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, How Yishai Understands It
Yishai
Veteran
I just wanted to share my thoughts on rebirth. I know this topic gets argued a lot, but after a lot of contemplation, I think I've settled to the bottom with it. Feel free to muddy the water again, but please do it kindly. I'm trying to learn more by questioning and being questioned. If it gets out of hand, I'll ask it to be closed. Anyway, so my conclusions.
Every moment of this life is conditioned by the previous moment by way of karma. This is effectively, to me, the stream of conciousness in samsara. Every minutae of time leads to the next. This is observable. If this is an observable truth, then we can say that it occurs whether or not we are around. As long as there is time, we have this truth.
Everything is transient. Who I am now is not who I am "now". The atoms, thoughts, feelings, and karma, etc. have conditioned this new me. This is rebirth. I cannot remember my exact thoughts two seconds ago, but this form has been conditioned by it.
There is no unchanging self. As everybody knows, impermanence.
So, by observing the present and the past, what happens after death? Assuming that this continual rebirth does not end without an effort to break the chain, it makes sense to believe that another form will arise from this stream of conciousness/karmic stream. The continual destruction and birth of every iota of reality will condition a new form. The conciousness will manifest itself somewhere in some form. Perhaps a brand new baby girl in Australia, or a baby boy in Turkey, or a puppy in Canada, or wherever form is conditioned to arise.
Will this new form be Me? It will be as much as there was a Me two seconds ago. There is nothing inherently Me about it. You can say something is you, but in the next moment, it no longer fits completely. Yet this chain of rebirth can be identified. The form that conditions the next directly can be identified. I think that is why there is past-life recollection.
I don't know the details of the transferrance of this chain, but that seems trivial to me, at best.
If anyone can help me gain a better understanding on this topic, it is much appreciated. I just ask that it is helpful. No need to claim right and wrong. Just a discussion. Where are my fallacies? Have I deviated from a taught principle? Those are things I'm looking for.
Every moment of this life is conditioned by the previous moment by way of karma. This is effectively, to me, the stream of conciousness in samsara. Every minutae of time leads to the next. This is observable. If this is an observable truth, then we can say that it occurs whether or not we are around. As long as there is time, we have this truth.
Everything is transient. Who I am now is not who I am "now". The atoms, thoughts, feelings, and karma, etc. have conditioned this new me. This is rebirth. I cannot remember my exact thoughts two seconds ago, but this form has been conditioned by it.
There is no unchanging self. As everybody knows, impermanence.
So, by observing the present and the past, what happens after death? Assuming that this continual rebirth does not end without an effort to break the chain, it makes sense to believe that another form will arise from this stream of conciousness/karmic stream. The continual destruction and birth of every iota of reality will condition a new form. The conciousness will manifest itself somewhere in some form. Perhaps a brand new baby girl in Australia, or a baby boy in Turkey, or a puppy in Canada, or wherever form is conditioned to arise.
Will this new form be Me? It will be as much as there was a Me two seconds ago. There is nothing inherently Me about it. You can say something is you, but in the next moment, it no longer fits completely. Yet this chain of rebirth can be identified. The form that conditions the next directly can be identified. I think that is why there is past-life recollection.
I don't know the details of the transferrance of this chain, but that seems trivial to me, at best.
If anyone can help me gain a better understanding on this topic, it is much appreciated. I just ask that it is helpful. No need to claim right and wrong. Just a discussion. Where are my fallacies? Have I deviated from a taught principle? Those are things I'm looking for.
0
Comments
Why make this assumption?
There may only be certain times where cessation of this cyclical rebirth is possible. How do we know it is possible though when everything points that it should continue?
One may ask, "Well, where does this energy go that the body used to have which gave us life?" Well, energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it will most likely be given off as heat or through other means. Sure, it will be transferred from your corpse to something else - but is that really rebirth? Its no different than a light-bulb giving off radiation-energy.
Sorry, just being the devil's advocate here.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think concept of rebirth is a bad thing. In fact, I wish I could believe it, but sadly I can't. There is not enough reason for me to personally believe it.
since we can have such view compassion for others is simple. we eat healthy to sustain a future version of ourselves. if we consider this future version as not us then it is easy to view others in the same light.
we take care of those who aren't us already such is the basis for compassion.
it seems rebirth is the continuation of karmic imprints on consciousness.
the freedom from such rebirth is simply to not attach and to see clearly into the nature of such phenomena. all is empty.
whether or not rebirth is a reality is something to be explored when death occurs. i've always had a future orientated outlook.
if rebirth is true, which we will not know for sure then we must cultivate a positive and mind that lets go. and such is a postive way to live life, etc.
most people take the whole materialist route and do not see the implications of staying in the unknown. sure we may not know, but how does that not knowing impact our conduct with our current reality? if we play with the idea of rebirth as even a possiblity (and it might be) we'd live our lives radically different.
the rejection of such rebirth is a kind of nihilism. why do any good act if it doesn't matter? causation is the only real world view that works and the more and more i practice the more and more i am okay with rebirth. though i do admit i have no idea.
sorry about my scatter thoughts.
@taiyaki I appreciate your scatter thoughts : )
My one big hurdle however, is that whatever "it" is that is not born and does not die (form the absolute view of the two truths), what ever that is (which is not self) is the idea of a one-on-one transference, from one being to another.
In other words, why should the death of this being ("me" from the relative view of the two truths) give rise to precisely one other being elsewhere. Why one being? Why not three or eight or sixty-two?
Then again (to argue against myself), there is a one-on-one transference of "me" right now, so why should that change after what we conventionally call "death"?
In a certain sense, I think we ARE the karma that is generated-- we are the ripples of thought, speech and mind expanding ever-outward-- this is why karma matters-- not because of how it would affect "me" (which would be selfish anyway), but how it will affect so many people in ways I may not even foresee-- not only now but for future generations of all beings. In a sense, when it comes to karma, there is not really "my" karma or "your" karma, but JUST karma. It belongs to no one and to everyone at the same time.
If anything, you've given me some really good food for thought, Yishai! Thank you!
()
My thought is that the karma that grasps onto an "I" is the glue, as it were, that holds the karma from one life together until it comes together into another. Just speculation on my part though.
Just an example.
It is not a nihilist thing to not see something that is not there.
A good act doesn’t matter when there is no rebirth?
You’re serious?
What about real compassion?
Looking at your bank account to see you aren't a millionaire is an example of deductive reasoning. I do not have a million dollars in my bank account(s). Therefore, I am not a millionaire by definition. That doesn't have anything to do with morals.
It is easy for someone who strongly affirms their belief in rebirth to act compassionately because their is good reason and our arbitrary values are based in the karma of our actions. Good and bad karma being defined by the Buddha.
You say real compassion. What is real compassion? Why would you act that way? Compassionate acts are carried out by the religious and irreligious every day; I understand that. But they all have different motivations. What would be yours?
One time I raised my voice against my little grandson and then I saw his physical reaction.
I gave this little over-enthusiastic human being something terrible; fear.
Why did that feel bad?
Because it just broke my heart. That's real compassion. We all have it.
We don’t need any difficult Buddhist concepts for that.
It certainly has nothing to do with future lives.
in some ways thats how i view karma and rebirth. we as "beings" will end, but our activity on this time/space will totally effect everything.
just like how the buddha himself is gone, but his words/actions live on through us.
that is how i understand rebirth.
It’s a function of the brain. Mirror neurons do the trick.
the buddha taught the fruition of the Noble Eightfold Path ends karma
any mentality free from 'self-view' is the end of karma the Buddha did not teach about a stream of consciousness. it was later teachers that introduced this notion to Buddhism. the Buddha taught consciousness has been discerned to arise & cease, to be dependently originated (MN 148 or 149). the Buddha said the physical body has more permanence than consciousness (Assutavā Sutta)
imo, the sense of continuity is born from memory and born from conditioned emotions rather than from consciousness Possibly. But, imo, it is the continuation of the body & its breathing causing the arising of one moment after another.
Sure, consciousness also arises moment by moment but the last moment of consciousness also passes, just like the last breath has passed
sure sounds reasonable
but on this level of anatta understanding, the Buddha did not use the word "rebirth"
on this level of anatta understanding, the Buddha used the word 'birth' (jati)
a same sense of 'self' is not 'reborn'. each sense of 'self' is a new sense of 'self'. it is new birth rather than 'rebirth'
it is to take birth again. it is to be 'born again' (rather than 'rebirth')
as you said, it is a "new me" (rather than the same me reborn) not really
the atoms, emotions, etc, also have a root in the physical body
for example, sexual lust. human beings, as teenagers, start to develop strong sexual lust due to hormonal/physical changes
feelings (of pleasure & pain) are rooted in the physical nervous system
to postulate a stream of karma after physical death is mere speculation
regardless, it does not end suffering
with metta
DD
That's what I said. :orange:
When thought arise, I arise,
When feelings arise, I arise
but it is not "I" that glues thought and emotions or all mental factors. I is just a byproduct of mental factors.
Getting rid of the mental factors is the end of karma...I might be wrong tho...