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.
So is death a big deal to Buddhists or not?
Hi, I'm not a Buddhist, but I am interested and I have enjoyed lurking at forums like this one. One major question I have about Buddhism that I don't understand is about death. I saw a poster here talk about a near death experience, and the responses made me think that Buddhists didn't consider death to be a very big thing, just a transitory phase. They advised that he should try to keep a positive mind set so he can reincarnate well etc., but it wasn't the end of the world.
One the other hand, there is this very strong sense that Buddhists not only do not want to hurt sentient beings, but also don't want to kill them. Why is that? I mean if I kill a chicken for my dinner, I am not just introducing it to a transitory phase that I myself will go through as well? How can Buddhists seem not that concerned with their own deaths, but very concerned about the life of a chicken? Have I gotten something wrong?
Thanks,
Luke
One the other hand, there is this very strong sense that Buddhists not only do not want to hurt sentient beings, but also don't want to kill them. Why is that? I mean if I kill a chicken for my dinner, I am not just introducing it to a transitory phase that I myself will go through as well? How can Buddhists seem not that concerned with their own deaths, but very concerned about the life of a chicken? Have I gotten something wrong?
Thanks,
Luke
0
Comments
While I don't looking froward to dying, I'm not too concerned with death because it's inescapable. Not matter what I do, I'm going to die eventually. It's simply a fact of nature. But according to Buddhism, death is not necessarily the final end of phenomena, and our actions are said to play a significant role in our postmortem experiences.
In Buddhism, intentions are very important. All intentional actions of body, speech and mind are said to act as causes, which in turn produce effects. The quality of the intention behind any given action (e.g., skillful, unskillful, etc.) conditions the quality of the results of that action and how they're experienced (e.g., pleasant, unpleasant, etc.).
When it comes to killing, for example, Buddhism posits that the intention to kill is inherently unskillful, and leads to unpleasant results in both this life and the next. In the case of killing a chicken, the act of killing negatively conditions our consciousness, as well as the results of that particular action. So not only would killing a chicken harm the chicken by depriving it of life, but it'd negatively impact ourselves in some way too.
The mechanism behind this is called kamma or karma, which literally means "action." For more information about kamma, I'd suggest reading Kamma: A Study Guide.
Jason
Of course, it is impossible to live as a complex, multicellular organism like humans without causing the death of many living beings. Whether you are a meat eater or a vegetarian, your diet will be responsible for the deaths of many, many sentient beings. For example, do you know how many sentient beings are killed by harvesting, say, a rice paddy? Countless. It's just the nature of our existence here. So instead of pretending that we can somehow avoid killing altogether, we pray that we will have a connection with each being we may eat or otherwise inadvertently kill and that wel will someday be the cause for that being to attain liberation.
And you're right, for a Buddhist death is not such a big deal, especially if we have prepared for it in our practice. Death is a rare and precious opportunity to attain enlightenment instanteously if we're only prepared. So it can the best of times, literally!
Hope that helps.
Palzang
Thank you both for your replies. That gives me some perspective. So Karma is the results of past actions. Buddhists would like to escape Karma. If they die, its part of their karma anyway, and they have a chance to escape Karma by it, so its not in itself a bad thing. However if they kill, then it implies they too will be killed, which implies that they will be born again, which is what they actually want to avoid. Do I have it right?
Not exactly. It's a bit more complicated than that. Karma is present action, and what we experience in terms of karma in the way of pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings is the result of both past and present karma ripening in the present. Not all experiences are the result of karma, however.
In addition, karma is what makes the process of rebirth 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 for the workings of karma, they are complex and it's not as simple as, say, you kill someone so you're killed by someone in the future. But the underlying idea is that unskillful intentions produce results that are experienced as unpleasant or painful while skillful intentions produce results that are experienced as pleasant. The goal of Buddhism, however, is be free of karma by removing their cause—the mental defilements of greed, hatred and delusion.
For some Buddhists, this means spiritual liberation, freedom from suffering and the end of rebirth. For others, it means being free from affliction yet still manifesting in the world for the benefit of all sentient beings. But that's a whole other discussion.
The first paragraph here makes a great deal of sense to me. While our minds affirm separation or a lack of unity, that's what we get in terms of manifestation. And I see how that could be related to Karma, but I really only have a hazy idea of "the big picture" of what Karma is. I am still working my way through that study guide you gave me though, lets see where that gets me.
***
"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the unlimited. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord..."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord..."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment."
***
So this almost gives me the idea that Karma is to expand consciousness, or increase awareness. The individual who is already very awakened experiences very little ramification for a small evil dee.
Notice, I do not say reincarnation.
It's a fine line, and some say we're getting into semantics, but essentially speaking, reincarnation and re-birth are two different matters.....
There are Six different realms of Re-birth. Again, I know it's yet another link for you to look at, but this explains it pretty well.....
Many see these realms as actual places of existence. Others see them as varying Mind-states or conditions we go through.
I personally feel the latter is more accurate, given that I find myself dwelling in one or more of them during any given day.... and I could probably think of several people I know, as being in one of them too... but that's bordering on flippancy here......It's not my place to judge or criticise.
The other thing I wanted to say is that the Buddha himself recommended that (amongst some other matters) the complex Law of Kamma is something we should not get too embroiled into trying to completely understand..... there are more things going on in this world that we can comprehend, so trying to make head or tail of something, when we don't know all the facts, will do our poor little heads in and fry our brains.
The very best we can do, is look to our own thoughts, words and actions, and be considerate, compassionate skillful and guarded of our Will.....How we impact the world and how we deal with others, should be our primary concern.
Welcome, by the way.
Very nice to meet you!!
Very nice to meet you too, I enjoyed that link.
I have to say though, that of all the things to fry my brain thinking about, this sort of thing is one of the most appealing. Buddhist philosophy seems incredibly intellectually rich, yet many Buddhists I see seem to strive to be be-ers rather than think-ers :crazy: (wait, that didn't sound right) even though Buddhism presents so much to think about. I guess maybe thinking too much is one peril of the path, but its still incredibly interesting stuff to think about.
if you were to go to traditional countries where Buddhism is the norm as opposed to the alternative, I'm certain you would - as would I - gain a different perspective.
And different schools also view the fundamental essence of their practise differently....
But Buddhists actuaally are very curious, great thinkers and given to animated and varied investigation and discussion.....To conquer the Mind and trasin it through meditation is an aspect of Buddhism, so we do need to feed it too.....!!
Buddhists are encouraged to see for themselves - Ehi passiko - in other words, to not accept blindly, the affirmative words of another but to test things out and examine them scrupulously before accepting, rejecting, or merely laying aside (with an open mind) for now....
It's important to remember, also, that simply because 'we' may decide to reject something as an aspect that does not sit well with us, for another person it may be a notion they adhere to strongly. And that's fine. That is their choice, and more strength to them. Acceptance is important, for peace of Mind, sometimes.
here is a link to the Four Unconjecturables. Don't ask....!
In fact, that whole website is quite educational.... I hope you enjoy browsing.
keep with the questions!
Actually, it depends on the tradition. Theravada posits five realms, while most others posit six.
Here you have the undisputed forum authority on matters Theravadan, (and I say that with all respect and no sarcasm whatsoever) coupled with the forum village idiot and Dhamma-Doofus, both giving you their knowledge and insight!
How great is that - ?
Obviously, I don't need to tell you which is which!:D
Thank you, Jason! :cool:
So which of the six is not posited by Theravadans? Excuse my ignorance......
It has to be the Asuras..... right?
That's what I have found, and that's what's interested me in Buddhism: I found a school of logic from India called Nyaya, and it combines Aristotlean logic from the west with Buddhist philosophy from the east, and its amazing...I mean intellectually amazing. As a guy into math and logic, its really, really fresh stuff, even though its at least many many hundreds years old. The freshness comes from the buddhist perspective, which is really broadly applicable stuff. For instance, in the four unconjecturables you just sent me:
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas1 is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
We could say that the Buddha-range of the Buddhas is infinite, and thus a singularity, not to be conjectured about. Nyaya makes a similar statement about infinity and the unlimited, asserting its unity and place beyond conjecture. But in western mathematics, Cantor DID conjecture about the "different ranges of infinity", which is the theory of transfinite cardinals (you can google it if interested.) As a result, he experienced "madness and vexation", and was put in an insane asylum.
http://bestdocumentaries.blogspot.com/2007/09/dangerous-knowledge-full-documentary.html
Why? For contemplating that which the buddhists say shouldn't be conjectured about.
So I think this is really deep, powerful stuff philosophically, and we have a lot to learn, at a truly intellectual level from Buddhism.
Yes. As Dhammanando Bhikkhu explains: "In the Suttas the post-mortem destinies (gati) are always given as five: hell, the domain of petas, animal birth, the human state, and the world of devas. The Andhakas and Uttarāpathakas added a sixth gati: asuras. In the Theravādin understanding, asuras are not a separate class; rather, 'asura' is just a name applied to certain upper-class petas and lower-class devas" (source).
I find it extraordinary that over 2000 years ago a simple man who probably had no knowledge whatsoever of advanced science and mathematics, was able to advise on something of this magnitude, without long formulas, computers, calculators or any other means of perception other than his own Mind!
(I appreciate Cantor also had none of these things, but Mankind was considerably further along in its knowlege of many things, by then......)
I remember as a kid thinking that any number divided by zero must be infinity, since zero "goes into" any number infinite times. Then when I started learning limits in pre-calculus, I saw why its undefined: It can literally represent any number, finite or otherwise. Its a point of total infinite freedom in mathematics. So its beautiful to think of life as having these moments we cross of infinite freedom, where the choice is truly ours. What a powerful image.
It's not 'nothing', it's the absence of 'something'....
The big 'O' in YinYang and Zen is not void - it is the encompassing of the 'All' within the 'Nothing', and the 'Nothing' within the 'All'....
I think it was the Babylonians and the Mayans who first came up with the Zero, mathematically speaking.....bright bunch, they were....
Then the Hindus wrote it down as a big fat O.....
Wow.
Just, wow!!
Read also the link-within-the-link ("This was the question").....
Yeah, I always heard it was first developed, historically, by the Mayans. Funny name, Mayans. Wouldn't Mayans be people living in a place called Maya?
http://www.eeedesign.com/stories/Maya.html
Yet another area where eastern though was ahead, philosophically. They (like the Mayans) weren't afraid to refer to nothing as an entity, while westerners had a big problem having something "like the zero symbol" represent nothing.
I've also heard that the concept of zero actually has it origins in linguistic over two thousand years ago with Panini, an ancient Indian Sanskrit grammarian, in the form of the invisible affix. Thanissaro Bhikkhu mentions this is his day long lecture on the topic of emptiness, which can be found here under Emptiness (Part 1-7).
But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised to hear it coming out of someplace like India. I mean, mathematically, its useful because you can express it as -5 + 5 or anything else, and you also see those ideas about duality in the east, pairs of opposites manifesting out of nothingness and that sort of thing. So (pure speculation) but it wouldn't be much of a stretch to see it going way back.
P.S. Thanks for the link on Bhikkhu, I will listen to that. I'm loving all the links you guys are sending me!
Whew! It sure is a lot for my mind to digest, but I agree with you Fede. This thread is going into a very interesting tangent!
Fede,
You raise an important point about our myth of human 'progress' through knowledge.
There are two distinct narratives that go on: one, the more ancient probably, is that our ancestors knew more than we do and that we should learn from them. Whilst it is not particularly 'sncestor worship' in the anthropological sense, it is present with us in the West in many ways. The waves of interest, rising and falling, in herbalism, alternative therapies, old doctrines and esoterica are witnesses to this idea.
Alongside this is the belief that humankind is now more 'advanced' (whatever that might mean) than our primitive forebears.
Both of these narratives are expressed at all levels of society, and all grades of education and training. The desire for the latest model of something runs alongside resources poured into 'heritage'. Teacher vie to prove that their way, be it the old or the new, is better.
One of the ways in which the listeners to the ancestor narrative make their point is to point to the rediscovery of ancient truths. They marvel at the astronomical knowledge of the Sumerians and Egyptians ("Without telescopes, my dear!") or the mathematical sophistication of the Greeks and Subcontinentals. At the same time, of course, they discard those ancient aspects that go against their own cherished opinions. They have to ridicule belief in the gods and powers that populated pre-industrial discourse. They have to deplore the tyrannical and slave-owning societies. They have to de-contextualise.
The adherents to the narrative of progress simply do the opposite: they major on the superstition and barbarism, ignoring the sophistication.
Both of these narratives miss some crucial points:
* Our historical memory is incredibly short, particularly when it comes to written or monumental records: a few thousand years, probably less than 0.1% of the time since that family group left footprints in the volcanic ash at Laetoli, or, in terms of my own life, three weeks. Humanity suffers from serious long-term memory loss.
* The historical and archaeological record is unreliable and patchy.
* But, above all, the fractioning into two opposing narratives simply re-inforces a much deeper belief: the belief that time exists in the way in which we experience it, i.e. as a sort of flow or arrow, as movement. We do not experience the other dimensions of the space-time continuum as moving us, we experience ourselves moving along them: walk, jump, etc. But we feel imprisoned in a 'flow' of time. Time is seen as an irresistible tsunami. Because of this illusion, and because we also experience pain and stress from this imagined flow, we are like people swept away by a wave: some cling to the wreckage whilst others shout that they see land ahead. All are wrong as well as right.
Are we discovering things about the world that the ancients did not understand? Yes.
Are we re-discovering as new some things that the ancients did understand? Yes.
Does this have any other meaning? Was some ancient 'better' than we are? That's up to each of us to make up our minds.
I don't know how directly this addresses your posts, but the first thing that came to mind when I read this was the subjects for frequent recollection advised by the Buddha:
http://www.theravada.gr/fivesubjects.html
Buddhism encourages non-harming so we do not harm ourselves. That is the primary rationale.
Buddha said:
Buddha said: "Non-harming is happiness in this world".
Whilst I do not believe in rebirth myself, following a Buddhist v's Hindu rationale, when you kill a chicken you terrorize it. So the chicken dies a traumatic death. Similarly, because you terrorized the chicken, without compassion & mercy, you will reborn into a woeful state, even in hell. In hell, you will receive the same treatment as you provided to the chicken. You will be terrorised repeatedly, without respite. This the Buddha described in the Devaduta Sutta.
Whereas, for example, if we read the Bhagavad Gita, it places little emphasis upon the state of mind at death. It just states the soul will always re-enter a new body, therefore to kill in war is OK.
Not all Buddhists think like this. For many, death is the end. Thus, contemplating death forms an essential part of their practise. By doing this, they learn to let go of attachment. In Buddhism, there are many teachings on the contemplation of death.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Do I misunderstand you? I always thought of Nirvana as the ceasing of all things, which is hard to attain because things keep happening, even after the end of this life. But if in a very finite period of time we all come to the same state, doesn't it kind of render all that talk moot?
Thanks for your response. I always thought the Gita was challenging for that reason, it basically says not to fear death because of reincarnation, and then Krishna advises Arjuna to kill his enemies, because he's not really hurting them; he's just removing their external bodies which are like garmets that are removed and replaced. Yet this is the book the great non-violent Gandhi was supposedly always meditating on. So there is a dichotomy there, and in Buddhism, that I have never completely been able to sort out.
I think it's important to not muddy the waters and confuse the issue.
Remember what I mentioned already with regard to matters like re-birth and Kamma:
The Buddha recommends we study, analise, dissect and scrutinise everything that comes to us as a teaching. You are then at liberty to do one of 3 things:
To accept it as a sound teaching, adopt it into your practice, 100%, and 100% of the time.
To leave it aside as not sitting well with you - always respecting and bearing in mind that for others, this is their truth - and that's OK.
To leave it aside as something you cannot decide upon for now, and may examine more fully, "down the road"....but to keep an open mind.....
If a teaching is Hindu, it will differ from the Philosophy and teachings of Buddhist doctrine.
It's that simple.
I have not edited the posts, but let's just keep to the subject in hand.
OK?
(pertinent posts since deleted by poster.)
I don't think I made it clear that I know the distinction. Instead of saying:
"So there is a dichotomy there, and in Buddhism"
I should have said "There is a dichotomy there I also see in Buddhism" to make it more clear. But I'm not talking about any deep aspect of either path, just something very simple: Both Hinduism and Buddhism seem to advocate for the detachment from the senses, yet advocate kind deeds (like giving somebody a flower) that please the senses of others. Shouldn't we also be helping others overcome their worldly attachments as much as we give them things to enjoy?
I'm not trying to make a philosophical point or prove anything, I'm sharing a quandary I experience at a deeply personal level through my question. Pain leads me to unattachment to things and events in life, unattachment makes me powerful, power allows me to create things, I become attached to the things I create, I lose my detachment and thus my power, the things slip away, I experience Pain. An endless loop. Given this loop, is it better to give me a smile than a scowl? Neither is better really, because the smile is pleasant but weakens me with attachment to you. The scowl is unpleasant but strengthens me though detaching me. So what in the end is the difference? Death was just a way to ask about this, because (I thought) that Buddhists saw death as a transitory state, and I know Buddhists seem to be uninterested in killing things at the same time.
Anyway, thanks for your answers, I feel though the real answers will probably come through lots of meditation. You've given me some good leads!
Luke
Being detached does not mean you cannot love and enjoy love.
It does not mean the prevention of such things.
In fact, the opposite is true. because you know that eventually all things must fall away, you love them unconditionally in a deeper and more understanding, compassionate way.
The Four Noble Truths:
LIfe is suffering/unsatisfactory/up and down/frustrating/occasionally sh*tty.
It is (all those things) because we cling and grasp and attach ourselves to things that are impermanent wishing they weren't.....
(All compounded phenomena are impermanent and there ain't nuthin' gonna change that, so we might as well get used to it and let it go.
Acceptance is the key.)
There is a way out of all this self-beating up....
That way is to study the Eightfold path.
It's all very well knowing understanding and agreeing with the Four NTs.
The trick is to really really live by them.
They're not called the 'Noble' Truths for nothing.
We can rant, rail, argue and discuss them all we like; no amount of discussion or debate is going to change the fact that they are absolutely spot-on.
This is how you DO it.
You look at your reflection in the mirror, and say: - you are on the path to death.
You look at the people you love, and you say: - you are on the path to death.
You look at the people you like, and say: - you are on the path to death.
You look at the people you know, and say : - you are on the path to death.
You look at the people you dislike, and say: - you are on the path to death.
You look at the people you meet, and say: - you are on the path to death.
(This is getting repetitive, isn't it? It's a bit like the suttas.... repeptitive to make it emphatic and easy to memorise and absorb.....)
The sooner you ingrain into your psyche that this is the way things are, you begin to live in Joy and share that joy with others.
Put it this way - is it not better to rejoice in the Life you have now and make the most of it, in every and any way you can, in every moment?
His Holiness the Dalai Lama (HHDL) said: "The purpose of Life is to be Happy and to make others Happy".
In that order.
You cannot ever hope to bring genuine hapiness to others if yours is inconstant and unreal.
So look to yourself first.
Start with this, simply:
Achieve that state of knowlege, understanding and absorption, complete comprehension and acceptance, with every breath - then, pass your mirth, contentment and joy on.
Ready......?
- GO!!
tridentblack, always, but always come in for any talks, questions, enquiries discussions.... whatever you want.
We're here to bat off.....
Good luck!
Oh, and - enjoy yourself! this isn't something you have to beat yourself up over - have fun!
But to tell you the truth we will only see the truth of life when we are dead or if we become awake in this lifetime.
When Westerners hear about Buddhism detachment, I think we take that word to indicate a state in which we back off from, become uninvolved with, whatever we are detaching from.
I think the Buddhist take on "detachment" is NOT that. If I understand the teachings correctly, rather than back off FROM ... we open up TO. We feel the inrush of our emotions, but like the boulder in the stream, are not moved by them. We observe what is going on inside ourself, but do not grasp onto any of it. We train our minds with attention and awareness.
If this is so, then how do we love? We open our heart to others with compassion, while remaining open to observing our own responses without grasping.
This is what I make of it now ... maybe 10 years from now my understanding will be different.
Excuse me whilst I go away and practise......;)