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.
Samsara
I think karma is an interesting belief, but I do not understand the notion of samsara. Rebirths are a philosophically beautiful concept; scientifically, however, they seem not to hold up very well.
While most of The Buddha's teachings remain mostly neutral on supernatural ideas, or if not neutral outright against, --which I respect greatly-- samsara seems to still retain this supernatural elements to it that I, as a Western empiricist, have a very hard time accepting as either true or possibly true.
When I was younger, I could easily accept supernatural things, in my teenage years I couldn't accept anything supernatural because it seemed silly, and now I might accept supernatural claims as merely unexplained phenomena. I just require proof.
What does a Buddhist say to this request for reason?
While most of The Buddha's teachings remain mostly neutral on supernatural ideas, or if not neutral outright against, --which I respect greatly-- samsara seems to still retain this supernatural elements to it that I, as a Western empiricist, have a very hard time accepting as either true or possibly true.
When I was younger, I could easily accept supernatural things, in my teenage years I couldn't accept anything supernatural because it seemed silly, and now I might accept supernatural claims as merely unexplained phenomena. I just require proof.
What does a Buddhist say to this request for reason?
0
Comments
from: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
The 'Proof' is quite simply, that you're still here. samsara - like Nirvana - is not some other-worldy, mysterious place, but in essence it is a state of being. samsara is the endless cycle of suffering. Like snakes and ladders. Slip up, and down you go again.
It is simply where we are now. In the constant up and down, see-sawing existence of making mistakes, rectifying, not rectifying and doing our best.
Once we do our best so wonderfully, that we manage to exit the cycle, then we attain Nirvana. This also, is not a place, but just an essence, a state of supreme consciousness that transcends common logic.
To begin with, it is certainly true that there are many things in Buddhism which are difficult, if not impossible, to prove. The literal interpretation of rebirth is one of them. I know of no way in which to scientifically prove or verify that this phenomena is at all possible—all of the most convicing evidence I have seen in support of this possibility has been in the form of case studies and first-hand accounts. Nevertheless, rebirth is an important part of Buddhism. In Buddhist cosmology, there are said to be at least thirty-one distinct realms of existence, and existence within the continual round of birth and death is suffering and bondage.
As for the nature of these realms, they are generally treated as either external realms of existence where rebirth is possible due to the ripening of wholesome or unwholesome kamma (it is said those with the divine eye (dibba-cakkhu) can see these beings vanishing and reappearing) or experiences with no external location, i.e., they are mentally fabricated realities based upon wholesome or unwholesome kamma. My personal belief is that rebirth into any of these realms is a possiblity; although, I am also open to the possibility that these are merely methaphorical descriptions of various pleasant and unpleasant mental states.
Pragmatically, I view samara as the potential for the arising of human [mental] suffering, while I view nibbana as the cessation of that potential. Nevertheless, according to Nyanatiloka's Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, samara, literally "perpetual wandering," is "the unbroken chain of the five-fold khandha-combinations, which, constantly changing from moment to moment follow continuously one upon the other through inconceivable periods of time." The only empirical means of proof that I am aware of is the experience of past life memories that can arise from developing deep states of meditative absorption (MN 39).
I honestly do not believe that rebirth can ever be scientifically disproven until science can at least find a way to rule out the possibility that consciousness can exist outside the body; because as Alan Wallace points out in an interview with Steve Paulson in Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science & Religion, "This very notion that the mind must simply be an emergent property of the brain — consisting only of physical phenomena and nothing more — is not a testable hypothesis... Can you test the statement that there is nothing else going on apart from physical phenomena and their emergent properties? The answer is no."
Perhaps consciousness is simply a by-product of electrochemical processes in the brain, but perhaps there is another dimension to consciousness that science has yet to discover. Either way, another important point that is touched upon by Alan Wallace in the same interview is that, “If your sole access to the mind is by way of physical phenomena, then you have no way of testing whether all dimensions of the mind are necessarily contingent upon the brain.” Until science figures out a way to answer questions such as these, I am able to admit that I take certain concepts such as rebirth on faith—faith in the possibility that they are true.
Jason
I thank the responders for their input.
Palzang
The law of conversation of matter states matter cannot be created or destroyed by ordinary means, but can be changed. Therefore when you die, you dont disapear, the material that makes up your body now will always exist in some form.....be it a tree, or a slug, or whatever, in this way we are all reincarnated. Now does outside force have the power to shift that changing of matter a certain way depending on how we live in our present life? who knows.....its one of those things that right now cant be known, so we cant say yay or nay about it.........heres another one that will make your head spin. As material leaves your body, while you are living....i.e. hair, dead skin, waste..etc....that matter is also being turned into other things, so are we in a constant unending state of reincarnation all of the time?? yipes, I need a drink.....I do agree with simon though its pointless to debate them, just like its pointless to debate the existence of god, so my view is go with what you know to be true, maybe someday the rest will reveal itself.....
Your description of your version of reincarnation focuses simply on physical aspects of the body and the world around it, eve. That's rather missing the point totally and has very little to do with the Buddhist teachings on death and rebirth. It actually has more to do with concept of no-self because where, in fact, do you end and everything else begin? You can't find that point anywhere because it doesn't exist. The notion of "you" is just that - a notion.
Palzang
Had you described 'reincarnation' in this way there, the Moderators would have deleted your post and given you a warning - because there, denying or arguing against the Buddha's teachings is verbotten! You can say you don't understand it, or that you don't know...but you cannot say you doubt it or disagree....!!
And as Palzang points out, Reincarnation doesn't figure in Buddhism. it's an incorrect and misleading term (although granted, many people use it).... rebirth is by far the most accurate term.
And as Voltaire so wonderfully put it -
"It should be no more surprising to be born twice, than it is to be born once!"
Great discussion!:wavey:
OK OK..... I know that was rough for some of you....but before you light the torches, grab the pitchforks, and delete my account know this: I have nothing but love and respect for all of you, and your ideas. I might not think exactly the way you do, but I think deep down at the basic level we all buy into the same thing, or we wouldnt be here. So no offense to anyone, ok? A big Namaste to everyone, you guys definitely make it worth it to sit here and type all this out.......
-e-
I am not adequately versed to be able to respond to your post in its entirety - Palzang, our resident monk, and Elohim, our resident hottie, are far more 'educated' in the Buddha's teachings than I am.
I for one would never dream of deleting your account, censoring your posts or giving you any kind of restriction....
The only posts we object to here is flaming, trolling and being deliberately and provocatively argumentative and 'baiting'... We've had a few, but then again, too few to mention....(do be do be do...!)
And even then, the 'guidelines' we apply are more to do with common courtesy, respect dignity and politeness. They're not specifically 'Buddhist' per se....
so I am certain, that with equal politeness and courtesy (I saw nothing wrong with your post, and believe me, my pitchfork is getting rusty through lack of use!) Palzang, Elohim and perhaps even SimonthePilgrim will respond to your points.
far more lucidly and convincingly than I.... :thumbsup:
There is a lot of information to cover here, but one thing that I always try to stress is that the Buddha's teachings are first and foremost a pragmatic path, that if sufficiently followed, will lead to a precise destination, i.e., nibbana. Essentially, whatever one's view of rebirth, nibbana is first and foremost the cessation of [mental] stress and suffering. When asked, "What now is nibbana?" by Jambukhadaka, Sariputta replied, "The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this, friend, is called nibbana" (SN 38.1). It is also stated by the Buddha that nibbana is "the highest bliss" (Dhp. 204). Furthermore, this freedom from suffering is not contingent upon death. The Buddha himself realized nibbana at the age of thirty-six, at which time he preceded to dedicate the remaining [forty-four] years of his life to teaching the path to the end of suffering. That being said, while there is room for skepticism in Buddhism, there is also a limit to that skepticism. In other words, there is a place for faith (yes, the dreaded word "faith") as well.
In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as "confidence," "conviction," or "faith." More specifically, it is a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that is rooted in understanding as well as what we would conventionally refer to as faith in the West, i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. To give an example, for one to truly take refuge in the Buddha, one has to take his awakening on faith until they too have achieved that particular goal. Until then, they have no way of verifying the experience of awakening until they have experienced it for themselves. Therefore, while saddha by itself is not a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice.
As the Venerable Thanissaro writes in his essay Faith in Awakening, "The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice."
Coming back to the path itself, the teachings on rebirth play an important role. Regardless if individual Buddhists, or people who simply adopt Buddhist practices, utilize the Pali Canon to selectively pick out teachings in order to construct a world view out of them, the Buddha himself made it clear that (i) these teachings and practices are designed to put an end to suffering, and that (ii) these teachings are like a raft to be used to cross a dangerous river—once that river has been crossed, the teachings have served their purpose (MN 22). What this means is that these teachings in and of themselves are not to be used to construct a world view of concepts that act as a theoretical box that practitioners have to fit their experiences and insights into, regardless of what they are, but they are to be used for the specific purpose of leading the practitioner to a direct experience of an unconditional nature—an experience that will free the mind from its afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion. Once that goal is reached, the raft of teachings can be left behind.
The majority of the members and moderators here are exceptionally tolerant of divergent views and opinions, even if we sometimes descend into heated arguments. As such, if one desires to question the validity of certain teachings, they are more than welcome to do so, e.g., we had a very long and often-times heated discussion on anatta (not-self) in which all points of view were allowed to be presented and argued. So, please feel free to speak your mind and let us know what you think.
Jason
Brains and beauty! Next you'll be telling us you've been working out with weights and have gained considerable brawn as well.
Ethan,
Lol!! Don't worry, dear friend! What you posted was wonderful! Full of respect and love. We couldn't ask for more. Questioning is all part of the beginning of the Path, as far as I'm concerned, and if I had a dime for every time I've read about someone's difficulty in taking the concept of rebirth as pure truth based on faith I'd be pretty damned rich. You're allowed to question anything you want to here. Really. As Fede said, when it's done with the same respect and love you've shown it makes you an asset to this forum. This place, (unlike others I could mention but won't
I believe in rebirth for a variety of reasons but not because I want to. If I was to be brutally honest, I wish very much that when I die it would just be the end of it all. I'm tired of suffering. The idea that death won't bring relief from it is almost panic inducing to me, if it weren't for the teachings of the Buddha. In fact, before I ever came to Buddhism I believed in rebirth (well, it was reincarnation then) and I came to Buddhism desperate to find the bloody way out! Lol!! The main reason why I have confidence in rebirth is because I have such confidence in all of the Buddha's teachings, especially the ones of which I have direct experience. I have no reason to doubt the Buddha or his teachings. But that's just me and my personality.
This is exactly what Im trying to say........right here, wonderful thought.....If I didnt trust and beleive Buddha's teachings to a degree I obviously wouldnt be here, but as Jason so rightly puts it we are invited to test these things through practice. My way of putting it was maybe too blunt, or negative....
I think youll all see as I post that my writing style is very loose, I tend to ramble, use alot of weird examples, and use humor where maybe it doesnt need to be used. Its basically the same way I talk, hopefully Ill learn to get my points across a little more elegantly as I go, but be assured Im very serious in my practice, even if it doesnt come across that way.
Glad everyone is cool with the rogue buddhist here....
If we believe that rebirth happens we see opportunities to improve each time around. Otherwise we are working towards only ceasing a certain amount of suffering in THIS existence, not the end of suffering entirely.
No, it doesn't.
I'm afraid you are mistaken, because one of the 5 aggregates, or skandas is Vijnana, or the Consciousness of experience... It is this aspect of ourselves which perpetuates and ensures the continuity of the Consciousness of our current "is-ness"...
"The fundamental teaching in Buddhism is 'all phenomenon has no self'. If there is no self, how can there be rebirth? Are they conflicting each other? No self does not mean no life. No self means our bodily existence of the five skandas and four elements. Its existence is effected by cause and conditions. It does not has a self nature. Thus, it is said to have no self. It is like a piece of gold. It can be made into ring, earing, bracelet. They are a variety of forms. Yet, the nature of gold is unchanged. Our existence is the same. We become Henry or Jack, donkey or horse, heaven and earth. The truth rebirth is not the body. It is the master inside our body."
From here
It is likened to a candle, which you light.
You then take a second candle, and light it from the first.
you blow the first candle out.
Is the second flame the same as the first, or different?
I'm sure someone will either correct my simplistic and possibly inaccurate expos-e, just as some might come in and clarify or improve upon the definition.
For now, this is the only way I can explain it.
Like the "idiot" that I am....!
To identify with any khandha is wrong view. It is repeatedly stated througout the canon that the aggregates are not your self. We had a lengthy discussion about anatta in which some (including me) suggested that the Buddhas approach to the atman was apopathic.
You are trying to bring back a sort of atman into the game and describe it positively. You merely call it conciousness. But since conciousness is also a khandha, wich is impermanent (anicca), it cannot be reborn, it is empty of self (identity) as the other 4 khandhas. If it would be reborn, it would be permanent (nicca)
so you are just teasing my ineptitude, lack of adequate knowledge and 'Ignorance'. :poke:
Ok, fair enough. :winkc:
Rebirth is a miracle to me. I read case studies like Ian Stephenson "Life before Life" and believe that one can understand it only when one sees the self affirmed through apopasis. That is, we are reborn but cannot identify ever what exactly in us is reborn. It remains undetected. Heck, we even cannot say that A=A because anatta says nothing has self identity. So we do not get rebirth by logic
That's all I am able to do.
The deep, meaningful complexities of debating are things I leave well alone. (I even had to look the word 'Apophasis' up!)
I know sooner or later I will tie myself in knots even trying to follow the discussions of others....
I'm sorry if I am not able with anything I say to actually deepen your own understanding.
I sometimes grow frustrated at my own inability and ineptitude. I wish I could know and understand more. But I will have to be contented with merely plodding along.
For now, things remain an enigma and a mystery.
I sometimes think though, that some things are meant to.
but that's just me, and my own 'imponderables'.....
I don't know...
Palzang
While I cannot answer for Palzang, I would like to give you my own answer. We can look at this issue in many ways, but I believe that the most important is to start by understanding that the Buddha himself never answered these types of questions for two reasons. The first reason is that they are based upon faulty assumptions. For example, when asked by a certain monk, "Which is the birth, lord, and whose is the birth?," the Buddha answered, "Not a valid question... From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth" (SN 12.35). Why? Because the question is wrongly put. The second reason is that they do not lead to the end of suffering. For example, when asked who experiences things such as feelings, craving, clinging, et cetera, the Buddha re-framed these questions in a way that was conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising. In other words, when answering the question of "who" or "what" experiences suffering, and consequently, the cessation of suffering, the Buddha speaks only in terms of conditionality—that which conditions the origination of suffering, and that which conditions its cessation (SN 12.12). There is no mention of an "experiencer," only the complex process by which suffering arises and ceases. Essentially, it is up to the meditator to use these teachings as a guideline for observing their experience of the present moment in terms of the Four Noble Truths, and to perform the tasks associated with each, i.e., comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation. Furthermore, the question as it is phrased will inevitably lead to one of the two extreme forms of wrong view, i.e., eternalism and annihilationism. For example, in SN 12.17 the Buddha explains:
"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences' amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
That being said, rebirth is essentially renewal of existence. As with most Eastern philosophies and religions, Buddhism does not view death as the final end of phenomena. In Buddhism, only nibbana is said to be the final end of phenomena in regards to the arising and passing away of beings (AN 10.58). According to the teachings on dependent origination, if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births. To illustrate how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). The last consciousness of a being at the time of death, with the presence of craving, is the cause for the arising of a new consciousness. In the human realm, this would be in combination with the union of a healthy sperm and egg, although the Buddha often mentioned various other forms of birth in other realms of existence—none of which are free from suffering. Hence, the Buddha states, “Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence” (SN 12.38).
So, instead of the question, "What is [re]born?," a more appropriate question is, "What is [re]birth?" The answer that the Buddha gives is, "It is the birth of beings in the various classes (planes) of beings; the production, their conception, coming into existence (re-birth), the appearance of the aggregates, acquiring of the sense-bases. This is called birth" (MN 141). The five aggregates (pancakhandha) or the five clinging-aggregates (upadanakkhandha) are what constitute the physical and mental phenomena of existence. They are the material aggregate (rupa-kkhandha), i.e., matter, the feeling aggregate (vedana-kkhandha), i.e., pleasant, painful, neutral, the perception aggregate (sanna-kkhandha), i.e., recognition, interpretation, the mental fabrication aggregate (sankhra-kkhandha), i.e., thinking, fashioning, and the consciousness aggregate (vinnana-khandha), i.e., cognizance, raw sensory awareness. Incidentally, another reason that I believe the Buddha does not answer the question of what is reborn is that there is no thing as much as there is a continuous process that is, when you break it down, ultimately unsatisfactory compared to the experience of the cessation of that process. This process of birth, death, and rebirth — the appearance of the aggregates and acquiring of the sense-bases — is essentially suffering. The cause for this suffering is craving (tahna), the craving that "leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for annihilation" (SN 56.11). The cessation of this process is due to the cessation of craving, which is achieved when we skillfully fabricate our reality in such a way that we come to a point of gnosis:
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of stress'... 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended'... 'This noble truth of stress has been comprehended.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.'
"And, monks, as long as this knowledge & vision of mine — with its three rounds & twelve permutations concerning these four noble truths as they actually are present — was not pure, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. But as soon as this knowledge & vision of mine — with its three rounds & twelve permutations concerning these four noble truths as they actually are present — was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its devas, Maras & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"
To reiterate, the question of what is reborn is inappropriate due to the fact that it is based upon faulty assumptions and does not lead to the end of suffering. As such, the Buddha rephrases the question in a more appropriate way, i.e., "With what as condition is there birth?" The reason is that rebirth is the continuation of a process, which is in the form of an "open-system" (able to receive input, as well as produce output), and not the transmigration of any permanent thing or entity. There is a type of continuity invloved in this process, but it should not be mistaken for something substantial. This is where the teachings on dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada) come into play. In its simplest form, dependent co-arising states, "When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this is not, that is not. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that" (AN 10.92). In short, when we look at the teachings on dependent co-arising, we can see how there appears to be a type continuity without there having to be an unchanging core at the center, i.e., from ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications, from fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name and form, from name and form as a requisite condition come the six sense media, from the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact, from contact as a requisite condition comes feeling, from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving, from craving as a requisite condition comes clinging, from clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming, from becoming as a requisite condition comes [re]birth, from [re]birth as a requisite condition comes aging and death, et cetera (SN 12.2).
Jason
Also, just to remove some of the more common misunderstandings in regard to consciousness (vinnana), let me make a few things clear. In regard to consciousness, dependent co-arising specifically states, "From the arising of name-and-form comes the arising of consciousness. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of consciousness." (SN 29.56). Additionally, in DN 15, special attention is paid to the complex relationship between name-and-form (nama-rupa), otherwise translated as mentality-materiality, and consciousness—with the Buddha detailing the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness. In one analogy used to illustrate their relationship, consciousness and name-and-form act as two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another. In essence, the two sheaves of reeds support one another, and if one were pulled away, the other would fall (SN 12.67). Furthermore, in response to the view that "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" put forth by Sati, a bhikkhu that was the son of a fisherman, the Buddha rebukingly said, "Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness" (MN 38).
Jason
Palzang
So the reason I can't get my head round re-birth, Consciousness, what is it that is re-born, what is it that is, what is it that is not, is because 'I' cannot get 'my' "mind" round, or get beyond the aspect of duality?
me and this? This and that? That and me?
But the question remains. If there is no permanent entity, why speak of rebirth? "re" implies that something happens to the same thing twice or more. the kandhas are impermanent (anicca). They constantly change. They cannot be reborn, they lack self-identity, they only change or are constantly born. Why speak of rebirth? Isn`t this a wrong term? Why not use birth only?
Ok. This does it for me.
I'm fine with this, it's just about the level my little brain can take.
(Of course, when I say 'I' and 'my', 'I' mean....!)
First off, Fede, you can never know if you have time. There is a wonderful story about the French admiral Lyautey. Towards the end of a long and illustrious life, he retired to concentrate on his garden. He wanted to plant a particular tree and his gardener told him that it would be a hundred years to come to perfection. "There is no time then," Lyautey said. "We must plant it immediately."
When you learned to drive, did you ask yourself if there would be time to master (or "mistress") the complexities of hand/eye/foot co-ordination? I doubt it. You just got on and practised.
It is just the same here. Worrying that there is no time is another way of making sure that there isn't, because we don't even start.
What now seems clear to me is that we simply have to get on with the set exercises. It's like Fleming and his team researching antibiotics. Trial after trial failed until, at last, one was discovered and we have penicillin. Understanding is at the end of the process, not at the beginning.
so really, just keep walking.... :rolleyesc
I will bring back my little bear avatar, soon, I feel it fits me best.
Palzang
I've yet to be convinced, either way....:scratch:
Palzang
Yes, the "re" implies that something happens again, and that something is birth, i.e., the appearance of the aggregates, which takes place again and again. The word for "rebirth in Pali is punabhava, which literally means "re-becoming," or "renewed existence." Although the aggregates are impermament, they are conditioned by causes anterior to birth, and act as causes for future births.
Kamma is what makes entire this process possible. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's words, "When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death" (Anicca Vata Sankhara).
As I said before, there is a type of continuity invloved in this process, but it should not be mistaken for something substantial. As such, this "stream of consciousnes" should not be understood as a static thing, but simply a complex and uninterupted process of arising and ceasing in which both consciousness and craving play an important role. The term "rebirth" is merely a convenience.
Jason
It reminds me of when I was a kid and lying in the back yard of my house at night, staring up into the heavens and realizing it just went on and on and on forever and that the stars I was looking at maybe didn't even exist anymore because the light took so long to reach earth. There's no way I could get my mind around that. Same with rebirth. As that great Bodhisattva, Cartman, said: "It's just too much for my poor little mind!"
Palzang
Sheeesh!
I STILL do that! I love the feeling it gives me of being truly microscopic and insignificant.
I really do, honestly.
It just helps me really see everything, but everything in perspective...
I stayed out so long one summer night in France (the sky was so clear, the nearest town was miles away!) that I watched one constellation *move* from my left to my right... it was just stunning. And I think it was the best episode of 'Empty Mind' I've ever had....
(*No, I know.... Galileo Galilei was right, I know it's us that move, but go with me on this one!)
Palzang
Now, that was a WOW factor, off the scale....
"I gazed and gazed, but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought...."
Conventionally speaking, i.e., using "the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions," et cetera, one can draw the line anywhere. One could, for example, say that the first moment of consciousness that arises in the womb, being conditioned by the last moment of consciousness before death, is the "start," while the last moment of consciousness at death is the "end." Even so, one could also say that the last moment of consciousness at death is the "start." This inevitably leads to questions regarding time, first cause, et cetera. Neverthless, in Buddhist thought, there are no ultimate beginning points posited, especially in regard to samsara (SN 15.3). Hence, many schools of Buddhism accept the paradox of infinite regress since the logic of dependent co-arising negates any starting point.
Jason
More or less. As you said, it is a very complex subject, and while I wish I had the time to comment in more detail, I unfortunately do not. I have a prior obligation that I must attend to, i.e., a weekend camping trip that my girlfriend has arranged.
Jason
I read somewhere later in Buddhist literature about the flame the Buddha spoke of. It took a historical perspective on the concept. The flame, I was informed, in ancient India signified an eternal substance. It was a symbol of the self, hence, in the Hindu society, I think.
When the Buddha used the flame to talk about rebirth i.e. the flame is extinguished, your life ends. At some other place, the flame suddenly relights and a new life begins from the old - that was rebirth to Buddhism, but there was no "medium of transfer" like the soul, or the flame itself. This was understood to Hindu analogies of reincarnation. The Hindu analogy was that a new candle was brought forth to the existing burning candle, and the flame lit the newer candle and went away from the old. Hence, the flame was still eternal, and was used as an analogy of the soul.
Since there was no continuity between candles, or life, that was perhaps where we could derive that the notion of an eternal self or soul existed not. (anatta) But the Buddha could be questioned - if there is no contact or transfer between candles to continue the flame (the Hindu self), then how confident are we to say that there exists even a relation between the new and the old flame? It might as well be a coincidence that one flame be lit, one flame be extinguished simultaneously. In that sense, Buddhism could be reduced to materialism - we have but one life.
However we would have hit upon one of the Unspeakables (GASP! HARRY POTTER!
Then, in a long way, this leads to what Fede and the rest have spoken of, that we are nothing! If we were something to begin with, then we must have had something to transfer. Yet if we have not existed so as to speak, what transfers? Nothing?
Yup, that's it. You got it.
Hopefully not as slugs anyway.
I can't remember the source or the author, but I believe it was about an interview with HHDL and, when asked a question like, "what if there is a God?" - and he basically replied that, with Buddhism, once something is proven to be a truth - Buddhism will accept it.
I think the gist of it came down to - why question some monumental questions like "does God exist" or "is there a Nirvana", etc - because there are so many things we can be doing that we "do" understand. Why worry about if there is a God - when there is so much compassion that can be shown to our fellow sentient beings and so much help that is needed.
Will proving there is a God actually put food in a child's mouth?
There are some deep, philosophical questions that I know I ain't got the brain power to figure out - so I just work on the mess I have inside of my own head.
Now, I don't mean to sound like I'm ripping on this thread or the posts - cuz I'm not. I think it's a good thread. It just reminded me of that story I had read and how open-minded HHDL is to things that are known, unknown and are yet proven or unproven.
-bf