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 ad nauseam
tmottes
Veteran
I have seen a lot of rebirth and reincarnation posts in the short time I have been visiting newbuddhist.com. I tend to believe that this question is answered best through a consistent and focused practice. However, that being said, I am curious about you guys' perspective.
Wikipedia, and others, have suggested that
Here is where my question comes in: what suttas provide the evidence for your belief of the scope of rebirth. I know the buddha spoke of seeing his "past births", but it could be interpreted that these "past births" are simply the patterns in his current existence. Are there other suttas that "push" you in one direction or the other?
Wikipedia, and others, have suggested that
...Each moment is an experience of an individual mind-state such as a thought, a memory, a feeling or a perception. A mind-state arises, exists and, being impermanent, ceases, following which the next mind-state arises. Thus the consciousness of a sentient being can be seen as a continuous series of birth and death of these mind-states. Rebirth is the persistence of this process.This perspective seems reasonable to me. In combination with my experience in life, I can extrapolate this concept to daily cycles/patterns/conditions, habits, etc. For example, my habit of smoking goes through the cycles of rebirth, as well as my thought patterns, reactions to certain stimuli, and even my morning ritual of feeding the dogs. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to extrapolate this idea further to include "my" consciousness. Hell, I can see parents passing on their genes to their children as a form of rebirth (the same flame, but a different candle), civilizations rise and fall... rebirth, species come and go...rebirth. They are just rebirths/cycles/patterns that are not quite the same, but not exactly different; and we chose the scope by which we view them. So I guess I don't see a problem with accepting a continuum of interpretations for rebirth.
Here is where my question comes in: what suttas provide the evidence for your belief of the scope of rebirth. I know the buddha spoke of seeing his "past births", but it could be interpreted that these "past births" are simply the patterns in his current existence. Are there other suttas that "push" you in one direction or the other?
0
Comments
With metta,
Sabre
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html
and here
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.020.than.html
From the first ref: (The second contains something similar).
"He recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes & details.
If the recollection goes back aeons of cosmic expansion and contraction then it is beyond this lifespan.
By following the instruction in these suttas I guess you could verify it too.
/Victor
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.009.than.html
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Or this
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.124.than.html
At the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in conjunction with the devas of the Pure Abodes. This rebirth is not in common with run-of-the-mill people.
Difficult to argue with break-up of the body ... or?
And I guess everybody has argued over this one?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
/Victor
I find the second link a bit more difficult to explain in the scope of each moment. Especially, as I am not sure how to interpret the "devas of the Pure Abodes" phrase.
@person If the process doesn't start with the body, I see no reason it should end with it...
It's valid to talk about mind states being born and then dying, though "arising and ceasing" is probably more straightforward.
I would suggest spending some time reading the suttas, so that you can understand better what they say.
May I ask what you mean by the body that exsits at each infinitesimal small interval of time?
This I found about the body... which contradicts that theory if I understand what you say.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html
It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.
It also answers @porpoise question about moment-to-moment "self experience" somewhat.
Regards
Victor
/Victor
@Victorious I just meant the potential moment to moment rebirth of reality. Something akin to the way that things are quantized in nature: i.e there is no real continuum only the illusion of it. I like that last reference you provided. It seems to embody both the moment to moment rebirth of the mind, in addition to the more gross and difficult to describe rebirth of ego?/form?. Or whatever it is that is reborn.
Enjoy!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/search_results.html?cx=015061908441090246348:al1bklhbjbi&cof=FORID:9;NB:1&ie=UTF-8&q=rebirth
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Maha_Govinda_Sutta
Do you remember this, Lord?" "I do, Pancasikha. At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward, and I taught those disciples the path to union with the Brahma-world.
Or this:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....024.wlsh.html
Now at that time Sarakaani the Sakyan, who had died, was proclaimed by the Blessed One to be a Stream-Winner, not subject to rebirth in states of woe, assured of enlightenment.
How can a dead man, who still had 7 fetters to break at the time of death, be assured of enlightenment if the person is not reincarnated?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....082.than.html
So he burns, poked with sticks, in just one piece of cloth, leaving all his possessions behind. They are not shelters for one who has died — not relatives, friends, or companions. His heirs take over his wealth, while the being goes on, in line with his kamma. No wealth at all follows the dead one — not children, wives, dominion, or riches.
/Victor
There are many references to kamma, rebirth and realms in the suttas, so it's very likely that the Buddha taught about these things.
Why he taught about them, and how they are significant for Buddhist practice is of course open to interpretation. Some have speculated that he made it all up to reach a wider audience, but personally I don't find that theory convincing.
More or less, rebirth is just the metal process continuing its patterns/cycles/conditions (similar to each thought rebirth) after a certain point in the pattern/cycle/condition of the physical process (i.e. physical death); but there is still no "I" that you can point to, because they are ever-changing processes.
That said, it is not clear what you mean. I suppose that I should be asking what the process of "rebirth" is. If this process can be shown or explained then that might answer the question. "Impermanence" would seem to suggest that things end and do not continue indefinitely, so perhaps the question is academic from the start.
My question was more of a rhetorical one. I was simply saying that an understanding of moment to moment rebirth doesn't really answer the question of if there is some kind of continuuation of a mindstream after death.
Yes, your rhetorical device was obviously effective in my case. I'm considering and trying to see your point of view. You'll also notice that I did not attempt to answer your rhetorical question.
In considering your point of view the trouble seems to be understanding what the "process" is, which is why I asked about it.
"Moment to moment rebirth" seems to merely emphasize impermanence or the concept of "no-self," as I understand it. As I pointed out, impermanence is not itself a process but a quality of processes.
I will also reiterate that if impermanence is the rule of the universe or whatever, then yes, things end, people die and do not continue. People and things do however effect other people and things, and those effects or "processes," if you prefer, continue long after death. Maybe that's what you mean, simply that peoples lives have effects which continue beyond their lives. I'm sure everyone can see that.
As to impermanence, a plant sprouts from a seed, grows, blooms and eventually dies. That is a gross kind of impermanence. For that to happen though there has to be a moment to moment type of change happening, that is what is meant by subtle impermanence. So I guess in this context the mind is changing from moment to moment but that doesn't automatically mean it ends when the body ends.
The mechanism of literal rebirth is never really explained in Buddhism so I can't really talk about the process. But just because I don't know how a watch works doesn't mean I can't tell the time.
Like I said I haven't really resolved this for myself, these are just some possible avenues of resolution. I also don't really understand what the problem is with dualism. The difference, as you explained yourself, is that the former has an immaterial component and the latter does not. We can't explain immaterial processes because ... they are immaterial. We can explain a watch because it is material. It's just that simple I guess.
Buddhism seeks to understand the immaterial component of our inner world, our subjective experience through the refined introspection of meditation, so I do think it is possible to explain immaterial processes. This isn't accepted by modern science as an acceptable process because it isn't objective, but the results can be repeated and has been repeated by others willing to take the time and effort to look deeply into their own minds. Our subjective experience, or qualia, seems to be something that science can never touch so shouldn't there be some way to study and understand that as well?
I guess the easiest way for me to understand all this, is to ask myself, does my thumb have a soul?
If mind is impermanent then why can't it simply die as other impermanent things do? The problem is in causality, which I believe is central to Buddhist doctrine concerning karma and rebirth. If mind and matter are independent of each other then a causal link between them does not exist, or it only exists casually. If there's only a casual link causality itself becomes casual. Murder, rape and pillaging may or may not lead to more suffering. Wisdom, compassion and love may or may not lead to less suffering.
And how can matter arise out of mind if there is such a diversity of minds while matter is utterly uniform? We're talking about death. Or do you basically mean that we can remember a previous death and rebirth. That we can remember the process? I'm not sure that would be helpful in understanding the process. For instance, I can't remember my physical birth and even if I could I wouldn't have any idea of how that physical process works without subsequent education in the matter as a developing child and adult. That teaching comes from adults who observe the process occurring in others.
But implicit in that change is spaciousness. Possibilities. And clarity comes of awareness. And sensitivity. I don't know where brain cells end and intuition begins but there is a sensitive quality to a sentient being. This is what we have. This is the primordial ground.
Trungpa said somehting like "The bad news is that we are falling with nothing to grab onto. The good news is that there is no ground to fall, smack, onto."
All knowledge of the world doesn't have to come from empirical observation. I'd say that its impossible, currently at least and probably forever, for a third party to directly observe anothers inner experience. So are we then stuck without any way to understand it? Buddhism says no, that we can turn our minds inward and develop our tool of introspection to look in an unbiased way at what is going on. Those who have done so say that fundamental nature of our mind isn't produced from something physical.
The Buddhist understanding which comes from repeated first person observation is that, when the mind is looked at at a basic level its nature is clear and knowing. A couple of metaphors that are given are that its like a mirror that reflects whatever comes before it or like a flashlight that shines upon an object. The light or the mirror don't change and aren't effected by what they touch but the mind allows for the vivid appearance of phenomena within our subjective experience or the screen of our inner world.
This is really my main point, that our experience isn't entirely physical. That Buddhism has an understanding of the nature of the mind that doesn't come from dogma but comes from investigation into an aspect of our lives that science isn't able to touch.
Regarding my initial question though, all I was saying is that viewing rebirth as a moment to moment occurance doesn't really solve the problem of postmortem rebirth.