch), of smell, and of thought (mental phenomena). Consciousness is always defined as awareness of some object, never as a standalone thing that exists as a core.
If you hold to a view that there is a core which is reborn, it makes sense to add new layers of consciousness on to what the Buddha taught. I only say this because it's abundantly clear the Buddha only taught of the 6 types, not 8 or 9 which allow for a "self" to be reborn. We should keep in mind that while many things agree in Buddhism, there are some things that are completely contrary.
Good clarification, cloud. The difference between northern and southern schools, again. But what about upekka's info from the Pali, about a very subtle mind that goes on to rebirth, the vacci sankhara?
Unless I'm missing something somewhere (and I may be!), upekka was just giving his personal explanation and using the Pali terms. If there was something in the earlier sutras that says this, that would be where we'd be looking. It's not really a difference between northern and southern, but in time. The further in time away from the Buddha, the more this idea of a core that transmigrates has taken hold, which was a Hindu concept the Buddha taught was incorrect IMHO. There were those even during his time that had this wrong view, and it's a very appealing wrong view to have because it abates the fear of death.
Again I point to MN 38, about one undertaking the "pernicious view" that consciousness transmigrates and being told flat-out by the Buddha that this was not his teaching. That sutra is actually very detailed, he goes on to show the causes/conditions for the arising of consciousness.
Of course we don't have to be followers of the Buddha. We can always follow the teachings of those who came after him; after all, they may be right. Personally though I think that I trust the Buddha especially when he doesn't go out of his way to comfort us with the kind of realities we'd like to preserve ourselves, he just tells us how it is. The crux of the problem is that a lot that is attributed to the Buddha clashes with other things that were attributed to him, and we have to conclude a lot of Buddhism is not exactly what the Buddha had in mind. We have to try to find him in all of it...
If you believe it is possible for others than the buddha to attain enlightenment then you (can) accept that later teachings could be skillful means to help beings that buddha couldn't attend to in his finite 80 years in one time and place. Buddha was an emmanation nirmanakaya buddha and upon realization of emptiness one comes face to face with the bliss body or the sambogakaya buddha.
Buddha did say the dharma was a raft. Now we got rubber rafts.
The 8th layer is the citta or heart-mind which buddha did teach about. My teacher calls it the indestructible heart essence. This is ultimately what we take refuge in. If we had no capacity to respond to the dharma enlightenment would not be possible but the citta is clear luminous and unimpeded (or clear open and sensitive).
"I wanted to ask you something about the 'ground of being' which Rigdzin Shikpo mentions. Is this 'ground of being' an experience of individual consciousness, or is it a direct experience of a transpersonal reality that we share with all other living beings?"
Lama Shenpen:
The latter.
Student:
"Or is it a bit of both. Perhaps a personal experience that in some way mirrors or echoes a greater transpersonal reality?"
Lama Shenpen:
There is a big question here concerning the meaning of a person, isn't there? A person is distinct from all other persons and yet cannot be separated out as different in nature in any respect.
Actually everything is like that and in a sense everything is the person. There is no world or experience that is not actually the person in the sense that there always has to be that sense of someone in their world for there to be any experience at all and yet when you try to pin down any aspect of the person and the world, there is nothing distinct that can be pinned down.
Nonetheless, everything is quite distinct and unmixed. It is wonderfully strange - completely weird in fact - but wonderful and meaningful at a very deep, heart-felt level.
So the Primordial Ground is the Reality of all of this and out of it everything emerges (without actually ever coming into existence in some sense) and everything returns to it (in the sense that nothing really goes out of existence - everything is always the display of the Primordial Ground.
None of this is conceptually graspable but it is telling us something about how to practice. It is telling us that there is something wonderful and mysterious at the heart of our being, at the heart of reality that is there to be discovered.
"I am trying to understand how to think about consciousness and also how to read Buddhist dharma literature, 'The final reason showing that there is rebirth is that your consciousness, being an entity of mere luminosity and knowing, must be produced from a former moment of consciousness- from a former entity of luminosity and knowing.
It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment of consciousness a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot be posited. In this way, the general and most subtle type of consciousness has no beginning and no end; from this rebirth is established.'
-from Kindness Clarity and insight by the Dalai Lama
In this passage it sounds like a moment of consciousness is always caused by a previous moment of consciousness.
This is what I had always thought. But is this true?
If we cannot locate a moment of consciousness then what do we really know about it? So in some sense I am baffled and I am sensing that personally I am making assumptions and understandings from what I am reading but they don't always match."
Lama Shenpen:
I think you are completely correct in the way you are questioning the logic of what the Dalai Lama is saying.
It is a standard argument for trying to establish rebirth through reasoning but as you notice - it doesn't work on a logical level.
He has got a big problem trying to posit luminosity and awareness as some kind of entity in contradistinction to matter.
This kind of explanation might have worked with less sophisticated audiences as a kind of conventional truth that everyone just accepted like the sun rising in the east - but it cannot be posited as a coherent system of thought.
It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.
Student:
"So perhaps I am not understanding them in context. Or perhaps the authors think about reality differently.
For example what is meant (in The Sky Dragon's Profound Roar by Khenpo Rinpoche) by 'I can't find anything that's born or has a root'?
Does this contradict the previous passage dealing with rebirth or not? It sounds like it does to me."
Lama Shenpen:
It is fundamental to what the Buddha discovered when he Awakened.
He discovered Nirvana, the deathless, beyond birth and death - the truth.
He didn't end birth and death - he discovered it was not real.
Nonetheless in order to explain to ordinary beings that actions matter - karma operates from life to life - he also talked about rebirth.
I think my explanations in 'there is more to death than dying' and in Trusting the Heart of Buddhism are more helpful here though.
Student:
"Or else it is just saying that you can't find causes (the second) and the first is saying that there must be causes although we cannot find them.
Does this make sense?"
Lama Shenpen:
In a way it does - but causes are not causes in the way we think of them in our common sense way of grasping at ideas.
The 8th layer is the citta or heart-mind which buddha did teach about. My teacher calls it the indestructible heart essence. This is ultimately what we take refuge in. If we had no capacity to respond to the dharma enlightenment would not be possible but the citta is clear luminous and unimpeded (or clear open and sensitive).
Jeffrey, do you or your lama have a suttric reference for this? It would be handy.
My lama may but I can't refer to her every question of this forum. She is on retreat. In the second buddhism connect mailing it appears to be her own analysis of her experience of reality. Which I believe supersedes sutric references. Because if we cannot judge reality then we could not determine whether sutric references were reliable. Moses did not climb the mountain and have buddha deposit sutras on him. Her perception may have been influenced by studies of sutras and so forth. There are definitely scriptural sources for example the ratnogotra something or other and the shrimaladevi sutras.
If you want the references you can always read her doctoral thesis The Buddha Within. I have that text but have not delved too deeply. It is a text that you would need preparation to read, such as the book: Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche, her teacher.
So if you are interested the material is available.
For enlightened beings, no clinging, no vitakka viccara, so no rebirth?
yes
have you heard about Ajan Maha Boowa in Thailand who passed away recently? He declaired he was an Arahnts. many people do/did not believe it but the day before his death (i would say Parinirvana) he had said that it was his last body and his remains has already become and becoming relics
For unenlightened beings, the vitakka viccara causes the going forward to another birth?
instead of answering to this question,
just close your eyes and pay attention to any sound do you identify that sound as a particular one or you let go of that sound because you 'know' that is changing?
say you hear phone is ringing you get up to get the phone or your hand search your mobile both are deeds that we can see but vacci sankhara or the response to what you heard was happening in the mind very fast and both deeds that we can see are the results of vacci sankhara
you have to do this type of investigation to see/understand Buddha's Teaching
@Jeffrey I wasn't meaning to be picky, I'm fine with the 8 Consciousnesses theory, but others have said (here and in other earlier threads) that the Buddha only taught 6. So if someone says he taught 8, well...it would be good to back that up, being that we're on a forum with non-Mahayana folks. Not a biggie for me, though.
Bodhicitta I would imagine is when the manas 7th consciousness is not staining the 6 first 6 consciousnesses. That would affect the resting in the alaya somehow.
A practice for overcoming the manas is to be aware of the 6 without the notion of I. This breaks one of the 12 interdependent links (I think), contact, so that craving does not arise and and thus birth and death eventually do not arise.
I believe Lama Shenpen makes the Buddhism Connect accessible to the casual reader by not referring to sutras. She is not giving that kind of homework assignment.
A student writes:
"I wrote a while ago about citta as I was a bit confused by the usage of the word. I think I've clarified my thinking around it.
In brief : citta means heart/mind so can be referred to with possessive noun or as the citta. Bodhicitta is heart/mind of a Buddha and can be referred to as the Absolute Bodhicitta.
There is only one Bodhicitta even though this appears to manifest within individuals. It can be likened to clear white light being split by a prism into rainbow colours and this then can be referred to as the relative Bodhicitta."
Lama Shenpen
I would prefer not to call this relative Bodhichitta. Our individual Bodhichitta, our chitta, is absolute and real even though hidden and even though not graspable as an object of perception.
If we were to take it as an object of perception, however subtly (and it can be very subtle) then it is mere labelling, concepts, empty in itself, it is not the chitta itself.
So any conceptual sense of chitta we have is a false version of the real thing - so its samvrti, kundzop, apparent reality (that is ultimately false) - this is often translated as 'relative' by western writers.
I would say that when we make the aspiration to attain enlightenment like the Bodhisattvas of the past have done we make that aspiration because of the ultimately real Bodhichitta within us that is the essence of our being.
It is moved by the inspiration coming through the stories and the living presence of those following the Bodhisattva path - this is all interpreted using words and concepts to point to some reality that lies beyond them.
Since we take the Bodhivattva vow while not really being able to rest in the Awakened Heart in a sustained way, our Bodhichitta at that time is mixed in with a lot of stuff that is perhaps best described as apparent Bodhichitta. It is taking a form very close to the real Bodhichitta but we havent quite got there yet - so that kind of Bodhichitta that we use to follow the path - that could be called relative Bodhichitta I suppose.
In the end we won't need all that because the real Bodhichitta will be fully emerged, awoken, fully functioning. Yet each of us as an Awakened Bodhisattva will be our own person - we will not have merged into one structureless blob of Bodhichitta - we would still have our own mandala and sphere of activity but totally inseparable and interpenetrating all other mandalas ... how amazing!
However the way others would see us would be mere appearance - so again the way we appear in the world would be samvrti - apparent reality again. But when the vision of beings in this world is pure, they will see the true nature of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas appearing in this world and that is what is called pure vision. They would see what they really are and each would be distinct and yet not separate.
Student:
"When I am open and aware my citta begins to resonate with the Absolute Bodhicitta and through confidence and practice my view becomes less and less obstructed, I see more clearly, my view of life becomes less and less conditioned by what I want it to be and I am able to respond more sensitively and appropriately to what is actually there.
There is in some way a meeting of that individual heart/mind in me with the universal heartmind of the Buddhas."
Lama Shenpen:
Well that makes a kind of sense to think like that - the danger of thinking like this too much is that it begins to sound as if the individual chittas are somehow different from the universal chitta.
It does feel like that to us while we are on the path and so you are right that it feels like we are aligning with something that is coming to us and wakening us - and we are responding and resonating with that. I think it's true to say that.
Then as we respond you could think of that as the influence or adhistana of the absolute Bodhichitta - I think that is absolutely right. So it is a kind of meeting.
That is what faith and devotion are all about - opening to the living truth. But it is not as if we have a separate smaller, incomplete or inferior version heart/mind that is trying to merge with a greater more complete heart/mind - it is more mysterious than that.
If we think too strongly in this way we will find ourselves stuck in concepts. It's tricky isn't it?
But you seem to be thinking along the right lines as long as you keep moving along. It's hard to talk about such subtle and deep things isn't it? It is best to talk about them face to face to be sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and grasping at concepts.
Student:
"I don't know if this is correct but it has helped to reflect on it in the light of trusting my own heartmind and that in it lies the possibility of becoming totally awake and in harmony with all that lives."
I'll tell you about something that happened to me...simply for what it's worth...and I myself don't know what to make of it.
Many years ago a friend of mine was into psychics. So once he convinced me to go to one in Virginia who was, apparently in psychic circles, quite well known. I thought it would be fun and entertaining. It was...particularly since he was a dead ringer for Truman Capote, both in looks and mannerisms. By the time I went to him I had visited Thailand I guess about 3 times, and I asked him why I was so fascinated with Thailand. He responded that he could see me in a past life in a Thai temple, and that my role there had something to do with music...which is interesting, because you rarely hear music in Thai Buddhist temples, other than perhaps during a festival.
About a year later my friend said he had found another interesting psychic. So, again, for the entertainment, I went to that psychic. I asked the same question. And got exactly the same response.
A year or so later another psychic, this time in the Norfolk area when I happened to be traveling down there. Same question, exact same answer. And I assure you, that other than saying I was fascinated with Thailand and asking why, I gave no other information at all about what I had experienced or done there.
Now it turned out that unbeknownst to me, one of the teachers in the school where I was teaching at the time was also a psychic. We were not close friends, but we sometimes socialized. I was stunned to learn she was a psychic, and since we did socialize a bit, I had an opportunity to discuss with her some of her views about psychics and the Thailand thing for me, and so forth. Her take on it was that when someone feels an unusual affinity to another country, it is likely that that was where their -- well, what shall we call it?...soul, spirit...you tell me -- experienced their first life on earth and that there is a hidden desire to return there.
Now, first of all, I take this all with a grain (or perhaps a boulder) of salt. Second, if you're wondering why fortune telling may be an appropriate topic on a Buddhist forum, you can get your fortune told in many Thai Budddhisttemples...and that of course is related more to the animistic beliefs in Thailand, than the Buddhist beliefs, but it is an interesting mixing of cultural beliefs.
Okay, so I know I'm gonna get clobbered, so go ahead.
Okay, so I know I'm gonna get clobbered, so go ahead.
Vinlyn, you don't know some of us! You should look up the old threads on magic, where psychic phenomena were analyzed and discussed. But here's my reaction: psychics usually believe in reincarnation. It was a safe bet for them to say your affinity for Thailand was due to a past life you had there. The one thing I can't explain is why they all brought up music, especially when you say music doesn't happen in Thai temples except for during festivals. (They could've all made the same wrong guess, being ignorant of the fact that music isn't used in the temples generally, but assuming temples had music.) You could research it, and see if musical instrumentation of some sort used to happen in temples more regularly.
But it would've been a better test of their abilities, IMO, to simply ask them to tell you about some of your past lives, did they see any past lives pertaining to Asia? And then see if they came up with Thailand without being cued. You could try it next time, and see what happens. Oracles (clairvoyants) are part of Tibetan Buddhist tradition, too, btw. And they do say we have affinities for things we enjoyed in a past life, for places we loved, etc. It's that attachment playing out and influencing our interests in the present life.
Okay, so I know I'm gonna get clobbered, so go ahead.
Vinlyn, you don't know some of us! You should look up the old threads on magic, where psychic phenomena were analyzed and discussed. But here's my reaction: psychics usually believe in reincarnation. It was a safe bet for them to say your affinity for Thailand was due to a past life you had there. The one thing I can't explain is why they all brought up music, especially when you say music doesn't happen in Thai temples except for during festivals. (They could've all made the same wrong guess, being ignorant of the fact that music isn't used in the temples generally, but assuming temples had music.) You could research it, and see if musical instrumentation of some sort used to happen in temples more regularly.
But it would've been a better test of their abilities, IMO, to simply ask them to tell you about some of your past lives, did they see any past lives pertaining to Asia? And then see if they came up with Thailand without being cued. You could try it next time, and see what happens. Oracles (clairvoyants) are part of Tibetan Buddhist tradition, too, btw. And they do say we have affinities for things we enjoyed in a past life, for places we loved, etc. It's that attachment playing out and influencing our interests in the present life.
There won't be any next time. I had my fun, and some pretty interesting experiences with psychics, but that was long in the past.
there is no such thing as a hindu/abrahamic soul. there's something, but it is not the ghosty/animistic soul.
Psychics tend toward New Age beliefs, not any scripturally-based religion. Well, maybe not all psychics. Sylvia Browne was a Gnostic Christian. (Well, and it's debatable as to whether or not she's a bona-fide psychic.) But Christianity included belief in reincarnation until a few hundred years after Christ.
After death, Who gets enlightened? And after enlightenment, is our personality being annihilated? What's your Buddhist beliefs on that issue?
Actually, I think this is a good question. We're taught that our path to Enlightenment in this lifetime is a stage, and that the process will continue in the next lifetime. That implies, obviously, that something is carried over, and there's a progression in "our" path toward Enlightenment. So...how does that work? There's no self, but what is it that stores the cumulative experience of our practice, those learnings? This is a very important question.
Habits, traits, can remain. The illusion of self will be eradicated.
Aha--habits, traits can remain (as well as learned experience). What is the mechanism by which they remain? To what do they bind, in order to carry over to another life? How do we support/explain this assertion?
And yes, personality changes, personal growth happens, but that doesn't mean we become a completely different person. There is a core that remains.
This may seem like the same-old same-old discussion, but it's been presented a little differently, and raises an interesting new point, viewing the same-old from a slightly different angle. Let's allow the new members to enjoy (as well as a few of the longer-standing members) contributing, rather than making them look up old threads every time they post a re-run thread.
The subtle consciousness spoken of by HHDL is not a soul nor is it something unchanging. HHDL has never proposed something unchanging or a self. Any mentions of 'self' are merely convenient labels collating a stream of impermanent experiences... they are not to be taken as a real self.
With regards to Alaya:
"Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html): *Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas. The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind."
If, like the Buddha, you don't teach the transmigration of a consciousness as being rebirth (see MN 38), there are only 6 types of consciousness. Consciousness of sight, of sound, of taste, of tactile sensations (touch), of smell, and of thought (mental phenomena). Consciousness is always defined as awareness of some object, never as a standalone thing that exists as a core.
If you hold to a view that there is a core which is reborn, it makes sense to add new layers of consciousness on to what the Buddha taught. I only say this because it's abundantly clear the Buddha only taught of the 6 types, not 8 or 9 which allow for a "self" to be reborn. We should keep in mind that while many things agree in Buddhism, there are some things that are completely contrary.
According to Walpola Rahula all levels of consciousness are cited in the Pail canon,
"all the elements of the Yogācāra storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pāli Canon.[23] He writes that the three layers of the mind (citta, manas, and vijñana) as presented by Asaṅga are also mentioned in the Pāli Canon: "Thus we can see that 'Vijñāna' represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the 'Vijñāna-skandha'. 'Manas' represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. 'Citta' which is here called 'Ālayavijñāna', represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future possibilities."[24]
Additionally, according to scholar Roger R. Jackson, a "'fundamental unconstructed awareness' (mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna)" is "described . . . frequently in Yogacara literature."[25]"
A soul is something unique to an individual that survives death and the destruction of the body and brain. Since this soul by definition cannot be composed by matter that our senses can detect, it must remain a belief.
If you believe in something eternal that is not subject to death, then whether or not this essence goes to a hypothetical reward of Heaven or Hell, finds a new body to inhabit, or just hangs around and haunts the Earth requires an entirely different set of beliefs in what can never be directly observed. Nobody has any way of knowing if their after death destination beliefs are the right ones. Maybe all are right, maybe none.
Did some early Buddhists believe there was something that survived death that was unique to an individual? The scholars here have quoted sutras to prove that they did, in at least some cases. Do at least some Buddhists today believe in some sort of soul by certain definitions? Again, that is an obvious yes.
Does the Buddhist doctrine of no-self and emptiness through into doubt the entire concept of "you" surviving death? Oh, yes. Fear of extinction, fear of becomming something that is "not me", fear of death and the anguish of knowing all this you hold dear must end someday is the driving force to any religion. But what we want reality to be and what reality is are two entirely separate things. Many people accept impermanence and manage to live fulfilled lives without a belief in something after death.
Yet, many Buddhists continue to believe that they survive death, so obviously there are two sides to the issue.
But I think it's important to ask the question, and struggle with the answers, because you have to chew on the subject a long time to gain comprehension. In saying a subject is an imponderable, the Buddha did not tell his disciples to shut up and stop asking the question. He remained silent and let them continue to chew. So this question must continue to be asked, here on the board and in your own minds. This isn't a reference library, after all. It's a place where the same important questions will be discussed over and over, and maybe we'll have different answers next time. For old posters as well as new people.
Now, do I believe there is a soul, or something that is uniquely me that survives death? No, because I'm a skeptic by nature and my mind can't believe anything unless it makes sense according to my experience and learning. But that's me. It's why I couldn't follow my family religion that required belief without proof. Maybe they're right, maybe it's a defect in my own mind. But it's me.
As far as the existence of a soul within a human being or not?
What about "none of the above"?
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? ...'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... '
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me." MN 63
"I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view:
'The soul & the body are the same: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"
"...no..."
"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"
"...no..."
"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked (these things) he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these... positions?"
"Vaccha, the position that...The soul & the body are the same...The soul is one thing and the body another... is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with." MN 72
The flame must have an observer. Or rather an experience appearing in awareness. That is what we mean by a flame. Buddha said that its like a fire. When the wood has gone, then the question of where the fire has gone does not apply. I recall reading that in my class of the Pali Canon.
A soul is something unique to an individual that survives death and the destruction of the body and brain. Since this soul by definition cannot be composed by matter that our senses can detect, it must remain a belief.
This is not a good argument. Thoughts and feelings aren't made of matter and never has any of the five senses ever seen them, still you can detect them. Tell anyone thoughts are just a belief and they will laugh at you.
Of course, Buddhism doesn't teach about a personal soul, but still the mind can see into itself more deeply than just the superficial level of thoughts and emotions.
(re: Fed's post and others leading up to it) I think that's what most of us have been saying for oh-so-many-threads, only it wasn't explained with such clarity and in so much detail as on this thread. The very subtle consciousness (i.e. the "flame"), carrying the traits, habits, imprints of past experiences or dharma study (what CW calls "learnings") and karmic code, lights the new "candle". By George, I think I've got it!
A soul is something unique to an individual that survives death and the destruction of the body and brain. Since this soul by definition cannot be composed by matter that our senses can detect, it must remain a belief.
This is not a good argument. Thoughts and feelings aren't made of matter and never has any of the five senses ever seen them, still you can detect them. Tell anyone thoughts are just a belief and they will laugh at you.
Of course, Buddhism doesn't teach about a personal soul, but still the mind can see into itself more deeply than just the superficial level of thoughts and emotions.
Or at least, that's what the scriptures tell.
Oh, I love that. How much does a thought weigh? You can measure all sorts of things, like electrochemical activitity in the brain and adrenelin levels in the body, but you can't measure a thought or see an emotion. If you could trace the exact path of the neuron network in the brain when someone thinks of an idea, you will never know what that idea actually is. In the same way, that adreneline and pounding heart, is that fear or anger or excitement? And when the thought is gone, when the emotion is gone, where do they go to? Take away the brain, and what happens to the thoughts or emotions?
It's emptiness, in a nutshell. The skandhas are empty. It doesn't mean they don't exist.
"He assumes about the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity': 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
Comments
As I recall, some schools posit a 9th consciousness, someone from Nichiren, I think, posted about that. But it's not widely accepted.
"Although these terms are often used interchangeably, there is a significant conceptual difference between the two. On the whole, Buddhists believe in rebirth while Hindus, Jains, and some Christians believe in reincarnation. Strictly speaking, reincarnation means the assumption of another body by a permanent, eternal self (the Hindu notion of atman or the Christian notion of soul). Most Buddhists do not believe in a permanent self (anatman or anatta, without enduring self) but believe human consciousness (the "I" or self) dissolves at death and that only a subtle mindstream remains. The mindstream carries with it karmic imprints from prior lives (but not memories and emotions associated with prior lives, unless the person is a highly developed spiritual practitioner, in which case reincarnation is possible) and it is this subtle mindstream that conjoins with a new life-form after death. Thus, rebirth does not mean an identifiable human being assuming a new human body. Moreover, in Buddhism, rebirth is not always accomplished in human form. Depending on karmic circumstances, a human being can be reborn as an animal or as a being in any of the upper or lower realms."
If you hold to a view that there is a core which is reborn, it makes sense to add new layers of consciousness on to what the Buddha taught. I only say this because it's abundantly clear the Buddha only taught of the 6 types, not 8 or 9 which allow for a "self" to be reborn. We should keep in mind that while many things agree in Buddhism, there are some things that are completely contrary.
Again I point to MN 38, about one undertaking the "pernicious view" that consciousness transmigrates and being told flat-out by the Buddha that this was not his teaching. That sutra is actually very detailed, he goes on to show the causes/conditions for the arising of consciousness.
Of course we don't have to be followers of the Buddha. We can always follow the teachings of those who came after him; after all, they may be right. Personally though I think that I trust the Buddha especially when he doesn't go out of his way to comfort us with the kind of realities we'd like to preserve ourselves, he just tells us how it is.
Buddha did say the dharma was a raft. Now we got rubber rafts.
"I wanted to ask you something about the 'ground of being' which Rigdzin Shikpo mentions. Is this 'ground of being' an experience of individual consciousness, or is it a direct experience of a transpersonal reality that we share with all other living beings?"
Lama Shenpen:
The latter.
Student:
"Or is it a bit of both. Perhaps a personal experience that in some way mirrors or echoes a greater transpersonal reality?"
Lama Shenpen:
There is a big question here concerning the meaning of a person, isn't there? A person is distinct from all other persons and yet cannot be separated out as different in nature in any respect.
Actually everything is like that and in a sense everything is the person. There is no world or experience that is not actually the person in the sense that there always has to be that sense of someone in their world for there to be any experience at all and yet when you try to pin down any aspect of the person and the world, there is nothing distinct that can be pinned down.
Nonetheless, everything is quite distinct and unmixed. It is wonderfully strange - completely weird in fact - but wonderful and meaningful at a very deep, heart-felt level.
So the Primordial Ground is the Reality of all of this and out of it everything emerges (without actually ever coming into existence in some sense) and everything returns to it (in the sense that nothing really goes out of existence - everything is always the display of the Primordial Ground.
None of this is conceptually graspable but it is telling us something about how to practice. It is telling us that there is something wonderful and mysterious at the heart of our being, at the heart of reality that is there to be discovered.
"I am trying to understand how to think about consciousness and also how to read Buddhist dharma literature, 'The final reason showing that there is rebirth is that your consciousness, being an entity of mere luminosity and knowing, must be produced from a former moment of consciousness- from a former entity of luminosity and knowing.
It is not possible for consciousness to be produced from matter as its substantial cause. Once consciousness is produced from a former moment of consciousness a beginning to the continuum of consciousness cannot be posited. In this way, the general and most subtle type of consciousness has no beginning and no end; from this rebirth is established.'
-from Kindness Clarity and insight by the Dalai Lama
In this passage it sounds like a moment of consciousness is always caused by a previous moment of consciousness.
This is what I had always thought. But is this true?
If we cannot locate a moment of consciousness then what do we really know about it? So in some sense I am baffled and I am sensing that personally I am making assumptions and understandings from what I am reading but they don't always match."
Lama Shenpen:
I think you are completely correct in the way you are questioning the logic of what the Dalai Lama is saying.
It is a standard argument for trying to establish rebirth through reasoning but as you notice - it doesn't work on a logical level.
He has got a big problem trying to posit luminosity and awareness as some kind of entity in contradistinction to matter.
This kind of explanation might have worked with less sophisticated audiences as a kind of conventional truth that everyone just accepted like the sun rising in the east - but it cannot be posited as a coherent system of thought.
It is very clumsy and full of holes and contradictions. It is not well thought out at all and doesn't go very far.
Student:
"So perhaps I am not understanding them in context. Or perhaps the authors think about reality differently.
For example what is meant (in The Sky Dragon's Profound Roar by Khenpo Rinpoche) by 'I can't find anything that's born or has a root'?
Does this contradict the previous passage dealing with rebirth or not? It sounds like it does to me."
Lama Shenpen:
It is fundamental to what the Buddha discovered when he Awakened.
He discovered Nirvana, the deathless, beyond birth and death - the truth.
He didn't end birth and death - he discovered it was not real.
Nonetheless in order to explain to ordinary beings that actions matter - karma operates from life to life - he also talked about rebirth.
I think my explanations in 'there is more to death than dying' and in Trusting the Heart of Buddhism are more helpful here though.
Student:
"Or else it is just saying that you can't find causes (the second) and the first is saying that there must be causes although we cannot find them.
Does this make sense?"
Lama Shenpen:
In a way it does - but causes are not causes in the way we think of them in our common sense way of grasping at ideas.
If you want the references you can always read her doctoral thesis The Buddha Within. I have that text but have not delved too deeply. It is a text that you would need preparation to read, such as the book: Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness by Khenpo Gyamptso Tsultrim Rinpoche, her teacher.
So if you are interested the material is available.
have you heard about Ajan Maha Boowa in Thailand who passed away recently? He declaired he was an Arahnts.
many people do/did not believe it but the day before his death (i would say Parinirvana) he had said that it was his last body
and
his remains has already become and becoming relics instead of answering to this question,
just close your eyes and pay attention to any sound
do you identify that sound as a particular one or you let go of that sound because you 'know' that is changing?
say you hear phone is ringing
you get up to get the phone or your hand search your mobile
both are deeds that we can see
but vacci sankhara or the response to what you heard was happening in the mind very fast
and both deeds that we can see are the results of vacci sankhara
you have to do this type of investigation to see/understand Buddha's Teaching
A practice for overcoming the manas is to be aware of the 6 without the notion of I. This breaks one of the 12 interdependent links (I think), contact, so that craving does not arise and and thus birth and death eventually do not arise.
A student writes:
"I wrote a while ago about citta as I was a bit confused by the usage of the word. I think I've clarified my thinking around it.
In brief : citta means heart/mind so can be referred to with possessive noun or as the citta. Bodhicitta is heart/mind of a Buddha and can be referred to as the Absolute Bodhicitta.
There is only one Bodhicitta even though this appears to manifest within individuals. It can be likened to clear white light being split by a prism into rainbow colours and this then can be referred to as the relative Bodhicitta."
Lama Shenpen
I would prefer not to call this relative Bodhichitta. Our individual Bodhichitta, our chitta, is absolute and real even though hidden and even though not graspable as an object of perception.
If we were to take it as an object of perception, however subtly (and it can be very subtle) then it is mere labelling, concepts, empty in itself, it is not the chitta itself.
So any conceptual sense of chitta we have is a false version of the real thing - so its samvrti, kundzop, apparent reality (that is ultimately false) - this is often translated as 'relative' by western writers.
I would say that when we make the aspiration to attain enlightenment like the Bodhisattvas of the past have done we make that aspiration because of the ultimately real Bodhichitta within us that is the essence of our being.
It is moved by the inspiration coming through the stories and the living presence of those following the Bodhisattva path - this is all interpreted using words and concepts to point to some reality that lies beyond them.
Since we take the Bodhivattva vow while not really being able to rest in the Awakened Heart in a sustained way, our Bodhichitta at that time is mixed in with a lot of stuff that is perhaps best described as apparent Bodhichitta. It is taking a form very close to the real Bodhichitta but we havent quite got there yet - so that kind of Bodhichitta that we use to follow the path - that could be called relative Bodhichitta I suppose.
In the end we won't need all that because the real Bodhichitta will be fully emerged, awoken, fully functioning. Yet each of us as an Awakened Bodhisattva will be our own person - we will not have merged into one structureless blob of Bodhichitta - we would still have our own mandala and sphere of activity but totally inseparable and interpenetrating all other mandalas ... how amazing!
However the way others would see us would be mere appearance - so again the way we appear in the world would be samvrti - apparent reality again. But when the vision of beings in this world is pure, they will see the true nature of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas appearing in this world and that is what is called pure vision. They would see what they really are and each would be distinct and yet not separate.
Student:
"When I am open and aware my citta begins to resonate with the Absolute Bodhicitta and through confidence and practice my view becomes less and less obstructed, I see more clearly, my view of life becomes less and less conditioned by what I want it to be and I am able to respond more sensitively and appropriately to what is actually there.
There is in some way a meeting of that individual heart/mind in me with the universal heartmind of the Buddhas."
Lama Shenpen:
Well that makes a kind of sense to think like that - the danger of thinking like this too much is that it begins to sound as if the individual chittas are somehow different from the universal chitta.
It does feel like that to us while we are on the path and so you are right that it feels like we are aligning with something that is coming to us and wakening us - and we are responding and resonating with that. I think it's true to say that.
Then as we respond you could think of that as the influence or adhistana of the absolute Bodhichitta - I think that is absolutely right. So it is a kind of meeting.
That is what faith and devotion are all about - opening to the living truth. But it is not as if we have a separate smaller, incomplete or inferior version heart/mind that is trying to merge with a greater more complete heart/mind - it is more mysterious than that.
If we think too strongly in this way we will find ourselves stuck in concepts. It's tricky isn't it?
But you seem to be thinking along the right lines as long as you keep moving along. It's hard to talk about such subtle and deep things isn't it? It is best to talk about them face to face to be sure that we are not talking at cross purposes and grasping at concepts.
Student:
"I don't know if this is correct but it has helped to reflect on it in the light of trusting my own heartmind and that in it lies the possibility of becoming totally awake and in harmony with all that lives."
Lama Shenpen:
That is the main point. So that is good!
Many years ago a friend of mine was into psychics. So once he convinced me to go to one in Virginia who was, apparently in psychic circles, quite well known. I thought it would be fun and entertaining. It was...particularly since he was a dead ringer for Truman Capote, both in looks and mannerisms. By the time I went to him I had visited Thailand I guess about 3 times, and I asked him why I was so fascinated with Thailand. He responded that he could see me in a past life in a Thai temple, and that my role there had something to do with music...which is interesting, because you rarely hear music in Thai Buddhist temples, other than perhaps during a festival.
About a year later my friend said he had found another interesting psychic. So, again, for the entertainment, I went to that psychic. I asked the same question. And got exactly the same response.
A year or so later another psychic, this time in the Norfolk area when I happened to be traveling down there. Same question, exact same answer. And I assure you, that other than saying I was fascinated with Thailand and asking why, I gave no other information at all about what I had experienced or done there.
Now it turned out that unbeknownst to me, one of the teachers in the school where I was teaching at the time was also a psychic. We were not close friends, but we sometimes socialized. I was stunned to learn she was a psychic, and since we did socialize a bit, I had an opportunity to discuss with her some of her views about psychics and the Thailand thing for me, and so forth. Her take on it was that when someone feels an unusual affinity to another country, it is likely that that was where their -- well, what shall we call it?...soul, spirit...you tell me -- experienced their first life on earth and that there is a hidden desire to return there.
Now, first of all, I take this all with a grain (or perhaps a boulder) of salt. Second, if you're wondering why fortune telling may be an appropriate topic on a Buddhist forum, you can get your fortune told in many Thai Budddhisttemples...and that of course is related more to the animistic beliefs in Thailand, than the Buddhist beliefs, but it is an interesting mixing of cultural beliefs.
Okay, so I know I'm gonna get clobbered, so go ahead.
:screwy:
But it would've been a better test of their abilities, IMO, to simply ask them to tell you about some of your past lives, did they see any past lives pertaining to Asia? And then see if they came up with Thailand without being cued. You could try it next time, and see what happens. Oracles (clairvoyants) are part of Tibetan Buddhist tradition, too, btw. And they do say we have affinities for things we enjoyed in a past life, for places we loved, etc. It's that attachment playing out and influencing our interests in the present life.
With regards to Alaya:
"Glossary (from http://www.kheper.net/topics/Buddhism/Yogacara_glossary.html): *Alaya-vijnana, or "store consciousness" -- one of the central technical terms of Yogacara (Vijnanavada, Vijnaptimatra) philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism. Early Buddhists taught about existence of six-fold consciousness, that is the conciousness of five types of perception (visual, audial, etc.) and of "mind" (manovijnana). The Yogacarins analysing the source of consciousness added two more kinds of consciousness. They are: klistamanovijnana, or manas, that is the ego-centre of an empirical personality, and alaya-vijnana which is the source of other kinds of consciousness. Alaya-vijnana is above subject-object opposition but it is not a kind of absolute mind: alaya-vijnana is momentary and non-substantial. Every sentient being with the corresponding to this being "objective" world can be reduced to its "own" alaya-vijnana. Therefore, classical Yogacara states the existence of many alayas. The Alaya-vijnana is a receptacle and container of the so-called "seeds" (bija), or elementary units of past experiences. These bijas project themselves as an illusionary world of empirical subjects and corresponding objects. All other seven types of consciousness are but transformations (parinama) of alaya-vijnana. In the course of its yogic practice a Yogacarin must empty alaya-vijnana of its contents. Thus the Yogacarin puts an end to the tendency of external projections of alaya-vijnana changing it into non-dual (advaya) wisdom (jnana) of Enlightened mind."
"all the elements of the Yogācāra storehouse-consciousness are already found in the Pāli Canon.[23] He writes that the three layers of the mind (citta, manas, and vijñana) as presented by Asaṅga are also mentioned in the Pāli Canon: "Thus we can see that 'Vijñāna' represents the simple reaction or response of the sense organs when they come in contact with external objects. This is the uppermost or superficial aspect or layer of the 'Vijñāna-skandha'. 'Manas' represents the aspect of its mental functioning, thinking, reasoning, conceiving ideas, etc. 'Citta' which is here called 'Ālayavijñāna', represents the deepest, finest and subtlest aspect or layer of the Aggregate of consciousness. It contains all the traces or impressions of the past actions and all good and bad future possibilities."[24]
Additionally, according to scholar Roger R. Jackson, a "'fundamental unconstructed awareness' (mūla-nirvikalpa-jñāna)" is "described . . . frequently in Yogacara literature."[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogacara#Origination
However, I have not read the citations in the text so I could not comment further on its validity until I do.
If you believe in something eternal that is not subject to death, then whether or not this essence goes to a hypothetical reward of Heaven or Hell, finds a new body to inhabit, or just hangs around and haunts the Earth requires an entirely different set of beliefs in what can never be directly observed. Nobody has any way of knowing if their after death destination beliefs are the right ones. Maybe all are right, maybe none.
Did some early Buddhists believe there was something that survived death that was unique to an individual? The scholars here have quoted sutras to prove that they did, in at least some cases. Do at least some Buddhists today believe in some sort of soul by certain definitions? Again, that is an obvious yes.
Does the Buddhist doctrine of no-self and emptiness through into doubt the entire concept of "you" surviving death? Oh, yes. Fear of extinction, fear of becomming something that is "not me", fear of death and the anguish of knowing all this you hold dear must end someday is the driving force to any religion. But what we want reality to be and what reality is are two entirely separate things. Many people accept impermanence and manage to live fulfilled lives without a belief in something after death.
Yet, many Buddhists continue to believe that they survive death, so obviously there are two sides to the issue.
But I think it's important to ask the question, and struggle with the answers, because you have to chew on the subject a long time to gain comprehension. In saying a subject is an imponderable, the Buddha did not tell his disciples to shut up and stop asking the question. He remained silent and let them continue to chew. So this question must continue to be asked, here on the board and in your own minds. This isn't a reference library, after all. It's a place where the same important questions will be discussed over and over, and maybe we'll have different answers next time. For old posters as well as new people.
Now, do I believe there is a soul, or something that is uniquely me that survives death? No, because I'm a skeptic by nature and my mind can't believe anything unless it makes sense according to my experience and learning. But that's me. It's why I couldn't follow my family religion that required belief without proof. Maybe they're right, maybe it's a defect in my own mind. But it's me.
What about "none of the above"?
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? ...'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... '
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me."
MN 63
"I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Savatthi, at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "How is it, Master Gotama, does Master Gotama hold the view:
'The soul & the body are the same: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"
"...no..."
"Then does Master Gotama hold the view: 'The soul is one thing and the body another: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless'?"
"...no..."
"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked (these things) he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these... positions?"
"Vaccha, the position that...The soul & the body are the same...The soul is one thing and the body another... is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with."
MN 72
Kamma ripens, and as such each candle replicates the last but is not the same.
Only in enlightenment is the flame extinguished.....
Of course, Buddhism doesn't teach about a personal soul, but still the mind can see into itself more deeply than just the superficial level of thoughts and emotions.
Or at least, that's what the scriptures tell.
It's emptiness, in a nutshell. The skandhas are empty. It doesn't mean they don't exist.
instead
they are arising and ceasing continuously
'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html