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.
I am not sure how we could call it rebirth, if it isn’t a continuation of a previous ego personality or at least some aspect of a more inclusive entity, like the soul.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense to me.
A stream of energy continuing (call it karma if you wish) wouldn’t be a rebirth, would it? What is ‘re’ about continuing, if it doesn’t represent some intelligent life with a cumulative gain (or loss) of some sort?
Perhaps, you could explain in some way that would open my eyes to this.
JFYI, the Pali term for rebirth is punabhava, literally "again becoming." For a pretty detailed, albeit traditional (read "literalist"), analysis of becoming, check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's new book, The Paradox of Becoming.
I think we could find better results if we focused more on our current birth.
Our immediate circumstances are, of course, the only thing we can act in and, therefore, we should focus our attention to here and now primarily. But if the Buddha taught it, it is arguably something that has value in the path towards liberation. Now, there are sutras that describe people reaching realization based on insights into things other than rebirth, but that doesn't mean insight into the teaching of rebirth cannot be liberating in the right place and the right time for the right practitioner.
I would also like to point out that once we begin to confirm the teaching of the 12 links of dependent arising in our own experience on a continual, moment-to-moment basis, it becomes a bit easier to consider multiple lifetimes as possible.
A stream of energy continuing (call it karma if you wish) wouldn’t be a rebirth, would it? What is ‘re’ about continuing, if it doesn’t represent some intelligent life with a cumulative gain (or loss) of some sort?
It's 're' because it, the next lifetime, doesn't come about out of nothing as if by magic. We are after all scientists and things must make sense both logically and under direct analysis. In this way, the last moment of awareness in this life in combination with ripening karmas (sort of like a mental impression) produce the first moment of the next life. 2 different lives, 2 different persons, 2 different minds with perhaps vastly different characteristics, yet still technically the same mental continuum for the reason that things are a dependent arising.
Now the only reason any of us have a problem with this is because we have zero conception of what the mind is, and because we fundamentally misconceive ourselves and our qualities and characteristics as being powered by or as existing as a self.
If we can't conceive of rebirth without the inclusion of this distorted self/soul as part of the equation, which buddhism denies anyway, how are we going to conceive of the rebirth that buddhism talks about?
Then, if we are constantly seeking sense pleasure in gross outer objects how are we ever going to see the mind clearly when we are by definition always keeping it heavily afflicted? I don't see how we will. Unless we are lucky enough to bump into a teacher who can expound the Sautrantika (at minimum) explanation of valid cognition, I don't think we have a chance. Until we can understand clearly that the donut and the satisfaction that certain donuts bring us are mental images merely imputed upon sense consciousness (which itself relies on the tongue, eye, etc) we will keep chasing donuts.
With that in mind, as we are exhausting our good karma by enjoying tasty donuts we are almost certainly collecting negative karmas at the same time. Then, because rebirth is not a matter of a self/soul but rather a dependent arising of awareness and perceptions we will impute the intense pain of a very real hell realm (as real as the tasty donut), if at the time of our death negative mental impression (karmas) arise, which they almost certainly will.
Yes but, and this is the thing, why would this rebirth be more closely called me than some other rebirth taking place half way across the world. Or said slightly differently, and not trying to be cute, why am I not my neighbor? After all there is life force in me and life force in my neighbor, and we both have a bag full of karma, which we had no hand in creating.
Now, I realize, and probably everyone else here does too, that Buddha used the example of a flame moving from candle to candle to depict re-birth (I wonder if he used that word, but no never mind), but, and this is the big but, what exactly does that flame represent outside the flame itself (visual manifestation) and the fuel (Energy of some sort?) which is very temporary and in constant flux, perhaps even an event without a me.
Am I making myself understood here?
In other words, a flame is an event, much like a dream, which burrows or depends upon something outside of itself to even exist, and has little or no intrinsic substance of its own. So that if a flame were to call itself me, where would it point to prove itself outside of this visual showing?
Now karma falls off the tongue so easily, and we take it for granted that is something outside of our imagination and our stories to justify happenings, but where is its real substance as a power strong enough to cause birth or rebirth or even keep this whole wide world going in some way? I cannot see it. Can you show me where I should be looking in order to find this for myself?
Please don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that there is an ego-self either, at least not outside of this same, imagined dream, which we call our life. I have to ask equally, if you can see that we are purely capable of creating a false self and being completely taken in by it, why is it so difficult to see a story that only thinly discusses our going on-ness as representative of our actions? You kill the noun or self and keep the verb or actions, which further plants the seeds of attachment.
Let me ask you this. Do you not see the mind as at least a part of this ego self? Are you swearing off everything except this mind as being you? Or are you seeing this mind as an efficient tool of some kind, if once we can get it cleaned up?
I read some time back where the senses were liars, causing much confusion. But are the senses not the servants of the mind? How can you then separate mind out from the servants, which keeps it informed, and believe what the mind comes up with and tells you?
In other words, a flame is an event, much like a dream, which burrows or depends upon something outside of itself to even exist, and has little or no intrinsic substance of its own. So that if a flame were to call itself me, where would it point to prove itself outside of this visual showing?
Its nature of being dependent. The only dream-like aspect to it is its being held by a grasping mind to be an unchanging, singular, independent entity.
This does not make the capacity for it to function less real. But once again to the mind grasping to self its functioning is like a dream.
Yes but, and this is the thing, why would this rebirth be more closely called me than some other rebirth taking place half way across the world. Or said slightly differently, and not trying to be cute, why am I not my neighbor?
A different label and a different basis upon which the label depends. In other words the person which is the sum of the collection of the body and mind is a unique sum, and the label "Me, and I am this such way" being uniquely derived.
For fire and the fuel there is a relationship of dependence of the type which is causation, in the case of persons the relationship between labels and their basis of imputation is a relationship of dependence of the type which is identity. A distinction in the topic of logic.
A little more about the flame and dream-like flames:
Question: Why do we have to renounce the atman?
Answer: The point is that we are not denying the conventional me. Whether you want to call that a soul, whether you want to call that an atman, it doesn’t matter what name you give it, there is a conventional me, Buddhism is not refuting that, it’s not saying that there is nothing. But the point is, “How does it exist?” If we don’t have a sense of the conventional me, then we’re not motivated to do anything. Why should we try to gain enlightenment?
On the basis of a correct view of a conventional me, we get our lives together. We get up in the morning; we get dressed; we make a life for ourselves; we take care of ourselves. But is there a dualism here of me and “I have to take care of myself?” as if they were two different things? And “I have to stop myself and control myself from being selfish,” as if one part of me is the judge, the disciplinarian, and the other one is the naughty part of me? It becomes very neurotic and leads to guilt.
Question: In psychoanalysis, that’s the “super-ego.”
Answer: But is that super-ego something which is separate, existing all by itself? Are there two me’s there, a me and a super-ego? This is rather strange.
It’s the same thing with “me.” There are always certain things to see, and consciousness, and feeling happy, unhappy, and all this other stuff – none of them are “me” – although you might think that “I am my body” or “I am my mind,” but that’s pretty weird, actually. So, “me” is what we could label onto all these things that are changing all the time. It’s like an illusion. It seems as though there is a solid “me” there. It seems as though I’m seeing Sasha. What am I seeing? I’m seeing some colored shapes. Nevertheless, this is Sasha and he is a person and can speak and do all sorts of tricks and things. Here is our “nevertheless” factor. It is like an illusion. It seems as though there is a solid thing all by itself. This orange circle seems to be an orange, nevertheless I can eat it, and it fills my stomach, and it tastes good.
All through our life, we feel that there is something real about us, something deep inside that is ever unchanging. Even though we start as a baby, and end up as an old man, there is this something that we can’t quite put our finger on, and yet it seems quite real to us, and we call this our intrinsic me.
Now, I am not speaking here of the story, which we are writing everyday; the one that is called our ego-self made up out of facts and statistics. I am speaking of something far more intrinsic to us than that.
Are you denying that this intrinsic me exists? If you are, what do you base this on?
Are you denying that this intrinsic me exists? If you are, what do you base this on?
Aieee I linked so many resources for this already.
The Lack of an Impossible “Soul” of a Person
All Buddhist tenet systems accept the conventional existence of a self, “me.” The conventional “ me,” however, seems to exist in a way that does not correspond to how it actually exists. The conventional “me” seems to exist in the manner of an impossible “soul” (bdag, Skt. atman). A self that exists in this false way is known as the false “me,” the “me” that is to be refuted. Thus,
- the conventional “me” is like an illusion and it exists,
- the appearance of a false “me” is the illusion and it exists,
- what would correspond to the illusion -- an actual false “me” -- does not exist.
If we have been taught and believe one of the non-Buddhist Indian tenet systems, we would experience doctrinally-based grasping for a false “me.” Like an illusion, the conventional self (“ me”) would appear to us as a “soul,” having a true identity as an unaffected (permanent), monolithic entity that exists separately from the body and mind (the five aggregates) as the boss, the controller, the observer, or the inhabitant of them.
JFYI, the Pali term for rebirth is punabhava, literally "again becoming." For a pretty detailed, albeit traditional (read "literalist"), analysis of becoming, check out Thanissaro Bhikkhu's new book, The Paradox of Becoming.
Jason
The Western translators translate various terms into 'rebirth', such as sopapajjati, upapajjati, upatti, opapātikā, and upapannā. For the Western scholar, they will translate whatever they can into the term 'rebirth'.
However, the word 'bhava' means becoming. Becoming is something mental rather than physical. Such as when the mind becomes angry, sad, happy. Such as becoming a wife, husband, Buddhist scholar, etc.
When I spoke about this intrinsic “me,” I wasn’t speaking of the 'Soul', or even what some people call the 'Witness', because I fully realize that this 'Witness' is only the mind’s abilities, an ability to be self reflective, which has actually been located in the frontal lobe of our brain by the more scientific types.
I was speaking of a ‘Me’ that actually seems far more intuitional than anything else, and has not one adjective, or group of descriptions, that is capable of describing it. I am speaking about what the Zen master’s finger is supposedly pointing at. I am speaking about our “Original face.” Am I making myself understood here?
I believe that when you speak of the conventional me, you are speaking about the ego, are you not?
Let me clarify where I stand on the ego right from the get/go. I see the ego, much like that old adage, as being like an onion. Each layer of this onion is made up of nothing more than conceptual description, and these descriptions are nothing more than the building blocks of our imagination. So as the story goes, were we to peel these layers away, one by one, until not one layer was left, we would certainly be left with a handful of nothing.
But, what I am saying is, perhaps what we are calling 'nothing' is not really nothing at/all, not as we commonly think of it. It is just empty of imagination, and all of her little pretend objects.Perhaps a different dimension altogether.
I say this because, when I let go of my imagination, my concepts, and all of my earthly sensations, there still seems to be something that I call ‘Me,’ a “Presence’ not easily denied.
I think that even though we do not trust the mind, and even remove validity from what it is saying to us, we still seem to leave the mind in the drivers seat. We still check in with the mind to ask it, what we should believe. This in its self seems to be contradictory.
I believe many people misunderstand the Atman to be the soul. It is not the soul, anymore than the Buddha Nature is the soul. We can get into that further, if you wish to.
I say this because, when I let go of my imagination, my concepts, and all of my earthly sensations, there still seems to be something that I call ‘Me,’ a “Presence’ not easily denied.
But this seems like a soul. An unchanging essence of sorts.
Look at the way the quotation I provided speaks about it. The essence is unaffected by what's going on with emotions, thoughts, etc because it remains the same. The essence exists independently from the emotions, thoughts, etc because it is like a witness or driver (ie. decision-maker).
So errr, what exactly is wrong with thinking like that anyway?
So, when we ask in terms of this complex of things that’s changing all the time, well, what is the “me,” where am I in all of this? Then, Buddhism has a lot to say.
And, it’s our unawareness about this “me,” how I exist and what I am – or who I am – that is one of the most fundamental causes of our problems. Either we don’t know how we exist, or who am I as in “I have to find myself” – which is, if you translated that literally into Tibetan, it would sound like a meditation process of analysis. Whereas somebody goes off to India to find themselves, that’s something quite different, isn’t it? So, here we are; we just don’t know how we exist or we have a completely incorrect understanding of it.
There are two levels or aspects here, and we tend to go to one of two extremes: Either we identify me with some aspect of our experience. This could be our role; for instance, being a mother or being a father, “That’s who I am.” Or our nationality, or our gender, “I’m a woman,” “I’m a man”; or “I’m the type of person who has a bad temper, or sickness.” We tend to identify with one thing – at best, maybe a couple of things – but we identify with something. Either we identify with one thing all the time, which may be the dominant identity of who I am. It could also be our religion, of course.
Or, in different situations, we identify with one thing. Then we get a very disintegrated type of feeling of our lives. “In business I’m one thing; at home I’m another thing; at the sports club I’m yet another person, etc. So we can identify with different things in different parts of our life or different moments. So, that’s one extreme, that we identify with one or more aspects of our life, our experience, which of course leads to many problems because then we’re not very flexible at all. We get very defensive about this identity, or we feel guilty about this identity. We can be very proud, very arrogant, like identifying with our great looks or identifying with our great intelligence, and then be very arrogant about that and be very proud.
The other extreme is when we imagine that there’s “me,” that I exist totally separate from all of this, from all the various aspects of my existence. When we have that type of belief about ourselves, the type of problem that manifests is a feeling of alienation. “I am alienated from my feelings; I am alienated from my body and alienated from myself.” As if there was a “me” separate from all of that that felt alienated.
Yes, I know that what I am describing as my “Original Face,” or “my Most Intrinsic Presence" seems like a soul. But, it is in the tiny little details, the subtle nuances, that the difference is revealed.
For instance, with a soul, we still have a duality, that being soul and God, whereas, in this ‘Intimate Being,’ which I intuit directly (not from the outside looking in, but from actually being ‘Being’), one finds no division of any kind, and I am not alienated in any manner. In fact, this very being seems both familiar and totally satisfying.
I can fully see what you are describing in the fragmented mind, and it is depicted quite efficiently. But, this ‘Original Face’ is previous to the mind and only IS simultaneous to it, and yet not captured within it. Unlike soul, which is more personal to a particular individual, Presence is omnipresent. So yes, you can look within and find it. But, that is only because omnipresence includes all in-ness in every individual, and yet is not limited to that.
Do you see what I mean here?
I see the mind, and all of her doings, as being closer to virtual reality, or a dream, that comes and goes, and yet does not own its own presence, or its own essence. It is like software that works within our organic computer-like brain.
I believe, if you think about it, you will realize that everything is "becoming," constantly. This would include the physical manifestation of every single form, even your own body.
"Becoming" is synonymous with "change," or even with "time," as in every single minute of time is both melting into the past, and becoming the next very next moment.
I can fully see what you are describing in the fragmented mind, and it is depicted quite efficiently. But, this ‘Original Face’ is previous to the mind and only IS simultaneous to it, and yet not captured within it. Unlike soul, which is more personal to a particular individual, Presence is omnipresent. So yes, you can look within and find it. But, that is only because omnipresence includes all in-ness in every individual, and yet is not limited to that.
An ignorant mind distorts appearances, whether they are gross appearances such as thoughts and concepts or subtle appearances such as the nonconceptual appearance of yourself. So there are said to be these 2 types of habitual ignorance.
However if that subtle appearance is still characterized by the previously listed qualities then it must still be called a grasping to self, and as long as it is maintained it will continue to arm the karmas that produce anger, pride, jealousy, etc.
I see the mind, and all of her doings, as being closer to virtual reality, or a dream, that comes and goes, and yet does not own its own presence, or its own essence. It is like software that works within our organic computer-like brain.
Indeed if the self is posited as an enduring essence not only is the mind obscured but it is not even a logically relevant thing. After all when seeing the monitor you are sitting at it is not awareness that is doing all the work, it's the enduring person sitting in the control seat of the brain and in this case eye.
Mind? Huh what mind? I am myself and the function of a knowing awareness is an illusion that appears to me. Such is the conception of a heavily afflicted world, child and parent alike, genius and simpleton alike.
If something doesn’t have qualities, or definitions, where on earth would the mind grasp onto it? So when I say that our “Original Face’ has no qualities or definitions of any kind, it is implicit in that statement that there is absolutely no place to grasp on to, when dealing with this “Original Face.” Mind is at a loss.
Yet, there is something that just knows what Awareness Is, by being it. This Awareness is not co-dependent, and requires no object outside of its self. This Awareness is not becoming or changing in any way. Unlike the soul, it doesn’t require any I/Thou relationships to verify its self.
This is why when Bodhidharma was questioned, after arriving at 100% enlightenment, as to who he was, he said, “I have no idea.” He did not say, “I am not.” He did not say, “I am empty.”
(Heaven knows those conceptual answers, about emptiness, and being void, were floating around in his environment, even back then. This is not a new misconception by any means. But he did not reach out and use one of these easily accessed answers. Why? Because, he knew they were not correct. That is why.)
So in essence, he was saying, “I am, but I cannot conceive of this turn of events, or describe my Being, in either words or pictures.” “I just know, without a doubt, that I am.”
It is not Descartes’, “I think therefore I am.”
It is, “I am Present, therefore I Am.”
I think we should be questioning more closely, "WHAT was empty of what?"
If something doesn’t have qualities, or definitions, where on earth would the mind grasp onto it?
It's mere appearance is obscured by a deceived mind. This doesn't mean it appears and then it is obscured, but rather the very appearance is already obscured because the deceived mind is afflicted. The person that does exist is taken to be unchanging, independent, etc when it in fact is no such thing, never was, never could be.
Furthermore there's no such thing as an existing thing without characteristics.."not becoming or changing in any way" are characteristics.
Yet, there is something that just knows what Awareness Is, by being it.
Hey, I'm not saying it doesn't feel like that. I'm not advocating nihilism either, which means denying our identity and our sense of ourselves. The point of denying a false self and cognizing selflessness is to establish that we depend on good karma, keeping morality, and not fighting to protect the eternal essence self at the expense of others. Which is precisely what happens in the mind of every mind-possessor when they commit a negative action, thinking and believing 100% that it will bring them some type of gain.
Whenever we use words, because of the dualistic structure of language, we will be forced to either say ‘is’ or ‘is not.’
When you say that, my saying that the ‘Original face “ has no descriptions, (“Is not” describable) is the same as describing it, it gets a bit off target. I am speaking more about what is often called, “The Don’t Know Mind.”
The Hindus have a practice called ‘Neti/Neti”, or “not this/not this.” The reasoning behind this is that language cannot capture what the “Original Face" is; but it is very good at saying what “Original Face" isn’t.
This would be similar to what the Buddha advocated, “Abandoning” un-truth, or hearsay.
This is a process of elimination, our wiping illusion out of our eyes in order to see more clearly.
If my ‘Original Face’ were a mere illusion, on my part, then in looking at it by use of what some call, “Bare Attention,” I would get rid of it. What actually happens, however, is that it grows in strength, and removes other things that remain untrue from my mind. It has both clarity and certainty as byproducts. On top of that, this ‘Original Face’ remains consistently satisfying. How many things in this world can we say that about?
A: “I'm not advocating nihilism either, which means denying our identity and our sense of ourselves.”
S9: So we are on the same page, anyway.
All I am advocating here is, a thorough investigation into this identity, or sense of our selves. I mean “directly” looking into it, as the Buddha asked us to. (Phenomenology of a sort.)
A: The point of denying a false self and cognizing selflessness is to establish that we depend on good karma, keeping morality, and not fighting to protect the eternal essence self at the expense of others.
S9: Are you saying that, “The ends justify the means?” Or, although the ‘no-self’ is not correct, it is very usable. Or “It all comes out in the wash?”
There is no doubt in my mind that the human species is apt to do most anything, blow up market places and eat it own children, if it comes to that. But, I am not ready to throw in the towel and not even try to know the truth, even if it can be misused.
I believe, if you think about it, you will realize that everything is "becoming," constantly. This would include the physical manifestation of every single form, even your own body.
Yes, even this (my) statement, (“Everything is "becoming”), or any statement really.
All limited truth is only becoming, (limited truth is anything that we can possibly say). It is only a small piece of truth. It is not the whole truth.
That is why the mind is not the correct tool for realizing the Ultimate Truth.
Do you see how your sig. line is mirroring our present conversation?
If my ‘Original Face’ were a mere illusion, on my part, then in looking at it by use of what some call, “Bare Attention,” I would get rid of it. What actually happens, however, is that it grows in strength, and removes other things that remain untrue from my mind. It has both clarity and certainty as byproducts. On top of that, this ‘Original Face’ remains consistently satisfying. How many things in this world can we say that about?
We distinguish between the person's mode of existence and its actual existence as an object. What we are negating is the active unawareness and miscognition of its mode of existence which spills over into our understanding of its actual existence.
It seems enduring, but upon analysis we find it is not. That's all buddhism is, reasoning and applying scrunity against that natural appearance. The punchline is: its not existing in that impossible mode of existence doesn't harm the existence of persons. It just makes 'you' no longer grasp to an exaggerated quality that is never there and never could have been there.
Are you saying that, “The ends justify the means?” Or, although the ‘no-self’ is not correct, it is very usable. Or “It all comes out in the wash?”
Not at all, I mean it very literally. Lack of a self to persons is the unique basis of buddhism. Everyone else asserts some variation of permanence, nonproduction, superproduction, independence, etc, even nonexistence (nihilists) which we identify as being the causes for cycling samsara.
I believe that I see what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, please.
You are saying that there is not a causal self behind Samsara.
A: Lack of a self to persons is the unique basis of Buddhism.
S9: Yes, but then we have to figure out WHAT self. If Buddha wants us to get rid of a causal self, it may not mean that he also wants up to get rid of the more transcendent being, which doesn’t share the characteristics with causal self of having what we call personality.
Also, I think there might be more than one opinion what is the basis of Buddhism, especially for people such as myself who don’t buy into the more common interpretation of what the Buddha was saying in this particular area.
Let us remember that everything that you think, and everything I think, about what the Buddha was saying comes back to being an interpretation by us. The Buddha was Awake to something that we are not yet fully awake to, perhaps on many levels, and so he is describing the color red to someone who was born blind to color in a way. So he uses the senses that we do have (mind is the 6th sense) to describe red to us. He might say red in hot like a hot pepper, close but no banana. ; ^ )
If we go on to make some religion out of what he has said and use as its basis that red is hot, is that his fault? This is the difficulty of expressing something that is basically another dimension, transcendent ‘Original Face.’
Monism itself is a limitation of the mind, as is unity. It is how the mind tries to gather up multiplicity into something workable by the human mind. This does not make these two ultimate truth, but more of a practicality of sorts.
Nagajuna tried to explain emptiness as being empty of empty, in order to get away from dualism. But, it is a fool errand, and cannot be done with language. Yet, we keep trying with language because it is very good at pointing TOWARDS where we should be putting our attention.
I believe that you might be making pretty much the same mistake that Alan Watts made in his earlier years. (I could be mistaken. Heaven knows this wouldn’t be unheard of.) Alan thought that there was a concrete existence as apposed to a more conceptual. He felt that the concrete was more real. Am I seeing your stand correctly here?
I however see this as a step backwards, away from the self reflective, more into a complacent animal like state. Yes, we are animals, but no, that is not all that we are.
I think there might be more than one opinion what is the basis of Buddhism, especially for people such as myself who don’t buy into the more common interpretation of what the Buddha was saying in this particular area.
There is differing assertion between the schools but they all accept the same basic lack of an unchanging, independent, singular self to persons.
Let us remember that everything that you think, and everything I think, about what the Buddha was saying comes back to being an interpretation by us. The Buddha was Awake to something that we are not yet fully awake to, perhaps on many levels, and so he is describing the color red to someone who was born blind to color in a way.
I don't accept that, because I am not relying on my own interpretation of anything. I am relying on a lineage of master teachers who have thoroughly analyzed and have gained the fruits of having done so, and who try to pass that on.
Monism itself is a limitation of the mind, as is unity. It is how the mind tries to gather up multiplicity into something workable by the human mind.
Let's say that were true, it still doesn't necessitate the existence of some independent essence behind the mind and the body.
Nagajuna tried to explain emptiness as being empty of empty, in order to get away from dualism.
From my side I've just been talking selflessness, not emptiness. As for my particular stand, I adhere to emptiness but here have just been discussing selflessness, meaning I accept that outer objects arise from their own side.
ps. Emptiness doesn't mean that there are no outer objects, but rather that outer objects do not arise from their own side. This is because they are established as existing by mere imputation.
You are saying that there is not a causal self behind Samsara.
That's an interesting way of putting it, but what exactly is meant by causal?
Persons function, but they lack an unchanging, singular, independent essence/self.
I don't accept that, because I am not relying on my own interpretation of anything. I am relying on a lineage of master teachers who have thoroughly analyzed and have gained the fruits of having done so, and who try to pass that on.
I think that's the nub of the whole matter here. Everybody can have an opinion about what the Buddha was "actually" saying and what this and that "really" means, but they're still just the opinions of ignorant sentient beings who haven't accomplished anything on the path. One has to really depend on the lineage of masters who have accomplished the path and stop trying to reinvent the path to fit one's own comfort levels or fear boundaries. That's the only way to make any real progress on the path. In fact, it is the path. And that's why I continually drum away on this one topic, albeit from different vantage points.
Yes, you're quite right, S9, it is about surrender, which means admitting that you don't have all the answers and taking the point of view that there are those who do and that you're going to follow what they say because they've already accomplished the goal. I know that is a particularly difficult thing for us individualistic Westerners to grasp and even more to accept, but it really is the only way. Inventing your own religion will only accomplish more intense ego-clinging and confusion.
...and taking the point of view that there are those who do and that you're going to follow what they say because they've already accomplished the goal.
Oh, so you do have all the answers, because Teacher told you. I take it back...
One has to really depend on the lineage of masters who have accomplished the path and stop trying to reinvent the path to fit one's own comfort levels or fear boundaries.
Palzang, please stop projecting your own fears and insecurities onto other people. You've even gone so far as to say that if someone doesn't believe in literal rebirth/hindukamma, they're morally bankrupt and have no reason not to run around raping, murdering, and stealing candy from babies.
I have been very careful lately to respond neutrally to those who wish to learn about rebirth and what the Buddha taught, so that they can look into it themselves and realize that mine and even YOUR words are just opinions, and even the Buddha himself can not do the real work for you, so they should sit their butts down and see for themselves.
Westerners to grasp and even more to accept, but it really is the only way.
The "only way" is to believe in literal rebirth and hindukarma, and yet you've never explained why beyond "you'll be the next Ted Bundy if you don't" - hopefully no one has to explain why that's a terrible argument.
One has to really depend on the lineage of masters who have accomplished the path
[quote=Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf] Now we come to the third question which they will ask: When there is no attā, then what is reborn? What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and crazy.4 In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."[/quote]
It's irrelevant to what the Buddha taught. Even supposedly seeing past lives is irrelevant. Buddhism is about this. very. moment.
Focusing on the heart of the teachings, particularly anatta... it's really the only way.
I should get Dhamma Dhatu in here and let him know he's just a big ole coward who can't handle the idea of rebirth and doesn't know a thing about the Tipitaka and needs to study under a proper teacher. :eek:
But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."
It's horribe to negate consciousness and then apply the reasonings of impermanence merely on physical matter. You sort of cheat yourself out of rebirth and start calling simple impermanence a constant stream of rebirth.
It's horribe to negate consciousness and then apply the reasonings of impermanence merely on physical matter.
Hi aaki,
I'm not sure where your assumption here is coming from. What I quoted does not negate consciousness in any way. Consciousness arises and ceases constantly throughout this very life, and when the conditions for it arise cease, it too ceases. The reasoning applies to consciousness as well.
We may divide life in two – body and mind – each one is anattā. If we divide into five – the five khandhas (aggregates) – each one of them is anattā. Rūpa, this body that we've discussed is anattā. Then, the mind or heart can be divided into four. There is vedanā (feeling), which is anattā. It itself feels, according to the meaning of vedanā, with the value of vedanā. Saññā (recognition, perception) perceives in itself, by itself. That which is sankhāra can think, can conceive within itself. Viññāna (consciousness) is consciousness by itself. These four are purely mental matters, yet they are still anattā.
Now we will observe the important thing called "citta," "mind," or whatever you wish in other languages. Regarding this citta, we can observe that everything's significance comes down to the mind. Its meaning and value is in the mind. All things have to be known through the mind. Because of the centrality of mind, of consciousness, there are those who say this mind is attā, is self. Since it can do things and feel things, and because of its many other functions, citta is taken to be attā. But in Buddhism, "attā" is not-attā. The mind is capable of all this awareness, of all these functions, that is just the way the mind is. Although it can do so many different things, all those functions are just like that, they're just what they are. There is no self to be found in any of it, so this thing called mind is also anattā (not-self).
In short, you may regard everything that we have mentioned, whether mental or physical, whichever khandha they may be, as having within them a virtue or quality that allows them to do whatever it is that they do. They all have a mechanism within themselves. Whether material, physical, mental, or what have you– on whatever level – they have mechanisms within themselves. They can perform their function within themselves, so they don't need an attā to come in anywhere.
You sort of cheat yourself out of rebirth and start calling simple impermanence a constant stream of rebirth.
In the nidanas, there's no "rebirth." In Buddhadasa's interpretations of the nidanas, there's no rebirth. Everything is just birth, death, birth, death. Not death, rebirth, death, rebirth. Absolutely everything follows idappaccayata. Nothing that composes what we conventiently call "self" falls outside of this, including consciousness. Anatta makes any form of RE-birth impossible. Any form.
Aaki, I just noticed you quoted me and put Fivebell's name there. I doubt he appreciates it. But thank you for agreeing with me that full realization of anatta is key. The "it's the only way" comment was a bit facetious and in response to Palzang suggesting belief in literal rebirth is "the only way." And I agree with Fivebell's actual quote, too, which was in response to Palzang.
Oh, so you do have all the answers, because Teacher told you. I take it back...
Obviously you missed the earlier post where I said I didn't know. However, I have paid attention to my teachers. I don't just make up stuff like you do.
“Don’t just believe something, because I said it.”
I believe he was warning us against letting other people do our thinking, or even our realizing for us. This my friend, burrowing our people ideas as our own without a thorough personal examination of these in order to see their truth, would be hearsay, or 2nd hand knowledge.
We do not enter Nirvana, hand in hand with others, or even with a tradition/lineage in our back pocket. We enter Nirvana naked of even our own ideas. Being loyal to ideas, no matter where you get them from, is attachment to ideas.
This makes me think of a fellow I once knew, who had a huge library. I asked him in amazement, “Did you read all of these books?" He said to me, “No, I don’t really like to read. I just like to collect books.” Smile! I’m not making this up.
These ancient master, if they were Enlightened, where not passing on particular words to us. These words were pointing words. If you collect the words, you have a collection of fingers, not the truth.
By the way:
I never meant to say that the Ultimate Essence was independent, or over against other things. What I believe what I said was, that the Ultimate Truth was the correct way of seeing, exactly what you are looking at right now, and misinterpreting. Truth is right here, right now, and never changes.
Selflessness is emptiness is it not? Without the self, you are left with ‘less’ and ‘ness.’ Smile! What is that? (Joke) So how can you speak of no self, and not bring up emptiness?
I think the biggest mistake that we all often make is, trying to look at the self, or truth, or awareness, etc. with our minds, as if it is an object. We should IMHO rather try to see who is looking? Cut to the chase. This is the real mystery.
Lin Chi’s “fellow who is looking out of our eyes,” is this “emptiness” that Nagarjuna was speaking of (is a deep dark secret mystery, and yet at the same time very much “Present” and “Alive.”) This I believe is so darn obvious, that we continually overlook it, take it for granted.
aaki, would you describe yourself as a (Buddhist) materialist? To me, it seems like you are trying to have an outer world, with no inner world. (Or the objective without the subjective.) Am I missing your meaning here? Would you further say, nature is the only fact in your world, (sort of scientific in a way)?
Causal would mean: to bring something about by what preceded it, as in cause and effect. (Unlike co-dependent arising.)
Incidentally, I am not getting into a whole creative God thing here. Don't worry. : ^ )
What does it mean to follow someone else's fabrications?
In a great number of Catherine's [AKA Jetsunma Ahkön Lhamo, Palzang's teacher] past-life dreams and memories, she had been an exalted personage. She was a ruler of ancient kingdoms, a traveler from splendid faraway galaxies. She'd told her students in early teachings that she had known Jesus Christ and been by his side when he died.
I believe he was warning us against letting other people do our thinking, or even our realizing for us. This my friend, burrowing our people ideas as our own without a thorough personal examination of these in order to see their truth, would be hearsay, or 2nd hand knowledge.
We do not enter Nirvana, hand in hand with others, or even with a tradition/lineage in our back pocket. We enter Nirvana naked of even our own ideas. Being loyal to ideas, no matter where you get them from, is attachment to ideas.
It is important to understand that as long as we are not yet awakened or enlightened, whatever we say —rightly or wrongly—can be just that, an opinion. Only the awakened mind speaks the iberating truth; only such a mind speaks as he experiences it. Only one fully awakened can know whether another is awakened; others merely project their self-view and desire. In this case, a false opinion can be a greater spiritual hindrance than not knowing but seeking an answer.
Our learning at this point can at best be third-hand (through reading and listening) or second-hand (through personal reflection). Only the fully awakened has firsthand knowledge. Unless we are fully awakened saints, we should not act as if we have first-hand wisdom and offer final judgements.
aaki, would you describe yourself as a (Buddhist) materialist? To me, it seems like you are trying to have an outer world, with no inner world. (Or the objective without the subjective.) Am I missing your meaning here? Would you further say, nature is the only fact in your world, (sort of scientific in a way)?
This is the most troubling part of the discussion over there. Relative concepts seem to be dominating the absolute perspective.
Look, I'm going to say this one more time. I'm not a teacher, I don't pretend to be a teacher, I have no desire for anyone to think I'm a teacher. I'm just an ignorant sentient being like everybody else. I could care less if anybody believes what I say or not. All the same to me. All I want is for people not to create their own religion. If you want to do that, you have to right to do so, but please understand there will be no good result. The way to practice Buddhism, if that's what you want to do (and nobody says you have to), is to lay down your precious ego and just listen to what the Buddha taught. That's all.
All I want is for people not to create their own religion.
Me too; the Buddha did not teach any religion. :om: If you do not wish to call these things Buddhism, you don't have to; the Buddha taught Buddhadhamma, not Buddhism. :om:
The way to practice Buddhism, if that's what you want to do (and nobody says you have to), is to lay down your precious ego and just listen to what the Buddha taught. That's all.
You mean what your teachers tell you he taught.
Until one is Awakened it's all interpretation, including what you believe he "really taught."
If you really want everyone to believe in literal rebirth and believe the Buddha taught it as an aspect of the Path, then explain why it's necessary to the quenching of dukkha. Simple, really.
In the nidanas, there's no "rebirth." In Buddhadasa's interpretations of the nidanas, there's no rebirth. Everything is just birth, death, birth, death. Not death, rebirth, death, rebirth. Absolutely everything follows idappaccayata. Nothing that composes what we conventiently call "self" falls outside of this, including consciousness. Anatta makes any form of RE-birth impossible. Any form.
So because things are impermanent the words birth and death outside of his context do not refer to anything? That is idiotic. People are born in dependence on cause and conditions and their deaths are the causes and conditions for rebirth. The question is whether he asserts that at the time of the process of death (made up of birth-death) the "viññāna" which is "consciousness by itself" no longer exists, which he seems to be saying by saying "there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about."
Aaki, I just noticed you quoted me and put Fivebell's name there.
These ancient master, if they were Enlightened, where not passing on particular words to us. These words were pointing words. If you collect the words, you have a collection of fingers, not the truth.
They're "pointing words" only if you have not realized the objects that the words are referring to. For everyone else, the words refer to the realizations in the minds of arhats, aryas, etc, which absolutely should be collected.
I believe he was warning us against letting other people do our thinking, or even our realizing for us
You're sort of using that to get yourself out of investigating a line of reasoning. There's nothing about what I said which implied that I let others do the thinking for me. In fact, I am asserting the superiority of the lineages precisely because I have done the thinking for myself.
aaki, would you describe yourself as a (Buddhist) materialist? To me, it seems like you are trying to have an outer world, with no inner world. (Or the objective without the subjective.)
I don't really know what that means. To me a buddhist materialist is what most of you are, believing that the mind is the energy exerted by certain moving physical particles. Am I that? No.
Do you realize that all you ever do is imply how stupid people are? And it's always the other side directly quoting the suttas? :buck:
So because things are impermanent the words birth and death outside of his context do not refer to anything? That is idiotic.
...?
People are born in dependence on cause and conditions and their deaths are the causes and conditions for rebirth.
Rebirth of what? Cut to the chase. And we are born in dependence of what beyond two people having sex? What, exactly, is the little piece of "me" that's not "me" that pops into some random embryo a few days or weeks after I die? Please explain the mechanics of this, and how this benefits my practice.
Edit - wait. *reads post 51* - kamma's a THING now?
The question is whether he asserts that at the time of the process of death (made up of birth-death) the "viññāna" which is "consciousness by itself" no longer exists
What do you mean "vinnana is 'consciousness by itself'"? You seem to be suggesting that consciousness is some ever-present entity and does not rely on material things, which directly contradicts the suttas. Vinnana is never described in such a way.
A: They're "pointing words" only if you have not realized the objects that the words are referring to.
S9: Exactly! Are you claiming complete realization here?
Aren’t you actually saying that, "I have heard these things said, by someone whom in my OPINION we should respect, and I BELIEVE that what they are saying is the truth?
Isn’t BELIEFS merely opinion made solid, by our sincere wish that they would be so?
When we hear the words of another person, even an arhat, we actually are only making our best guess at what they are trying to tell us. If this were not so, there would be whole monasteries 100% enlightened simply by listening to the words of their enlightened masters/teachers. But, this certainly is not the case, is it?
Case in point: Just look at the many diverse schools of Buddhism all claiming to be the bearers of the one truth and (by the way) in good part contridicting each other.
Now, we are left with our sincere OPINION of which lineage/tradition is the truth.
I am however beginning to think, after speaking with you at some length, that the choice of paths may be almost entirely dispositional. For instance, a fundamentalist wants something solid to hold on to, while the 'waves of chance' crash all about him in this life. Is this how you feel?
Now don’t get me wrong. I too feel that the words of the Enlightened Masters should be both collected and preserved. I am eternally grateful for the help that they have given me. But, I also believe that at some point we must stop holding onto them like they ARE the destination/goal/a life jacket, and progress on in order to seeing for ourselves, (to see) just as these very masters did b/4 us, what exactly they are/were pointing at.
This is a journey into our very self, and towards nakedness from all attachments to anything at/all in this world.
Jesus said that we must DIE to our self (Ego self). This is a detachment (no attachments) from everything that we now hold dear, even our most solid truths. This is an emptying out, in order that we may be 'filled to the bursting' with the NEW.
Do you really believe that I, as a Jnana, (Mind is my path), have not examined any/many lines of reasoning? I don’t think you believe that, do you?
What I am saying is that reasoning is like a train that we travel on, only just so far. There does however come a time, a time of extreme subtlety and genuine seeking, when we must get off that train (reasoning) and travel further on foot and alone.
There are some places of which reasoning simply cannot reach, or accompany us. These destinations require something more direct, similar to what is called “Bare Attention.”
This is an internal journey beyond words, and beyond concepts.
There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that you haven’t thought about these words and come to some fine conclusions about them, as far as they could take you. But, this is the thing. There comes a time to seek for what these words so humbly are trying to describe. To look directly at what we find by doing so and question if these same words still apply.
Believe me, my friend; I am not trying to get around anything with my answers. That would be like both stealing from you, and from myself. Why would I be so foolish as that?
If I only wanted to be right, I would talk to my mirror, and in that way talk to myself. At least that way, I could get full agreement. (Joke)
; ^ )
Question reworded:
Do you believe that there is a material world out there that we are all looking at and seeing? (A world that is in no way altered by our subjective understanding of it?) That is what I mean by a materialist.
By the way, I am not a person who believes that we have to agree in order to either gain from, or enjoy a conversation. I am enjoying speaking with you. Thanx
If there is no rebirth, than why would the Bodhisattva Vow even ever exist? It would make no sense. Do followers of the Buddhadharma think that the great masters of the past just made this stuff up? For what purpose? If we do not have the confidence to follow the teachings of past and present masters than one may as well become a nihilist.
If there is no rebirth, than why would the Bodhisattva Vow even ever exist?
Not a part of all traditions, so *tosses that argument right out the window* If there is no eternal Heaven and Hell, why is it taught that people must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and ask for forgiveness for their sins and--
Really? Really? :buck:
Do followers of the Buddhadharma think that the great masters of the past just made this stuff up?
Do you think that those who claim they've spoken to God and have had near-death experiences in which they've seen Heaven are just making this stuff up? :eek: No, you'd say those people are either lying or hallucinating, right? Right? :buck: You'd say, "I don't care if the Pope himself says it, it's just speculation and I won't believe it until I know it to be true myself."
If we do not have the confidence to follow the teachings of past and present masters than one may as well become a nihilist.
Hmm or a follower of the Buddha's teachings. Yeah, I'll go with that one. :buck:
I'm open to hearing actual evidence and having a real debate, but come on now...
OK Mundus whatever the hell you screen name is, if you can't buy into the whole Bodhisattva ideal thing, I guess maybe we should just throw out the whole Mahayana tradition. Is that what you are suggesting?
It's Latin... that language the one you're speaking derived from. Copy/paste works well if words are too big for you, and it's more polite and less effort than "whatever the hell your name is."
if you can't buy into the whole Bodhisattva ideal thing, I guess maybe we should just throw out the whole Mahayana tradition. Is that what you are suggesting?
It has nothing to do with this, Tenzin. But that was just a terrible argument, I'm sorry. "Maybe we should just do away with every other religion in the world, then?"? Are you suggesting we just do away with Theravada???
Do followers of the Buddhadharma think that the great masters of the past just made this stuff up? For what purpose?
This question was answered for you time and time again on Buddhaforum.org. The Buddha clearly advised without ambiguity this teaching sides with merit and encourages goodness. The Buddha called it a "safe bet" for ordinary people.
If we do not have the confidence to follow the teachings of past and present masters than one may as well become a nihilist.
Your definition of 'nihilist' does not accord with that of the Buddha. The Buddha himself, as you were previously advised, was labelled a nihilist for teaching anatta.
The Buddha defined 'nihilism' in two ways: (1) not believing in the fruits of karma; and (2) believing death will bring peace (rather than the practise of the Noble Eightfold Path).
As quotes were provided to you in the past, they will not be provided again.
The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.
tattha:
saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ
lokasammutikāraṇaṃ
paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ
dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true
On account of its being agreed upon by the world.
The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true,
Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa
lokanāthassa satthuno
sammutiṃ voharantassa
musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,
False speech does not arise in the Teacher,
Who is Lord of the World,
When he speaks according to conventions.
Aren’t you actually saying that, "I have heard these things said, by someone whom in my OPINION we should respect, and I BELIEVE that what they are saying is the truth?
Isn’t BELIEFS merely opinion made solid, by our sincere wish that they would be so?
No, I've never had and have ever said that I have had anything asserted as truth without a reasoning. For example you talk about an arhat, but an arhat does not go around asserting things obliviously. They do what they have done over the past 1800+ years, writing treatise after treatise on logic and writing commentaries on pramana (valid cognition) and showing what is ignorance and what is not. To say you accept the lineage of the arhat is to say you have investigated it thoroughly and trained in it and achieved results, and can defend it because it is authentic (ie. a path for cessation).
Case in point: Just look at the many diverse schools of Buddhism all claiming to be the bearers of the one truth and (by the way) in good part contridicting each other.
No, they don't contradict. They all accept the base principle of lack of an unchanging, singular, independent self to persons. The problems arise on whether that is the final position or not. The reason some say it is is because they choose to side with certain sutras and do not see any merit in further reasonings after they have investigated them. Which is fine.
Do you really believe that I, as a Jnana, (Mind is my path), have not examined any/many lines of reasoning? I don’t think you believe that, do you?
Being that doesn't imply that you have investigated it. Many (most?) meditators are not buddhist and accept an enduring self. That you must realize no-self to become an arhat is a unique buddhist assertion and instruction by the buddha.
To look directly at what we find by doing so and question if these same words still apply.
But I just said, the words don't necessarily apply, the thing that the words refer to apply. The pathway mind of the path of seeing in which the lack of a self is directly realized is the cause of cessation. Now we cannot do this easily or quickly, and so we must examine this path using concepts so that our faulty concepts lessen, and so then we finally can realize it directly... IF the reasoning proves to be of substance to us in our investigation!
Do you believe that there is a material world out there that we are all looking at and seeing? (A world that is in no way altered by our subjective understanding of it?) That is what I mean by a materialist.
From the non-Mahayana school, a truly existing external world exists. For example, dogs exist. This dog is apprehend by the mind and because the mind is afflicted it imposes faulty appearances and is deceived. This is what gives rise to all the varying opinion and varying delusion in the world.
This does not mean that these errors are correct, or valid, or that they are supposed to be endured. Rather, the nature of the dog is to be directly realized by putting a stop to our affliction mind (ignorance).
Comments
I am not sure how we could call it rebirth, if it isn’t a continuation of a previous ego personality or at least some aspect of a more inclusive entity, like the soul.
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense to me.
A stream of energy continuing (call it karma if you wish) wouldn’t be a rebirth, would it? What is ‘re’ about continuing, if it doesn’t represent some intelligent life with a cumulative gain (or loss) of some sort?
Perhaps, you could explain in some way that would open my eyes to this.
S9
Our immediate circumstances are, of course, the only thing we can act in and, therefore, we should focus our attention to here and now primarily. But if the Buddha taught it, it is arguably something that has value in the path towards liberation. Now, there are sutras that describe people reaching realization based on insights into things other than rebirth, but that doesn't mean insight into the teaching of rebirth cannot be liberating in the right place and the right time for the right practitioner.
I would also like to point out that once we begin to confirm the teaching of the 12 links of dependent arising in our own experience on a continual, moment-to-moment basis, it becomes a bit easier to consider multiple lifetimes as possible.
Good point. IMHO: Meditation on rebirth can be useful for personal understanding, beyond that the capabilities for results are limited.
Now the only reason any of us have a problem with this is because we have zero conception of what the mind is, and because we fundamentally misconceive ourselves and our qualities and characteristics as being powered by or as existing as a self.
If we can't conceive of rebirth without the inclusion of this distorted self/soul as part of the equation, which buddhism denies anyway, how are we going to conceive of the rebirth that buddhism talks about?
Then, if we are constantly seeking sense pleasure in gross outer objects how are we ever going to see the mind clearly when we are by definition always keeping it heavily afflicted? I don't see how we will. Unless we are lucky enough to bump into a teacher who can expound the Sautrantika (at minimum) explanation of valid cognition, I don't think we have a chance. Until we can understand clearly that the donut and the satisfaction that certain donuts bring us are mental images merely imputed upon sense consciousness (which itself relies on the tongue, eye, etc) we will keep chasing donuts.
With that in mind, as we are exhausting our good karma by enjoying tasty donuts we are almost certainly collecting negative karmas at the same time. Then, because rebirth is not a matter of a self/soul but rather a dependent arising of awareness and perceptions we will impute the intense pain of a very real hell realm (as real as the tasty donut), if at the time of our death negative mental impression (karmas) arise, which they almost certainly will.
Yes but, and this is the thing, why would this rebirth be more closely called me than some other rebirth taking place half way across the world. Or said slightly differently, and not trying to be cute, why am I not my neighbor? After all there is life force in me and life force in my neighbor, and we both have a bag full of karma, which we had no hand in creating.
Now, I realize, and probably everyone else here does too, that Buddha used the example of a flame moving from candle to candle to depict re-birth (I wonder if he used that word, but no never mind), but, and this is the big but, what exactly does that flame represent outside the flame itself (visual manifestation) and the fuel (Energy of some sort?) which is very temporary and in constant flux, perhaps even an event without a me.
Am I making myself understood here?
In other words, a flame is an event, much like a dream, which burrows or depends upon something outside of itself to even exist, and has little or no intrinsic substance of its own. So that if a flame were to call itself me, where would it point to prove itself outside of this visual showing?
Now karma falls off the tongue so easily, and we take it for granted that is something outside of our imagination and our stories to justify happenings, but where is its real substance as a power strong enough to cause birth or rebirth or even keep this whole wide world going in some way? I cannot see it. Can you show me where I should be looking in order to find this for myself?
Please don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that there is an ego-self either, at least not outside of this same, imagined dream, which we call our life. I have to ask equally, if you can see that we are purely capable of creating a false self and being completely taken in by it, why is it so difficult to see a story that only thinly discusses our going on-ness as representative of our actions? You kill the noun or self and keep the verb or actions, which further plants the seeds of attachment.
Let me ask you this. Do you not see the mind as at least a part of this ego self? Are you swearing off everything except this mind as being you? Or are you seeing this mind as an efficient tool of some kind, if once we can get it cleaned up?
I read some time back where the senses were liars, causing much confusion. But are the senses not the servants of the mind? How can you then separate mind out from the servants, which keeps it informed, and believe what the mind comes up with and tells you?
Respectfully,
S9
This does not make the capacity for it to function less real. But once again to the mind grasping to self its functioning is like a dream.
A different label and a different basis upon which the label depends. In other words the person which is the sum of the collection of the body and mind is a unique sum, and the label "Me, and I am this such way" being uniquely derived.
For fire and the fuel there is a relationship of dependence of the type which is causation, in the case of persons the relationship between labels and their basis of imputation is a relationship of dependence of the type which is identity. A distinction in the topic of logic.
A very good online mp3 course on buddhist logic:
COURSE 13: The Art of Reasoning
A little more about the flame and dream-like flames:
From:
Incorrect Consideration and Voidness, Session Five: Doctrinally Based Grasping for a Impossible Soul of a Person
Very useful:
Introduction to Voidness and Mental Labeling
All through our life, we feel that there is something real about us, something deep inside that is ever unchanging. Even though we start as a baby, and end up as an old man, there is this something that we can’t quite put our finger on, and yet it seems quite real to us, and we call this our intrinsic me.
Now, I am not speaking here of the story, which we are writing everyday; the one that is called our ego-self made up out of facts and statistics. I am speaking of something far more intrinsic to us than that.
Are you denying that this intrinsic me exists? If you are, what do you base this on?
S9
The Four Indian Buddhist Tenet Systems Regarding Illusion: A Practical Approach
The Western translators translate various terms into 'rebirth', such as sopapajjati, upapajjati, upatti, opapātikā, and upapannā. For the Western scholar, they will translate whatever they can into the term 'rebirth'.
However, the word 'bhava' means becoming. Becoming is something mental rather than physical. Such as when the mind becomes angry, sad, happy. Such as becoming a wife, husband, Buddhist scholar, etc.
Kind regards
:buck:
When I spoke about this intrinsic “me,” I wasn’t speaking of the 'Soul', or even what some people call the 'Witness', because I fully realize that this 'Witness' is only the mind’s abilities, an ability to be self reflective, which has actually been located in the frontal lobe of our brain by the more scientific types.
I was speaking of a ‘Me’ that actually seems far more intuitional than anything else, and has not one adjective, or group of descriptions, that is capable of describing it. I am speaking about what the Zen master’s finger is supposedly pointing at. I am speaking about our “Original face.” Am I making myself understood here?
I believe that when you speak of the conventional me, you are speaking about the ego, are you not?
Let me clarify where I stand on the ego right from the get/go. I see the ego, much like that old adage, as being like an onion. Each layer of this onion is made up of nothing more than conceptual description, and these descriptions are nothing more than the building blocks of our imagination. So as the story goes, were we to peel these layers away, one by one, until not one layer was left, we would certainly be left with a handful of nothing.
But, what I am saying is, perhaps what we are calling 'nothing' is not really nothing at/all, not as we commonly think of it. It is just empty of imagination, and all of her little pretend objects.Perhaps a different dimension altogether.
I say this because, when I let go of my imagination, my concepts, and all of my earthly sensations, there still seems to be something that I call ‘Me,’ a “Presence’ not easily denied.
I think that even though we do not trust the mind, and even remove validity from what it is saying to us, we still seem to leave the mind in the drivers seat. We still check in with the mind to ask it, what we should believe. This in its self seems to be contradictory.
I believe many people misunderstand the Atman to be the soul. It is not the soul, anymore than the Buddha Nature is the soul. We can get into that further, if you wish to.
Warm regards,
S9
Look at the way the quotation I provided speaks about it. The essence is unaffected by what's going on with emotions, thoughts, etc because it remains the same. The essence exists independently from the emotions, thoughts, etc because it is like a witness or driver (ie. decision-maker).
So errr, what exactly is wrong with thinking like that anyway? Exercises For Integrating One's Life
(mp3 available on the page)
Yes, I know that what I am describing as my “Original Face,” or “my Most Intrinsic Presence" seems like a soul. But, it is in the tiny little details, the subtle nuances, that the difference is revealed.
For instance, with a soul, we still have a duality, that being soul and God, whereas, in this ‘Intimate Being,’ which I intuit directly (not from the outside looking in, but from actually being ‘Being’), one finds no division of any kind, and I am not alienated in any manner. In fact, this very being seems both familiar and totally satisfying.
I can fully see what you are describing in the fragmented mind, and it is depicted quite efficiently. But, this ‘Original Face’ is previous to the mind and only IS simultaneous to it, and yet not captured within it. Unlike soul, which is more personal to a particular individual, Presence is omnipresent. So yes, you can look within and find it. But, that is only because omnipresence includes all in-ness in every individual, and yet is not limited to that.
Do you see what I mean here?
I see the mind, and all of her doings, as being closer to virtual reality, or a dream, that comes and goes, and yet does not own its own presence, or its own essence. It is like software that works within our organic computer-like brain.
Respectfully,
S9
I believe, if you think about it, you will realize that everything is "becoming," constantly. This would include the physical manifestation of every single form, even your own body.
"Becoming" is synonymous with "change," or even with "time," as in every single minute of time is both melting into the past, and becoming the next very next moment.
Peace,
S9
However if that subtle appearance is still characterized by the previously listed qualities then it must still be called a grasping to self, and as long as it is maintained it will continue to arm the karmas that produce anger, pride, jealousy, etc.
Indeed if the self is posited as an enduring essence not only is the mind obscured but it is not even a logically relevant thing. After all when seeing the monitor you are sitting at it is not awareness that is doing all the work, it's the enduring person sitting in the control seat of the brain and in this case eye.
Mind? Huh what mind? I am myself and the function of a knowing awareness is an illusion that appears to me. Such is the conception of a heavily afflicted world, child and parent alike, genius and simpleton alike.
If something doesn’t have qualities, or definitions, where on earth would the mind grasp onto it? So when I say that our “Original Face’ has no qualities or definitions of any kind, it is implicit in that statement that there is absolutely no place to grasp on to, when dealing with this “Original Face.” Mind is at a loss.
Yet, there is something that just knows what Awareness Is, by being it. This Awareness is not co-dependent, and requires no object outside of its self. This Awareness is not becoming or changing in any way. Unlike the soul, it doesn’t require any I/Thou relationships to verify its self.
This is why when Bodhidharma was questioned, after arriving at 100% enlightenment, as to who he was, he said, “I have no idea.” He did not say, “I am not.” He did not say, “I am empty.”
(Heaven knows those conceptual answers, about emptiness, and being void, were floating around in his environment, even back then. This is not a new misconception by any means. But he did not reach out and use one of these easily accessed answers. Why? Because, he knew they were not correct. That is why.)
So in essence, he was saying, “I am, but I cannot conceive of this turn of events, or describe my Being, in either words or pictures.” “I just know, without a doubt, that I am.”
It is not Descartes’, “I think therefore I am.”
It is, “I am Present, therefore I Am.”
I think we should be questioning more closely, "WHAT was empty of what?"
Warm regards,
S9
Furthermore there's no such thing as an existing thing without characteristics.."not becoming or changing in any way" are characteristics.
Hey, I'm not saying it doesn't feel like that. I'm not advocating nihilism either, which means denying our identity and our sense of ourselves. The point of denying a false self and cognizing selflessness is to establish that we depend on good karma, keeping morality, and not fighting to protect the eternal essence self at the expense of others. Which is precisely what happens in the mind of every mind-possessor when they commit a negative action, thinking and believing 100% that it will bring them some type of gain.
Whenever we use words, because of the dualistic structure of language, we will be forced to either say ‘is’ or ‘is not.’
When you say that, my saying that the ‘Original face “ has no descriptions, (“Is not” describable) is the same as describing it, it gets a bit off target. I am speaking more about what is often called, “The Don’t Know Mind.”
The Hindus have a practice called ‘Neti/Neti”, or “not this/not this.” The reasoning behind this is that language cannot capture what the “Original Face" is; but it is very good at saying what “Original Face" isn’t.
This would be similar to what the Buddha advocated, “Abandoning” un-truth, or hearsay.
This is a process of elimination, our wiping illusion out of our eyes in order to see more clearly.
If my ‘Original Face’ were a mere illusion, on my part, then in looking at it by use of what some call, “Bare Attention,” I would get rid of it. What actually happens, however, is that it grows in strength, and removes other things that remain untrue from my mind. It has both clarity and certainty as byproducts. On top of that, this ‘Original Face’ remains consistently satisfying. How many things in this world can we say that about?
A: “I'm not advocating nihilism either, which means denying our identity and our sense of ourselves.”
S9: So we are on the same page, anyway.
All I am advocating here is, a thorough investigation into this identity, or sense of our selves. I mean “directly” looking into it, as the Buddha asked us to. (Phenomenology of a sort.)
A: The point of denying a false self and cognizing selflessness is to establish that we depend on good karma, keeping morality, and not fighting to protect the eternal essence self at the expense of others.
S9: Are you saying that, “The ends justify the means?” Or, although the ‘no-self’ is not correct, it is very usable. Or “It all comes out in the wash?”
There is no doubt in my mind that the human species is apt to do most anything, blow up market places and eat it own children, if it comes to that. But, I am not ready to throw in the towel and not even try to know the truth, even if it can be misused.
Namaste,
S9
Including that statement?
:crazy:
Good for you. How clever of you to realize this.
Yes, even this (my) statement, (“Everything is "becoming”), or any statement really.
All limited truth is only becoming, (limited truth is anything that we can possibly say). It is only a small piece of truth. It is not the whole truth.
That is why the mind is not the correct tool for realizing the Ultimate Truth.
Do you see how your sig. line is mirroring our present conversation?
Keep on, keeping on,
S9
It seems enduring, but upon analysis we find it is not. That's all buddhism is, reasoning and applying scrunity against that natural appearance. The punchline is: its not existing in that impossible mode of existence doesn't harm the existence of persons. It just makes 'you' no longer grasp to an exaggerated quality that is never there and never could have been there.
Not at all, I mean it very literally. Lack of a self to persons is the unique basis of buddhism. Everyone else asserts some variation of permanence, nonproduction, superproduction, independence, etc, even nonexistence (nihilists) which we identify as being the causes for cycling samsara.
I believe that I see what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong, please.
You are saying that there is not a causal self behind Samsara.
A: Lack of a self to persons is the unique basis of Buddhism.
S9: Yes, but then we have to figure out WHAT self. If Buddha wants us to get rid of a causal self, it may not mean that he also wants up to get rid of the more transcendent being, which doesn’t share the characteristics with causal self of having what we call personality.
Also, I think there might be more than one opinion what is the basis of Buddhism, especially for people such as myself who don’t buy into the more common interpretation of what the Buddha was saying in this particular area.
Let us remember that everything that you think, and everything I think, about what the Buddha was saying comes back to being an interpretation by us. The Buddha was Awake to something that we are not yet fully awake to, perhaps on many levels, and so he is describing the color red to someone who was born blind to color in a way. So he uses the senses that we do have (mind is the 6th sense) to describe red to us. He might say red in hot like a hot pepper, close but no banana. ; ^ )
If we go on to make some religion out of what he has said and use as its basis that red is hot, is that his fault? This is the difficulty of expressing something that is basically another dimension, transcendent ‘Original Face.’
Monism itself is a limitation of the mind, as is unity. It is how the mind tries to gather up multiplicity into something workable by the human mind. This does not make these two ultimate truth, but more of a practicality of sorts.
Nagajuna tried to explain emptiness as being empty of empty, in order to get away from dualism. But, it is a fool errand, and cannot be done with language. Yet, we keep trying with language because it is very good at pointing TOWARDS where we should be putting our attention.
I believe that you might be making pretty much the same mistake that Alan Watts made in his earlier years. (I could be mistaken. Heaven knows this wouldn’t be unheard of.) Alan thought that there was a concrete existence as apposed to a more conceptual. He felt that the concrete was more real. Am I seeing your stand correctly here?
I however see this as a step backwards, away from the self reflective, more into a complacent animal like state. Yes, we are animals, but no, that is not all that we are.
Warm regards,
S9
I don't accept that, because I am not relying on my own interpretation of anything. I am relying on a lineage of master teachers who have thoroughly analyzed and have gained the fruits of having done so, and who try to pass that on.
Let's say that were true, it still doesn't necessitate the existence of some independent essence behind the mind and the body.
From my side I've just been talking selflessness, not emptiness. As for my particular stand, I adhere to emptiness but here have just been discussing selflessness, meaning I accept that outer objects arise from their own side.
ps. Emptiness doesn't mean that there are no outer objects, but rather that outer objects do not arise from their own side. This is because they are established as existing by mere imputation.
That's an interesting way of putting it, but what exactly is meant by causal?
Persons function, but they lack an unchanging, singular, independent essence/self.
I think that's the nub of the whole matter here. Everybody can have an opinion about what the Buddha was "actually" saying and what this and that "really" means, but they're still just the opinions of ignorant sentient beings who haven't accomplished anything on the path. One has to really depend on the lineage of masters who have accomplished the path and stop trying to reinvent the path to fit one's own comfort levels or fear boundaries. That's the only way to make any real progress on the path. In fact, it is the path. And that's why I continually drum away on this one topic, albeit from different vantage points.
Yes, you're quite right, S9, it is about surrender, which means admitting that you don't have all the answers and taking the point of view that there are those who do and that you're going to follow what they say because they've already accomplished the goal. I know that is a particularly difficult thing for us individualistic Westerners to grasp and even more to accept, but it really is the only way. Inventing your own religion will only accomplish more intense ego-clinging and confusion.
Palzang
Palzang, please stop projecting your own fears and insecurities onto other people. You've even gone so far as to say that if someone doesn't believe in literal rebirth/hindukamma, they're morally bankrupt and have no reason not to run around raping, murdering, and stealing candy from babies.
I have been very careful lately to respond neutrally to those who wish to learn about rebirth and what the Buddha taught, so that they can look into it themselves and realize that mine and even YOUR words are just opinions, and even the Buddha himself can not do the real work for you, so they should sit their butts down and see for themselves.
The "only way" is to believe in literal rebirth and hindukarma, and yet you've never explained why beyond "you'll be the next Ted Bundy if you don't" - hopefully no one has to explain why that's a terrible argument.
Oh I agree. And I have the utmost respect for Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and other teachers who don't regurgitate things even they don't understand, from a person who couldn't get out of the Brahman mindset and admitted he didn't even understand the explanations he came up with but hoped he would gain enough merit from his efforts so that he would be reborn with the gods until the Metteyya came and would teach him properly so he could attain enlightenment, LOL.
[quote=Buddhadasa Bhikkhu in http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf] Now we come to the third question which they will ask: When there is no attā, then what is reborn? What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and crazy.4 In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person, one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly, constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."[/quote]
It's irrelevant to what the Buddha taught. Even supposedly seeing past lives is irrelevant. Buddhism is about this. very. moment.
Focusing on the heart of the teachings, particularly anatta... it's really the only way.
I should get Dhamma Dhatu in here and let him know he's just a big ole coward who can't handle the idea of rebirth and doesn't know a thing about the Tipitaka and needs to study under a proper teacher. :eek:
Which is beneficial, but.. you know..
Hi aaki,
I'm not sure where your assumption here is coming from. What I quoted does not negate consciousness in any way. Consciousness arises and ceases constantly throughout this very life, and when the conditions for it arise cease, it too ceases. The reasoning applies to consciousness as well.
In the nidanas, there's no "rebirth." In Buddhadasa's interpretations of the nidanas, there's no rebirth. Everything is just birth, death, birth, death. Not death, rebirth, death, rebirth. Absolutely everything follows idappaccayata. Nothing that composes what we conventiently call "self" falls outside of this, including consciousness. Anatta makes any form of RE-birth impossible. Any form.
Edit - ^ sorry Fivebells.
Obviously you missed the earlier post where I said I didn't know. However, I have paid attention to my teachers. I don't just make up stuff like you do.
Palzang
Fivebells, no!!! :eek:
The Buddha said, “Be a lamp unto your self.”
And:
“Don’t just believe something, because I said it.”
I believe he was warning us against letting other people do our thinking, or even our realizing for us. This my friend, burrowing our people ideas as our own without a thorough personal examination of these in order to see their truth, would be hearsay, or 2nd hand knowledge.
We do not enter Nirvana, hand in hand with others, or even with a tradition/lineage in our back pocket. We enter Nirvana naked of even our own ideas. Being loyal to ideas, no matter where you get them from, is attachment to ideas.
This makes me think of a fellow I once knew, who had a huge library. I asked him in amazement, “Did you read all of these books?" He said to me, “No, I don’t really like to read. I just like to collect books.” Smile! I’m not making this up.
These ancient master, if they were Enlightened, where not passing on particular words to us. These words were pointing words. If you collect the words, you have a collection of fingers, not the truth.
By the way:
I never meant to say that the Ultimate Essence was independent, or over against other things. What I believe what I said was, that the Ultimate Truth was the correct way of seeing, exactly what you are looking at right now, and misinterpreting. Truth is right here, right now, and never changes.
Selflessness is emptiness is it not? Without the self, you are left with ‘less’ and ‘ness.’ Smile! What is that? (Joke) So how can you speak of no self, and not bring up emptiness?
I think the biggest mistake that we all often make is, trying to look at the self, or truth, or awareness, etc. with our minds, as if it is an object. We should IMHO rather try to see who is looking? Cut to the chase. This is the real mystery.
Lin Chi’s “fellow who is looking out of our eyes,” is this “emptiness” that Nagarjuna was speaking of (is a deep dark secret mystery, and yet at the same time very much “Present” and “Alive.”) This I believe is so darn obvious, that we continually overlook it, take it for granted.
aaki, would you describe yourself as a (Buddhist) materialist? To me, it seems like you are trying to have an outer world, with no inner world. (Or the objective without the subjective.) Am I missing your meaning here? Would you further say, nature is the only fact in your world, (sort of scientific in a way)?
Causal would mean: to bring something about by what preceded it, as in cause and effect. (Unlike co-dependent arising.)
Incidentally, I am not getting into a whole creative God thing here. Don't worry. : ^ )
Warm regards,
S9
You reminded me of a quote:
:om:
This is the most troubling part of the discussion over there. Relative concepts seem to be dominating the absolute perspective.
Palzang
Me too; the Buddha did not teach any religion. :om: If you do not wish to call these things Buddhism, you don't have to; the Buddha taught Buddhadhamma, not Buddhism. :om:
You mean what your teachers tell you he taught.
Until one is Awakened it's all interpretation, including what you believe he "really taught."
If you really want everyone to believe in literal rebirth and believe the Buddha taught it as an aspect of the Path, then explain why it's necessary to the quenching of dukkha. Simple, really.
More projections.
Sorry my mistake.
They're "pointing words" only if you have not realized the objects that the words are referring to. For everyone else, the words refer to the realizations in the minds of arhats, aryas, etc, which absolutely should be collected.
You're sort of using that to get yourself out of investigating a line of reasoning. There's nothing about what I said which implied that I let others do the thinking for me. In fact, I am asserting the superiority of the lineages precisely because I have done the thinking for myself.
I don't really know what that means. To me a buddhist materialist is what most of you are, believing that the mind is the energy exerted by certain moving physical particles. Am I that? No.
Do you realize that all you ever do is imply how stupid people are? And it's always the other side directly quoting the suttas? :buck:
...?
Rebirth of what? Cut to the chase. And we are born in dependence of what beyond two people having sex? What, exactly, is the little piece of "me" that's not "me" that pops into some random embryo a few days or weeks after I die? Please explain the mechanics of this, and how this benefits my practice.
Edit - wait. *reads post 51* - kamma's a THING now?
What do you mean "vinnana is 'consciousness by itself'"? You seem to be suggesting that consciousness is some ever-present entity and does not rely on material things, which directly contradicts the suttas. Vinnana is never described in such a way.
Yes:
A: They're "pointing words" only if you have not realized the objects that the words are referring to.
S9: Exactly! Are you claiming complete realization here?
Aren’t you actually saying that, "I have heard these things said, by someone whom in my OPINION we should respect, and I BELIEVE that what they are saying is the truth?
Isn’t BELIEFS merely opinion made solid, by our sincere wish that they would be so?
When we hear the words of another person, even an arhat, we actually are only making our best guess at what they are trying to tell us. If this were not so, there would be whole monasteries 100% enlightened simply by listening to the words of their enlightened masters/teachers. But, this certainly is not the case, is it?
Case in point: Just look at the many diverse schools of Buddhism all claiming to be the bearers of the one truth and (by the way) in good part contridicting each other.
Now, we are left with our sincere OPINION of which lineage/tradition is the truth.
I am however beginning to think, after speaking with you at some length, that the choice of paths may be almost entirely dispositional. For instance, a fundamentalist wants something solid to hold on to, while the 'waves of chance' crash all about him in this life. Is this how you feel?
Now don’t get me wrong. I too feel that the words of the Enlightened Masters should be both collected and preserved. I am eternally grateful for the help that they have given me. But, I also believe that at some point we must stop holding onto them like they ARE the destination/goal/a life jacket, and progress on in order to seeing for ourselves, (to see) just as these very masters did b/4 us, what exactly they are/were pointing at.
This is a journey into our very self, and towards nakedness from all attachments to anything at/all in this world.
Jesus said that we must DIE to our self (Ego self). This is a detachment (no attachments) from everything that we now hold dear, even our most solid truths. This is an emptying out, in order that we may be 'filled to the bursting' with the NEW.
Do you really believe that I, as a Jnana, (Mind is my path), have not examined any/many lines of reasoning? I don’t think you believe that, do you?
What I am saying is that reasoning is like a train that we travel on, only just so far. There does however come a time, a time of extreme subtlety and genuine seeking, when we must get off that train (reasoning) and travel further on foot and alone.
There are some places of which reasoning simply cannot reach, or accompany us. These destinations require something more direct, similar to what is called “Bare Attention.”
This is an internal journey beyond words, and beyond concepts.
There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that you haven’t thought about these words and come to some fine conclusions about them, as far as they could take you. But, this is the thing. There comes a time to seek for what these words so humbly are trying to describe. To look directly at what we find by doing so and question if these same words still apply.
Believe me, my friend; I am not trying to get around anything with my answers. That would be like both stealing from you, and from myself. Why would I be so foolish as that?
If I only wanted to be right, I would talk to my mirror, and in that way talk to myself. At least that way, I could get full agreement. (Joke)
; ^ )
Question reworded:
Do you believe that there is a material world out there that we are all looking at and seeing? (A world that is in no way altered by our subjective understanding of it?) That is what I mean by a materialist.
By the way, I am not a person who believes that we have to agree in order to either gain from, or enjoy a conversation. I am enjoying speaking with you. Thanx
Warm regards,
S9
Not a part of all traditions, so *tosses that argument right out the window* If there is no eternal Heaven and Hell, why is it taught that people must accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and ask for forgiveness for their sins and--
Really? Really? :buck:
Do you think that those who claim they've spoken to God and have had near-death experiences in which they've seen Heaven are just making this stuff up? :eek: No, you'd say those people are either lying or hallucinating, right? Right? :buck: You'd say, "I don't care if the Pope himself says it, it's just speculation and I won't believe it until I know it to be true myself."
Hmm or a follower of the Buddha's teachings. Yeah, I'll go with that one. :buck:
I'm open to hearing actual evidence and having a real debate, but come on now...
It's Latin... that language the one you're speaking derived from.
It has nothing to do with this, Tenzin. But that was just a terrible argument, I'm sorry. "Maybe we should just do away with every other religion in the world, then?"? Are you suggesting we just do away with Theravada???
The Bodhisattva Vow is Mahayana. The Buddha himself did not teach it (apart from for his present life). This question was answered for you time and time again on Buddhaforum.org. The Buddha clearly advised without ambiguity this teaching sides with merit and encourages goodness. The Buddha called it a "safe bet" for ordinary people.
Your definition of 'nihilist' does not accord with that of the Buddha. The Buddha himself, as you were previously advised, was labelled a nihilist for teaching anatta.
The Buddha defined 'nihilism' in two ways: (1) not believing in the fruits of karma; and (2) believing death will bring peace (rather than the practise of the Noble Eightfold Path).
As quotes were provided to you in the past, they will not be provided again.
Kind regards
Dhamma Dhatu
(Dhatu in Pali means 'element')
When a Buddha speaks, the meaning of the words he uses to describe mundane matters falls upon the listener or reader.
Please take note: "False speech does not arise in the Teacher".
No, they don't contradict. They all accept the base principle of lack of an unchanging, singular, independent self to persons. The problems arise on whether that is the final position or not. The reason some say it is is because they choose to side with certain sutras and do not see any merit in further reasonings after they have investigated them. Which is fine.
Being that doesn't imply that you have investigated it. Many (most?) meditators are not buddhist and accept an enduring self. That you must realize no-self to become an arhat is a unique buddhist assertion and instruction by the buddha.
But I just said, the words don't necessarily apply, the thing that the words refer to apply. The pathway mind of the path of seeing in which the lack of a self is directly realized is the cause of cessation. Now we cannot do this easily or quickly, and so we must examine this path using concepts so that our faulty concepts lessen, and so then we finally can realize it directly... IF the reasoning proves to be of substance to us in our investigation!
From the non-Mahayana school, a truly existing external world exists. For example, dogs exist. This dog is apprehend by the mind and because the mind is afflicted it imposes faulty appearances and is deceived. This is what gives rise to all the varying opinion and varying delusion in the world.
This does not mean that these errors are correct, or valid, or that they are supposed to be endured. Rather, the nature of the dog is to be directly realized by putting a stop to our affliction mind (ignorance).
These discussions are getting long.