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.
KarunaDharmakaya: You're right Compassion Dharma Body.
find the true self and there wont need to be a topic of reincarnation for us.
According to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the true self or atman is our Buddha-nature. Our atman or Buddha-nature is also unconditioned. On the other hand, rebirth/reincarnation only pertains to the conditioned.
Those who only see the conditioned/anâtman, craving it, are subject to endless births and deaths. They have, inadvertently, willed their own demise, chasing after what is not the self or Buddha-nature.
@Songhill, True Self is Buddha-Nature... now that I agree with! And yet it's not self in the conventional sense at all, it's a process. It's not conditioned phenomena, but that which conditions phenomena (and so is itself unconditioned). There's nothing there, nothing whatsoever to grasp. It's the reason that form is emptiness, and emptiness is form. We can't grasp even to emptiness (also not-self), but have to let all of it go.
If you want to know your own nature, what you are, all you have to do is look around. There's not anything that isn't teaching you... it's all Dharma. All of it.
Elightenment is empty of everything but itself also known as non-empty for it is not truely empty. Tathagatagarbha sutras teach what is known as shentong.
"The only thing that stays the same is everything changes." Just that.
Don't believe it? Perfect! Then you'll want to look for yourself, to meditate and find out! It's not that you find something, like a self, when you look... it's exactly that you don't find one. There's nothing to grasp. That releases the mind from clinging to conditioned phenomena or identifying with them. The realization of emptiness is Nirvana. Ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering all cease. The burning ceases leaving only coolness; peace.
C'mon guys/gals don't make this so difficult on yourselves.
Thats not true,ur saying the only thing that stays the same is impermanence(everything chnges)also known as dependent origination.
This is not correct and why?DO/impermanence has its root in IGNORANCE which is 1 of the 3 poisons,sir the Buddha is permrnately without ignorance,the Buddha is not impermanent.
if everything is impeanent anf changes tell me does the Buddha ever change?does he gain back the 3 poisons ot has hr permentaly done away with the 3 poisons?
Also sir you dont find the true self in meditation,what you do find is that you sir ARE the tainted self and you cease to exist,when "you" become the True self(Buddha)
Also the Buddha stated anhilation of an existing being(jiva)was wrong view,there is always life existing forever,its either life as Buddhs or life in constant rebirth eiyher way jiva is forever.
There's only one way to find out. Just look. Belief gives way to direct experience. We can never be sure of anything if we only believe in our ideas or concepts. The concepts can trip us up, but direct experience is direct experience.
Its not a belief its the Buddhas teachings,what uou are saying is the Buddha is wrong and you are correct,im sorry that nothingness is all you have experienced,and all you have gotten out of the massive amout of suttas/sutra amounts to realising nothing.
Woah down boy. I wouldn't dream of saying the Buddha was wrong. As long as we're still stuck in self-view we're going to misunderstand the teachings. There'll be a point where we can understand how this self-view is wrong, but still not see it for ourselves. Then comes the point where we do see it for ourselves, and the false self begins to drop away.
I'm not talking about nihilism or annihilation. There's no actual self to annihilate. It's ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering that cease. It's not nothingness... it's emptiness. They're not the same thing.
The Buddha taught suffering and the cessation of suffering. It's not about a self "becoming eternal", nor about "being annihilated". The Middle Way is not attaching to either of these extremes, as they're not the case.
The Buddha is eternal. Their is no "you" becoming eternal. Their is a false self an the extinction of a false self.just because the "you" ceases doesnt mean it never existed.
Like i said before the Lord Buddha is empty of everything except itself.the Lord Buddha is not empty of itself.nor is the dhadmakaya empty of its virtues or rupa.
The Lord Buddha is called Bhagavan at the begining of evert sutta/sutra can you please tell me what the word Bhagavan means to an indic speaking person please.
Like i said before the Lord Buddha is empty of everything except itself.the Lord Buddha is not empty of itself.nor is the dhadmakaya empty of its virtues or rupa.
In truth, the Buddha-nature is not empty of the unconditioned since it is unconditioned. It is only empty of the conditioned. People who use the conditioned to seek the unconditioned greatly err.
In truth, the Buddha-nature is not empty of the unconditioned since it is unconditioned. It is only empty of the conditioned. People who use the conditioned to seek the unconditioned greatly err.
:clap:
0
DaftChrisSpiritually conflicted. Not of this world.Veteran
No, it's not necessary; Some believe in it and some don't. I happen to be one who does believe in it.
Here is a post I made on a website called Interpals.net on a forum titled "Do you believe in God?"
Sort of...but not really.
I'm an Agnostic who leans towards Buddhism; I don't believe in a creator God. However, I do believe (at least partially) in a unified universe/consciousness that connects all living thongs together; past and present. I also believe that, with how vast and majestic the universe is, that almost anything is possible. I do not believe we are the only lifeforms in the universe (NOT aliens) and I don't believe that this is all that there is to our existence.
However, despite my believing heart, I do have a skeptics mind. Despite what I believe, it could all be wrong. This could very well be all we experience and that we just simply cease to exist after death. Or the Christian God could exist and I'll roast for the rest of eternity.
Despite what we believe, or don't believe, we just simply do not know.
By the way, if I did believe in God, I would be a Deist
I don't outright say the word "Reincrnation", but this is my attitude towards it.
Actually nevermind. It may have been fun, but these discussions get tedious. There's a world of difference between those who think of rebirth in terms of a transmigration and those who think of rebirth in terms of a continuity by way of causality (not to mention those who deny rebirth altogether or only view it as metaphorically applying to this lifetime). It'd just end up being a long drawn-out debate where everyone is pushing their views.
I don't know why I even comment on rebirth/reincarnation posts anymore. No one's coming from the same place, so it's apples and oranges.
I just had a thought, a question, pertaining to this subject:
We have all of these lifetimes, these rebirths, and we're aiming toward the end of rebirth. It's supposed to take many lifetimes...
Well, how did those lifetimes begin in the first place? How did we arise?
I think this question falters before it can start if asked from an understanding or belief of a seperate self. What one often reasons is a whole seperate self is actually just the fruition of a vast conglomeration of karmic inertia with almost as many startings as endings.
No you are not required to believe in reincarnation. In fact if you don't believe, but keep an open mind, your journey will be easier.
The question that many fixate on is what will happen to "me" after death. Entire religions have been built around answering this question. Complete with elaborate concepts of eternalism that are based on more wishful thinking and fear than any thing else.
If you proceed down the Buddha path, you will be answering the real question, what is "me." Not simpling by grasping onto more beliefs, but through direct examination of the nature of reality.
If you proceed down the Buddha path, you will be answering the real question, what is "me." Not simpling by grasping onto more beliefs, but through direct examination of the nature of reality.
If you proceed down the Buddha path, you will be answering the real question, what is "me." Not simpling by grasping onto more beliefs, but through direct examination of the nature of reality.
I just had a thought, a question, pertaining to this subject:
We have all of these lifetimes, these rebirths, and we're aiming toward the end of rebirth. It's supposed to take many lifetimes...
Well, how did those lifetimes begin in the first place? How did we arise?
The Buddha said you can't see a beginning. Even for him it was too long to see back.
Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
Is Reincarnation a necessary belief to be Buddhist? I personally have no belief in it at all, does this mean I would belong to a particular school of Buddhism (e.g. Theravada), is it something I can just brush off and ignore? What are your thoughts?
I wouldn't say it's necessary, but it's definitely a useful concept, in my opinion, and I wouldn't suggest ignoring it without at least exploring it first. (If you're interested, you can find more of my thoughts about rebirth here.)
According to some streams of Buddhism, it is the most important moment of your life. I tend to largely agree.
While some teachers do state that the moment of death is the most important, I would offer that this present moment is always the most important as the only one that you can actually practise in.
According to some streams of Buddhism, it is the most important moment of your life. I tend to largely agree.
While some teachers do state that the moment of death is the most important, I would offer that this present moment is always the most important as the only one that you can actually practise in.
I agree with the present moment being the most important.
Being aware of our inevitable death and being accepting and mindful rather living in fear and denial is very different to pondering about rebirth, in my opinion.
Being aware of our inevitable death and being accepting and mindful rather living in fear and denial is very different to pondering about rebirth, in my opinion.
Sure, speculating about rebirth is a bit pointless. But trying to understand what the Buddha taught on this subject is worthwhile.
Being aware of our inevitable death and being accepting and mindful rather living in fear and denial is very different to pondering about rebirth, in my opinion.
Sure, speculating about rebirth is a bit pointless. But trying to understand what the Buddha taught on this subject is worthwhile.
Sure ... As long as we dont become too distracted from the focusing on the most important aspects :thumbsup:
"It is important to understand that our thoughts, no matter how strong, are not necessarily The Truth. And even if they sound objectively "right", we can ask ourselves whether they foster rightousness rather than relatedness." -from the book, Zen Heart by Ezra Bayda
Does a belief in reincarnation foster rightousness or relatedness? That may be a more grounded way to approach it.
One thing that I have wondered about reincarnation is that if a person goes insane just before death, if the memory of that past life comes back to them really clearly, could it happen a second time?
@RebeccaS - I also felt challenged by this statement when I first encountered it. I re-read it several times, wrote it down in my journal, and still look it over from time to time. Its challenging because its not exactly making any claims other than to ask you to think about about your subjectiveness in the context of your specific thoughts.
Without attempting to define terms, I kinda look at it as this: Why do you (we) need to be right? what is it abou your POV that you need it to be verrified by someone else submitting to it or agreeing with it? its usually a matter of trying to cling to an identity that you feel an attatchment to for fear of the alternative, which is the letting go of your ego and existing in a state of okayness. In terms of debate, its like a way of saying: Is what I am offering helpful to the whole or just to myself? the rightousness is the part where you leave your identity behind and offer selflessness and compassion, and the relatedness part is where you try to make some assertion about your subjectivity in order to gain a stronger sense of your identity.
This is how I use the statement, anyway. I am a recovering (and occasional relapsing) 'know-it-all-aholic'. I used to want very badly for people to tell me that I was 'right', in debate or in response to my unsolicited rants, because the verrification inflated my ego and I loved it. But who are what was I really helping, even if it seemed that I was right? The statement is a tool to help us get over ourselves, because ourselves are the ones blocking ourselves. How this applies to reincarnation, is really for each to apply on thier own. I'm not sure if I can offer anything of real value in terms of reincarnation except for something that probably just fosters relatedness.
Relatedness is a good intention/orientation. The best debates I have been involved with were team debates where debaters had no need to belittle others or use ridicule to win, rather they liked to discuss the topic.
Sure, speculating about rebirth is a bit pointless. But trying to understand what the Buddha taught on this subject is worthwhile.
Excellent point. In the Dhammacakka Sutta, the Buddha declares: “This very craving is that which leads to rebirth." And what is it we crave? If we said the five khandhas, which are equivalent to suffering, we would not be incorrect. This is why the Buddha tells us to abandon the truth (satya) of the origin of suffering (duhkha-samudayam) (S.v.422).
@porpoise - thats my take on it. we seem to try to wrap our identity up with our thoughts. like saying 'i am my thoughts', yet most of our thoughts are just conditioned responses. it goes further than ' i think, therefor i am'... it goes onto, for ex.: 'i think a+B=C, therfor i am some aspect of C, and C is better than D, so i'm good because of my relation to C-ness.'
but its probably better to find a way to relate to the whole alphabet, because C is just as good as Q. Righteous!
Comments
Those who only see the conditioned/anâtman, craving it, are subject to endless births and deaths. They have, inadvertently, willed their own demise, chasing after what is not the self or Buddha-nature.
If you want to know your own nature, what you are, all you have to do is look around.
There's not anything that isn't teaching you... it's all Dharma. All of it.
Tathagatagarbha sutras teach what is known as shentong.
Don't believe it? Perfect! Then you'll want to look for yourself, to meditate and find out! It's not that you find something, like a self, when you look... it's exactly that you don't find one. There's nothing to grasp. That releases the mind from clinging to conditioned phenomena or identifying with them. The realization of emptiness is Nirvana. Ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering all cease. The burning ceases leaving only coolness; peace.
C'mon guys/gals don't make this so difficult on yourselves.
This is not correct and why?DO/impermanence has its root in IGNORANCE which is 1 of the 3 poisons,sir the Buddha is permrnately without ignorance,the Buddha is not impermanent.
if everything is impeanent anf changes tell me does the Buddha ever change?does he gain back the 3 poisons ot has hr permentaly done away with the 3 poisons?
Also sir you dont find the true self in meditation,what you do find is that you sir ARE the tainted self and you cease to exist,when "you" become the True self(Buddha)
Also the Buddha stated anhilation of an existing being(jiva)was wrong view,there is always life existing forever,its either life as Buddhs or life in constant rebirth eiyher way jiva is forever.
We can never be sure of anything if we only believe in our ideas or concepts.
The concepts can trip us up, but direct experience is direct experience.
I'm not talking about nihilism or annihilation.
There's no actual self to annihilate. It's ignorance, craving, rebirth and suffering that cease.
It's not nothingness... it's emptiness. They're not the same thing.
The Buddha taught suffering and the cessation of suffering.
It's not about a self "becoming eternal", nor about "being annihilated".
The Middle Way is not attaching to either of these extremes, as they're not the case.
(It's difficult to avoid these extremes!)
Their is no "you" becoming eternal.
Their is a false self an the extinction of a false self.just because the "you" ceases doesnt mean it never existed.
Like i said before the Lord Buddha is empty of everything except itself.the Lord Buddha is not empty of itself.nor is the dhadmakaya empty of its virtues or rupa.
Here is a post I made on a website called Interpals.net on a forum titled "Do you believe in God?" I don't outright say the word "Reincrnation", but this is my attitude towards it.
We have all of these lifetimes, these rebirths, and we're aiming toward the end of rebirth. It's supposed to take many lifetimes...
Well, how did those lifetimes begin in the first place? How did we arise?
So let's have fun and ponder it anyway!
Namo Buddha who is self aware
Without beginning, without middle, and without end.
Having awoken, wakening the unawakened
Time is a construct.
Actually nevermind. It may have been fun, but these discussions get tedious. There's a world of difference between those who think of rebirth in terms of a transmigration and those who think of rebirth in terms of a continuity by way of causality (not to mention those who deny rebirth altogether or only view it as metaphorically applying to this lifetime). It'd just end up being a long drawn-out debate where everyone is pushing their views.
I don't know why I even comment on rebirth/reincarnation posts anymore.
No one's coming from the same place, so it's apples and oranges.
No you are not required to believe in reincarnation. In fact if you don't believe, but keep an open mind, your journey will be easier.
The question that many fixate on is what will happen to "me" after death. Entire religions have been built around answering this question. Complete with elaborate concepts of eternalism that are based on more wishful thinking and fear than any thing else.
If you proceed down the Buddha path, you will be answering the real question, what is "me." Not simpling by grasping onto more beliefs, but through direct examination of the nature of reality.
Best Wishes
" it's imponderable "
:thumbup:
I tend to largely agree.
Being aware of our inevitable death and being accepting and mindful rather living in fear and denial is very different to pondering about rebirth, in my opinion.
Does a belief in reincarnation foster rightousness or relatedness? That may be a more grounded way to approach it.
Without attempting to define terms, I kinda look at it as this: Why do you (we) need to be right? what is it abou your POV that you need it to be verrified by someone else submitting to it or agreeing with it? its usually a matter of trying to cling to an identity that you feel an attatchment to for fear of the alternative, which is the letting go of your ego and existing in a state of okayness. In terms of debate, its like a way of saying: Is what I am offering helpful to the whole or just to myself? the rightousness is the part where you leave your identity behind and offer selflessness and compassion, and the relatedness part is where you try to make some assertion about your subjectivity in order to gain a stronger sense of your identity.
This is how I use the statement, anyway. I am a recovering (and occasional relapsing) 'know-it-all-aholic'. I used to want very badly for people to tell me that I was 'right', in debate or in response to my unsolicited rants, because the verrification inflated my ego and I loved it. But who are what was I really helping, even if it seemed that I was right? The statement is a tool to help us get over ourselves, because ourselves are the ones blocking ourselves. How this applies to reincarnation, is really for each to apply on thier own. I'm not sure if I can offer anything of real value in terms of reincarnation except for something that probably just fosters relatedness.
but its probably better to find a way to relate to the whole alphabet, because C is just as good as Q. Righteous!
I think I am, therefore there is delusion.