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.
What Evidence Is Present To Prove Re-Birth Exists?
Okkamati [o + kamati fr. kram] lit. to enter, go down into, fall into. fig. to come on, to develop, to appear in (of a subjective state). It is strange that this important word has been so much misunderstood, for the English idiom is the same.We say ʻ he went to sleep ʼ, without meaning that he went anywhere. ... At D <SMALLCAPS>ii</SMALLCAPS> 63 occurs the question ʻ if consciousness were not to develop in the womb? ʼ (viññāṇaŋ na okkamissatha)
Wow!
Good stuff. All of these words are quite dodgy in their translations.
In fact, this DN 15 sutta is quite dodgy. For example, it excludes the sense bases and includes a description of name-form inconsistant with the suttas.
It is widely acknowledged many of the DN suttas are probably post Buddha.
You mean the dictionary chooses to side with it. Read the dictionary entry.
It gives both. You select one particular usage from the figurative for no good reason.
Fivebells didn't think it was appropriate for me to dance in the ashes of your arguments, and I agreed, and I am sorry. The "off the mark" comments have all been at you.
I offered multiple counter-arguments, most of which are still waiting to be addressed. Be more rational, say things which make more sense and relate precisely to what has already been said. The 'dancing' you feel like doing is based on an irrational idea in your emergent properties that I have somehow my arguments are in "ashes". There are multiple things that are "off the mark" in such an assessment. Particularly where you cannot address a point on logical discourse and reassert that it is in "ashes" without it having been addressed either by you or by fivebells (yet).
It gives both. You select one particular usage from the figurative for no good reason.
Hi again aaki,
I am honoured that after a single post, you decided that I'm worthwhile to respond to again.
Please pay proper attention. Here is a direct link to the full defintion for you. Once again, the dictionary authors (i.e. the pali scholars) chose that particular usage for that sutta, not me. If you are short on time as you keep saying, it would be helpful to pay attention so we didn't have to go over these things 50 times.
They chose a definition that makes sense, and corresponds with the rest of the teachings. If you take issue with their work, I'm sure there's a Contact page on their website. Go ahead, argue with the dictionary, aaki.
The 'dancing' you feel like doing
Did, aaki. The dancing I did. Which I apologized for. Shh, let go now...
Actually, this post is hard to understand no matter what the emotional state of the reader is, because it is agrammatical, vague and emotive. Could you take another crack after you calm down, please?
I don't know what you're talking about. But keep using ad hominems in every post you make. So that at the end, when you've 'won' because of the lack of clarity I've admitted, about the very topics that I introduced into the discussion (and you did not), you can come out and say 'oh, typical of religious movements'.
Since you displayed such poor style after I said I was going to accept the rebuke for various reasons, I have changed my mind and now we will proceed to discuss why the logical reasoning has not yet failed or succeeded.
I will regive the argument and try to make it clearer in a following post.
I did. Now refer to my last reply, which says you choose to side with a figuartive listing and deny the literal meanings for no good reason. Pali/sanskrit/tibetan all tend to uses the same words for many different things in different contexts. You have chosen to rely on a particular figurative usage when it is speaking of "in the womb". I suggest that a more literal usage, such as "to enter", may be more appropriate meaning when talking about developing in wombs, consciousness, and rebirth. For example the link you provide further on says "entered his new mother's womb (kucchiŋ okkami)". You cannot assert that these people mean this in some figurative sense as well, because there is no such english equivalent. To enter is to enter in to.
Even if you stuck the word "monkey" in place of "develop" it would make more sense than suggesting consciousness is a little fairy the magically pops into a vagina. "
This is because are completely unaware of mind and its qualities and because you do not understand and/or have never heard it carefully explained and have never studied it, such as for example the abhidharma literature. Abhidharma, too, denies your idea of a little mind finding a womb to sit inside of.
Not all Theravadins agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi, especially the Forest Tradition.
They disagree with the mind being endless and beginningless, do they?
Bodhi is of the Buddhagosa school. Buddhagosa admitted he did not understand Dependent Origination and admitted he did his Dhamma work for rebirth in heaven.
It's a lie to say that he explicitly said that. You merely infer that from what he said.
In actual fact, saying that he hopes he will come back during the time of Maitreya establishes his idea of dependent arising over 3 or more lifetimes, and his eventual nirvana using the very same system.
They disagree with the mind being endless and beginningless, do they?
I would say the Buddha disagreed. The Buddha taught all mind is impermanent.
Aaaaki. Of everything you have posted, your sentence above is the weirdest. Bizarre.
In every Theravada monastary, which are places for practice, every morning the following words are chanted. These words cannot be any more unambiguous:
[Yo so svākkhāto] bhagavatā dhammo, The Dhamma well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see,
Opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi: leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves:
Evaṃ bhāgā ca panassa bhagavato sāvakesu anusāsanī, Bahulaṃ pavattati: Many times did he emphasize this part of his admonition:
In actual fact, saying that he hopes he will come back during the time of Maitreya establishes his idea of dependent arising over 3 or more lifetimes, and his eventual nirvana using the very same system.
The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination over three-life times. If you wish to start another religion, so be it.
In actual fact all he is is a nihilist armed with some minor knowledge of impermanence and who does not even have a higher knowledge yet.
Aaaki
We have already quoted the Buddha for you from MN 117, who advised rebirth is not higher knowledge, it is not wisdom, it is not a factor of the path, it sides with asava or defilment.
However, Aaaaki, I have a question for you.
The Buddha advised in MN 60 and elsewhere that (mundane) nihilism, is to not believe in the results of action, to not believe there is another state or world (loka), especially to not believe there are the woeful states.
So regarding Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers, they believe in life after death but they obviously do not believe in the results of good & bad karma.
Are they nihilists or do they have the right view you espouse???
I will regive the argument and try to make it clearer in a following post.
All reasonings have scopes. For example the text begins with "Suppose you say that the mind of a person who was just born has no cause. You are disproven by the fact that this mind is variable."
The obvious scope here is that caused things change. If you accept it, then you move to the next part. However, if you don't accept it, then the scope changes to proving why a thing must be changing if it is caused.
Now this is not included as part of this reasoning. Why? Because it is not a 500 part line of reasoning which covers every existing scope - that is not the scope(s) of this reasoning. Does this mean this particular line of reasoning is somehow made invalid by this? No. It just means that this line of reasoning does not apply to that person who asserts that caused things could be unchanging. But will apply to them at the time when that point is proven to them. So an additional proof which is not given here would be required for that.
Then, what would make this whole line of reasoning invalid? If some part of the reasoning were found to be logically unsound by more accurate logic.
But is this a line of reasoning that establishes rebirth? Yes. Because it eliminates all variations in which physical matter could be the material cause for mind, and establishes that mind can only be the material cause of mind, which "means that the past history and future continuation of our minds are simply infinite; and that the existence of past and future lives can be clearly and correctly proven".
How can it prove that, when its scopes by definition don't cover every existing counter-argument that may arise? Because it is implied that these other scopes are given elsewhere and that these counter-argument are defeated there. And once those are accepted, the logic in this particular line of reasoning is flawless.
Are they nihilists or do they have the right view you espouse???
They're not nihilist, they are the other extreme (eternalists).
We have already quoted the Buddha for you from MN 117, who advised rebirth is not higher knowledge, it is not wisdom, it is not a factor of the path, it sides with asava or defilment.
Yes, but you don't understand it in the slightest. Which is not surprising, because you are trying to read a section on right view on your own.
Futhermore you and fivebells somehow managed to turn "There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" into meaning rebirth which sides with merit, is a right view with effluents.
I would say the Buddha disagreed. The Buddha taught all mind is impermanent.
Aaaaki. Of everything you have posted, your sentence above is the weirdest. Bizarre.
Impermanence means being inconstant, or more accurately, momentary. Which means an object cannot endure for a second moment. Beginningless means being without prime origination. In other words since it always relying on causes and conditions it is a continuous, beginningless cycle.
The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination over three-life times. If you wish to start another religion, so be it.
Not according to Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika and all of their realizations, direct cognitions, tenets and reasonings. But since I can't combat your petty pali there's not much more to say (again). I guess I'll write your stuff down and mention what you've said to my sanskrit professor friend. Super good luck with your 'direct knowing' is electricity theory.
But keep using ad hominems in every post you make.
Pot.
Now refer to my last reply, which says you choose to side with a figuartive listing and deny the literal meanings for no good reason.
Aaki, I'm gonna say this reeeeal slow for you: t h e d i c t i o n a r y a u t h o r s c h o s e t o p u t "declare" i n t h a t s e n t e n c e, n o t m e. Contact them if you have a problem with it.
Pali/sanskrit/tibetan all tend to uses the same words for many different things in different contexts.
Indeed, like every other language, so please keep that in mind and consider that, when something reads as nonsense and defies all the other teachings (i.e. consciousness being a little ethereal fairy that jumps out of your body at death and hops into a woman's vagina, which sounds an awful lot like what Sati the Fisherman's Son suggested), then you should probably refer to a dictionary to clear things up.
For example the link you provide further on says "entered his new mother's womb (kucchiŋ okkami
Yes, this is in another context, isn't it? No mention of consciousness................ who's cherry-picking now?
And you seem to be stuck on the idea that I deny literal rebirth appears in the suttas. I don't. I just, like you, feel the audience must be taken into consideration.
Abhidharma, too, denies your idea of a little mind finding a womb to sit inside of.
That's more of what YOU are suggesting. Consciousness is a process.
Still waiting for your answer of why belief and trying to recall past lives is necessary to the Path.
In any event, let me know when you have time to answer this question...
The main problems with denying rebirth is that it is unrealistic because it denies cognition and because it annihilates the status of persons.
Such a person could never attain cessation and the more sophisticated systems of selflessness (and particularly mahayana emptiness) could never be true and no-one could ever realize them. There would be no such thing as the realization that persons lack being self-sufficiently knowable entities.
Aaki, I'm gonna say this reeeeal slow for you: t h e d i c t i o n a r y a u t h o r s c h o s e t o p u t "declare" i n t h a t s e n t e n c e, n o t m e. Contact them if you have a problem with it.
Mate, it's not a sentence. It's a variety of known usages and meanings. From that, you've selected a particular one to use.
It is mistaken to do so without a good reason. The only way you could have a good reason is if you had an intimate knowledge of the language, and through understanding each element of the sentence you would understand the context of the word. Then you would know the correct meanings and usages of the word.
Consciousness is a process.
What does this even mean? Of course it's a process. Everything is a process of production. This does not mean consciousness doesn't function. it does not mean karma does not function.
when something reads as nonsense and defies all the other teachings
You are merely grasping to mind as possessing a self. No such mind exists, no such mind takes rebirth. I understand it if you deny rebirth based on a notion of such a mind performing some sort of function in some place.
However if you were to understand that rebirth is just a change in perceptions you would see it makes sense, because it is also what is happening right now. Karma and consciousness is correctly understood and observed in that sense. You can die 5 breathes from now and be a dog because all that is needed is a flickering of perceptions and the right internal and external conditions.
But is this a line of reasoning that establishes rebirth? Yes. Because it eliminates all variations in which physical matter could be the material cause for mind, and establishes that mind can only be the material cause of mind, which "means that the past history and future continuation of our minds are simply infinite; and that the existence of past and future lives can be clearly and correctly proven".
How can it prove that, when its scopes by definition don't cover every existing counter-argument that may arise? Because it is implied that these other scopes are given elsewhere and that these counter-argument are defeated there. And once those are accepted, the logic in this particular line of reasoning is flawless.
This is a red herring. What's relevant is that that document supposedly contained a proof of literal rebirth. Now it only disproves a particularly medieval line of argument against the concept. This is true, but not what was promised, and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
It is mistaken to do so without a good reason. The only way you could have a good reason is if you had an intimate knowledge of the language, and through understanding each element of the sentence you would understand the context of the word. Then you would know the correct meanings and usages of the word.
You don't listen. The authors of that dictionary, the Pali scholars, used the very sutta you referenced as an example, and THEY felt that "develop" was a more appropriate translation in that very instance. For the last time, if you have an issue with that definition and their translation of the sutta you quoted, please contact them.
You are merely grasping to mind as possessing a self.
What you call "mind" would not be present if not for physical matter. Mind is not ever-present. What we call "mind" arises and ceases a thousand times a day. It arises because of Contact. When the conditions described by the Buddha for Contact are no longer present, consciousness ceases. You suggest "mind" or whatever is an entity, that jumps from one body to another when we die. Can you explain the mechanics of what you're proposing?
The Buddha said it would be better, a small step closer to the truth, to regard the body as "self," rather than the mind. After death, consciousness/mind is no longer (if you feel this suggests "a person is annihilated after death!" then you are clearly the one clinging to "self"), but our bodies will still be here, and will decompose, and return to the earth, and nourish the grass that the animals eat, which in turn nourishes a person who then brings another child into the world, and then...
This is more "rebirth" than what you're speculating, and can be seen to be true firsthand. Your view is speculative and disregards the body, which means you are putting an emphasis on the mind as "self."
You provided one poorly-translated sutta quote to try to back up your position, and ignore that the dictionarydisagrees with the translation in that instance, and the thousands of other suttas that contradict your explanation of consciousness.
Although I still think a lot of harm comes from calling anything "rebirth" because it suggests there's something to "re-" in the first place. I imagine there's a reason the word "birth" is used in the suttas rather than "rebirth." Everything is constantly being born and dying, there is no underlying thing to be re-born, whether in the literal sense, or the figurative sense. This is why that "silly, stupid, ignorant, unenlightened" Buddhadasa always made this distinction clear, because it's important in understanding anatta.
However if you were to understand that rebirth is just a change in perceptions you would see it makes sense...
What does "change in perceptions" mean in this context? Again, please explain the mechanics of your idea of rebirth. What is this underlying "thing" that's reborn? How does it end up in someone's va-jay-jay after I die? How does it exist without the conditions that are necessary for it to exist no longer present?
They're not nihilist, they are the other extreme (eternalists).
Aaaki
Your views do not accord with the Buddha. I recommend you study more.
The Buddha described two kinds of nihilism: (1) moral nihilism: and (2) spiritual nihilism.
Spiritual nihilism is as follows. The Buddha did not use the term wrong view. Rather, he used the term "to over-reach":
"How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of) non-being, asserting: 'In as much as this self, good sirs, when the body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not exist after death — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is reality!' Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
Now please note, the Buddha said the opposite of this is "to hold back". This "holding back" is done by those whose minds are not willing to embrace the three characteristics, namely, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self, and dive into stream entry.
The middle way, is to realise the causes of suffering & practise for the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is the cessation of (mental) being or becoming but it is not to "overreach".
Either way, none of the above teachings by the Buddha about nihilism have anything to do with life after death. They are about the alternatives between delight, aversion & wisdom.
That you believe the suicide bombers are not nihilist, shows wrong view. The Buddha advised, one without the view of moral nihilism, will:
adopt & practice these three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable brahmans & contemplatives see in unskillful activities the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; and in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
Your views of nihilism & eternalism are related to ego and to believing there is a permanent unending mind, like you ludicrously posted previously.
Your views & definitions, whilst held by many Buddhists, are not what the Buddha taught.
Your views are akin to views held by fundamentalist Christians & Muslims that are learned from their Sunday School pastors. These are views held by those who have insufficient faith & gratitude to read the suttas.
In brief, to summarise again, the Buddha taught about moral nihilism and spiritual nihilism. Any views about life after death that are not directly connected to morality or the cessation of suffering do not fall within the sphere of the Buddha's teaching.
Buddha taught rebirth to unenlightened people so they would do good & avoid self-harm (rather than for clinging to ego & unbending fanatical dogmatism).
The main problems with denying rebirth is that it is unrealistic because it denies cognition and because it annihilates the status of persons.
Aaaaaaaki
In fact, the opposite holds. To assert consciousness is reborn is to deny consciousness is merely cognition or sense-awareness, as the Buddha taught.
To assert consciousness is reborn is to give consciousness the character of a soul or what the Buddha called the jiva indriya, namely, the life faculty.
Buddha taught rebirth as a moral principle. He did not teach consciousness is reborn. Instead, Buddha taught beings are reborn according to their actions or karma.
Second, the Buddha's teachings of dependent origination, anatta & sunnata deny the status of persons.
Brother. Your post are getting more & more confused & convoluted.
The main problems with denying rebirth it annihilates the status of persons.
Aaaki
What is inspiring about your view above is it brings recollection of the great suttas and the Buddha's most famous words:
"So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Not according to Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika and all of their realizations, direct cognitions, tenets and reasonings. I guess I'll write your stuff down and mention what you've said to my sanskrit professor friend.
Aaaaki
If the above beings held Dependent Origination occured over three life-times, their mind's were void of realizations & direct cognitions. They were puttujanas.
In fact, the whole notion is ridiculous because there is only one birth & death in Dependent Origination.
The suttas state Dependent Origination fully arises and ceases when the sense organs make contact with a sense phenomena.
Before your Sanskrit professor comments, they should read the suttas.
Super good luck with your 'direct knowing' is electricity theory.
You did not provide any opinion on the cause of consciousness. You merely quoted condition again, namely, mind-body (nama-rupa).
The Buddha was unconcerned with how consciousness occurs. He was only concerned with the role of consciousness in the arising & cessation of suffering.
Viññāṇañca hi, ānanda, mātukucchismiṃ na okkamissatha, api nu kho nāmarūpaṃ mātukucchismiṃ samuccissathā’’ti?
M.V.D.
Despite your efforts, my personal view is this sutta, namely, DN 15, warrants no attention. It is obvious the Buddha did not speak such a sutta for three reasons:
1. The sense bases were not mentioned.
2. The explanation of nama-rupa accords to the Hindu tradition, namely, literally 'name-form' rather than the Buddha's materiality & mentality. The Buddha defined rupa as the body, namely, the four elements. It cannot be taken as the perception of 'form' because this leaves out sounds, smells, etc.
3. Most crucially, in all of the discourses, except this one, consciousness is defined as six-fold. Thus, why would the Buddha be concerned with consciousness developing in the womb where an embyro has no functioning sense organs, possibly, apart from primitive body consciousness.
In short, for DN 15 to have been spoken by the Buddha appears impossible.
You don't listen. The authors of that dictionary, the Pali scholars, used the very sutta you referenced as an example, and THEY felt that "develop" was a more appropriate translation in that very instance. For the last time, if you have an issue with that definition and their translation of the sutta you quoted, please contact them.
They didn't decide something. Why? Because they didn't decide anything. All they did was list sets of usages and meanings.
YOU decided to use and rely on a particular one. In the sutra I quoted it says "descend", and dictionary itself says the same word can be used and means "enter, go down into, fall into". You can't just pick your own meaning because you like the sound of it.
This is a red herring. What's relevant is that that document supposedly contained a proof of literal rebirth. Now it only disproves a particularly medieval line of argument against the concept. This is true, but not what was promised, and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Firstly mind as epiphenomena of the brain is about as modern as it gets. They're building supercomputers around the idea so that they can track each individual neurons and thus make further discoveries and understand more. That a yogi can easily enter meditation and discern sense awareness and mental awareness is apparently not of interest to them (actually, they have no clue about meditation or yogis in the first place - poor guys).
Secondly, all emergent properties seem like they will fall within the scopes given prior to arriving at the section on material causes. This is because they deal with unchanging things being caused, unchanging things functioning, etc. Buddhism is largely made up of hardcore logic about changing and unchanging phenomena, and pramana (valid cognition).
What you call "mind" would not be present if not for physical matter.
Yes, it would. This is because they are not the same thing.
Mind is not ever-present. What we call "mind" arises and ceases a thousand times a day.
Right, but its production is based on a previous moment of mind. Yes, physical circumstances or even a cloud in the sky will act as conditions, but mind actually is a momentary functioning object. It is not the cloud in the sky, or some other condition. Mind is not an illusion.
It arises because of Contact. When the conditions described by the Buddha for Contact are no longer present, consciousness ceases. You suggest "mind" or whatever is an entity, that jumps from one body to another when we die. Can you explain the mechanics of what you're proposing?
Yes, contact, but it is not a contact between physical things. Ignorance is not a physical thing. And now you have another reason why bastardizing the status of persons is deadly harmful.
I will find a good explanation for you to consider, give me some time.
What is inspiring about your view above is it brings recollection of the great suttas and the Buddha's most famous words:
"So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'
"What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Your distortion of buddhadharma knows no bounds. As any sensible person can tell you, the reason why hindus and nonbuddhists in general name buddha a nihilist is because he denies a self to persons. He denies an unchanging, independent singular self to persons. He denies and enduring essence to persons.
Your views of nihilism & eternalism are related to ego and to believing there is a permanent unending mind, like you ludicrously posted previously.
Your views & definitions, whilst held by many Buddhists, are not what the Buddha taught.
The mind of this life will die. It's more accurate to say that the continuum of the mind is endless. At the time of death, because things are impermanent and not-self, causes and conditions will bring about future suffering. Buddhism 101. Sutra 101. The reason you're a nihilist is because you annihilate persons at death. The buddha never taught such a thing, he actively spoke against it time and time again over and over in sutra after sutra.
Regarding suicide bombers: yes, in a sense their eternalism (ie. grasping to an enduring self as themselves) can annihilate their morality. It is not always the case. Some define their enduring essence as compassion or things like that and actually follow that, which will bring about fortunate circumstances at death due to kind action in their lives.
Your views are akin to views held by fundamentalist Christians & Muslims that are learned from their Sunday School pastors.
Dunno, to me you seem way more like them than me. What I do is study logic, pramana, Madhyamika and rely on real jhana. You're the one sort of placing yourself as the head arhat of arhats and saying everyone else is wrong, when you yourself know little.
I am going back to the OP, sorry to break the flow of the conversation guys :-)
The Buddha has been quoted as implying that if you can't see the proof for yourself, do not accept it. He reportedly also states don't even believe me.
He didn't say that.
What is the proof people accept of re-incarnation here? Does anyone question this belief or is it simply accepted at face value because that is what a Buddhist does?
Even the people that are against rebirth are constantly quoting word of the Buddha to prove one point or another (including you), so I guess it is pretty much accepted that he had a pretty valid point of view, that pretty much agrees with our own experience, what we argue about is the interpretation.
As I have stated before, I do have faith in rebirth, although I don't act on it, it is not like I am gonna jump off a bridge in hopes to be reborn as a butterfly or something :-)
About seeing previous lives as proof of rebirth, the commentaries say that one needs the four jhanas to be able to do that, but I don't think that you need all four to reach enlightenment, so I don't think it is really necessary. Even if rebirth is literal, seeing it directly would be something like a supernormal power, which the Buddha didn't advocate. I take this information from Buddhaghosas work, although I don't put my hand in the fire for it (I feel he did mess up at some points, specially when he tries to add way too much information to complement the suttas).
When you can extend your claimed proof of rebirth to address this case, I will be very interested.
As I have said during the early parts of this discussion, mind as epiphenomena of the brain is precisely what this line of reasoning smashes.
This is because the person who asserts epiphenomenalism accepts each preliminary scope, and thus the elimination of possibilities of material causes proof is suited to them.
Such a person accepts that the mind is caused, that the mind is variable, that anything that is caused must be variable and that anything that is variable must be caused.
The person also acceepts that the cause must be changing or unchanging, etcetc.
It follows into the elimination of material causes section unimpeded. This is why I brought this proof up. It is extremely beneficial to consider how one's mind as a physical result could be a physical result, in light of the logical problems the proof brings up. I have been asserting that the mind is the brain since I was 12 years old, and this proof has given me clarity about my own thinking on the matter.
Even if rebirth is literal, seeing it directly would be something like a supernormal power, which the Buddha didn't advocate.
Haven't you ever seen a sutra where buddha talks about the results of jhana? Or about when he checks ordinarily hidden information directly with his clairvoyance?
The buddha never taught such a thing, he actively spoke against it time and time again over and over in sutra after sutra.
You are required to quote the suttas. I do not ever recalling the Buddha speaking like you.
Regarding suicide bombers: yes, in a sense their eternalism (ie. grasping to an enduring self as themselves) can annihilate their morality. It is not always the case. Some define their enduring essence as compassion or things like that and actually follow that, which will bring about fortunate circumstances at death due to kind action in their lives.
As I advised you, the Buddha correlated non-nihilism with the three modes of skillful action.
The Buddha was concerned with skilful action rather than life after death.
Life after death is a means to promote skilful action.
What I do is study logic, pramana, Madhyamika and rely on real jhana.
Your mind does not seem it has attained jhana (absorption) to me. Please describe in depth your jhana experience to me.
You're the one sort of placing yourself as the head arhat of arhats and saying everyone else is wrong, when you yourself know little.
Sorry friend. My posts are supporting by sutta where your posts are mere opinion & heresay.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited December 2009
aaki, Dhamma Dhatu is correct when he states that citations are required in such discussions.
This is the discussion forum for beginners, and as such should remain a forum where discussion is conducted in a manner befitting novice readership.
Therefore, quotations are both helpful and educational, not to add advisable...
I am minded to move this thread to the forum for more advanced practitioners.
Then, source quotations are not only advisable, they are a pre-requisite.
If you wish to state that sutras/suttas state *such-and-such* a thing, then you are requested to back up this statement with sutra/sutta quotation and reference.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
As Ajahn Chah overcame his fears while meditating on the cemetary:
"...In his mind’s eye he could see the charred body. He could see
a skeleton with guts hanging out, the scorched bits of flesh hanging
off, skin and eyes dropping down the cheek, and a half-burned
mouth. As he felt this rank mess of flesh walking towards him,
he told himself: “Don’t believe it. This is just your imagination.
Stop, be still, concentrate, and let go of the fear.” In the meantime,
the footsteps were getting closer and closer. Then he heard
the steps going around and around him. Thump, thump, thump,
circling around again and again. By this time he was in a state of
white-hot fear. He had gone beyond anxiety. His body was locked
solid and sweating bullets; he was absolutely rigid.
Then this presence came and stood right in front of him.
Ajahn Chah was still determined to keep his eyes closed, not
even a peek. At this point, he was so completely fear-stricken it
burst. The fear system was going at absolutely full force when
suddenly he had the thought: “All these years I’ve been reciting,
‘The body is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perceptions
are impermanent. The body is not self, feelings are not self, perceptions
are not self, mental formations are not self, consciousness
is not self.’” So he wasn’t just afraid, he was also very concentrated and very alert. The insight flashed into his consciousness:
“Even if this is some terrible ghoulish monster that is going
to attack me, all that it can attack is that which is not me. All
that it can harm is the body, the feelings, the perceptions, mental
formations, and consciousness. That is the only stuff that can get
damaged, and that’s not me, that’s not self. That which knows all
of these cannot be touched.”
And instantly the feelings of terror evaporated. It was like
switching on a light. It disappeared completely and he went into
an incredibly blissful state. He went straight from total
dukkha—pain and incandescent fear—to an extraordinary bliss.
His mind was alert, and as that happened he heard the footsteps—
thump, thump, thump—getting fainter. Eventually the
footsteps disappeared. He never found out their source."
As I have said during the early parts of this discussion, mind as epiphenomena of the brain is precisely what this line of reasoning smashes.
Then I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you were looking into an extension which would cover the case we were discussing, namely the modern understanding that consciousness arises from physical interactions. When you have an extension which covers that, I will be very interested.
Then I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you were looking into an extension which would cover the case we were discussing, namely the modern understanding that consciousness arises from physical interactions. When you have an extension which covers that, I will be very interested.
I'll try explaining one more time. Mental experience as a caused effect of physical processes is epiphenomenalism. This is equivalent to saying physical matter is the material cause for mental experience. All of this involves changing phenomena (variable, momentary) in dependence on causes and conditions which are themselves changing.
Mind as emergent property of the brain is not physical matter itself nor is it a caused effect. It arises in dependence on physical matter but is not produced (ie. is not a caused effect). "Sometimes emergentists use the example of water having a new property when Hydrogen H and Oxygen O combine to form H2O (water). In this example there "emerges" a new property of a transparent liquid that would not have been predicted by understanding hydrogen and oxygen as a gas. This is analogous to physical properties of the brain giving rise to a mental state. Emergentists try to solve the notorious mind-body gap this way. One problem for emergentism is the idea of "causal closure" in the world that does not allow for a mind-to-body causation".
The former is entirely covered in the line of reasoning. The latter is not covered entirely, it is covered by buddhist logic within buddhist causation theory. It is very complex and demands the same kind of attention as any other sophisticated system of logic does. The whole meaning of lacking self and/or inherent existence is the utter dismissal of this kind of perpetuation, be it through essences or inherent characteristic, etc. Buddhism is based on logical refutations of such positions. To say "show me these logical refutations" is to say, "I don't know buddhism, please tell explain to me what it is".
There is no need to tell me that. It was you who wrote:
:smilec:
You completely missed the point.
Brahmins asked how could there be rebirth without a self. Buddhadhasa asks the same thing, and because neither understand dependent arising one falls off the cliff of eternalism by saying there surely is a self because rebirth exists, while the other falls off the cliff of nihilism by saying there can't be rebirth and so persons are annihilated at death, because the self required for rebirth doesn't exist (ie. things are impermanent).
As if buddha ever asserted that the self or permanence is requried for rebirth. It is not. Rebirth is due to dependent arising.
Furthermore persons and atman (self) are 2 different things.
Of course you will completely distort the meaning of consciousness in the sutras and dismiss entire sutras and commentaries, but this is only because you rely on Buddhadhasa's so-called "intelligence", namely his spurious assertion that sense organs are mental experience. He kind of reminds me of the kind of arrogance in intellectual circles who 300 years ago announced 'we now know that the mind is the brain'.
Professor de la Vallee Poussin finds a very positive evolution of vijnana-theory in certain Sanskrit-Buddhist texts. The term samtana is joined to or substituted for it--a term which seems to approximate to our own neopsychological concept of mind as a 'continuum' or flux. And he infers from certain contexts that this vijnana-samtana was regarded, not as one permanent, unchanging, transmigrating entity, as the soul was in the atman-theory, but as an "essential series of individual and momentary consciousnesses," forming a "procession vivace et autonome." By autonomous he means independent of physical processes. According to this view the upspringing of a new vijnana at conception, as the effect of the preceding last vijnana of some expiring person, represents no change in kind, but only, to put it so, of degree. The vijnana is but a recurring series, not a transferred entity or principle. Hence it is more correct, if less convenient, to speak, not of vijnana, but of the samtana of pravrtti-vijnanani.
This would be like a bar of iron (as the only, indivisible self) being held by a line of people, one beside the other, like it is moving from one body to the other but it is still the same bar of iron.
while the other falls off the cliff of nihilism by saying there can't be rebirth and so persons are annihilated at death, because the self required for rebirth doesn't exist (ie. things are impermanent).
This would be like a single person holding a bar of iron, because it ends before it reaches the next one.
As if buddha ever asserted that the self or permanence is requried for rebirth. It is not. Rebirth is due to dependent arising.
For the Buddha it would be like a string of pearls being held by a line of many people, some chipped, some round, some oval and so on [consciousness of different kinds], but still in a process called "string of pearls" [cycle of rebirth]. In between the two hands of a single person there will be many pearls, representing the changing flux of consciousness in a single lifetime, because the "self" in this very lifetime is also impermanent. Then it moves to the other person, different pearls, same process. What links one pearl to the other is not their essence [they are different pearls], but the string. The string [ignorance] is the cause of the pearl necklace, when it ends the necklace has to end as well. Is that what would represent your point of view?
In between the two hands of a single person there will be many pearls, representing the changing flux of consciousness in a single lifetime, because the "self" in this very lifetime is also impermanent. Then it moves to the other person, different pearls, same process. What links one pearl to the other is not their essence [they are different pearls], but the string.
I think so. As long as we remember that the string is also like the pearls. There can be no string without the pearls.
I once heard the Dalai Lama describe it like a stack of books. The stacking is totally dependent upon the books, each book being the lifetime of a person, the stacking of books being the continuum of the process.
To me it seems that the passing along of the string (ignorance) from person to person itself signifies that continuation of the process. And of course the pearls that make up the core parts of the person are also part of the necklace.
However I don't think that stopping ignorance itself is the way of stopping the process. Rather, we break the clinging of any of the other parts of dependent arising to prevent a future occurrence of ignorance. Although our minds are afflicted we can still use them to eventually see through the clinging.
Where did Buddha say this? The suttas state there is dukkha due to dependent arising.
Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising." And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen. Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.'
Of course you will completely distort the meaning of consciousness in the sutras and dismiss entire sutras...
The only one distorting and dismissing the suttas is you. You cannot even quote anything apart from a false sutta. The suttas state:
And what is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.
"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
"'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?"
"'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'"
"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'
"If anyone were to say, 'The six classes of consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the six classes of consciousness are discerned.
The Blessed One asked him, “Sàti is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another?”
“Exactly so, bhante. As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another.”
<O:p</O:p “What is that consciousness, Sàti?”
“Bhante, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.“
<O:p</O:p “You foolish fellow, to whom have you ever known me to teach dhamma in that way? You foolish fellow, have I not stated in many discourses that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition consciousness does not come into being? But you, you foolish fellow, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”
<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: “Bhikkhus, what do you think? Has this Bhikkhu Sàti, the fisherman’s son, kindled even a spark of wisdom in this teaching and training?”
“How could he, bhante? No, bhante.”
Mahàtanhàsankhaya Sutta
"It's in dependence on a pair that consciousness comes into play. And how does consciousness come into play in dependence on a pair?
In dependence on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Forms are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.
"Eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of eye-consciousness, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could eye-consciousness be constant?
"In dependence on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness...
"In dependence on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness...
"In dependence on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness...
"In dependence on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness...
"In dependence on the mind & mind objects there arises mind-consciousness. The mind is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Mind objects are inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Thus this pair is both wavering & fluctuating — inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise.
"Mind-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Whatever is the cause, the requisite condition, for the arising of mind-consciousness, that is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could mind-consciousness be constant?
It appears it is you who completely missed the point.
Consciousness is inconstant, changeable, of a nature to become otherwise. Having arisen in dependence on an inconstant factor, how could consciousness be constant?
I once heard the Dalai Lama describe it like a stack of books. The stacking is totally dependent upon the books, each book being the lifetime of a person, the stacking of books being the continuum of the process.
It appears it is you who completely missed the point.
You don't even know that that is how the brahmins criticized the buddha? It's meaningful that Buddhadhasa makes the same mistake.
Regarding subtle impermanence, I've already explained it at least 4 times how things are momentary. I also quoted 2 scholars. I also refuted your faulty logic.
Cheer up. Keep meditating. In the 3rd dhyana you begin realizing other modes of existence in the world (ie. the other realms). In the 4th you can gain the higher knowledges of past lives.
In the 2nd where there is a natural dissociation of mind/mind object duality (although it is not realized) you establish the nature of mind.. in other words that the mind is a functioning thing of its own, dependent on its own causes and conditions.
Regarding subtle impermanence, I've already explained it at least 4 times how things are momentary. I also quoted 2 scholars. I also refuted your faulty logic.
Your scholars said nothing apart from things the Buddha did not teach, such as:
When a person is about to die the bhavanga is interrupted, vibrates for one moment and passes away. The interruption is caused by an object which presents itself to the mind-door. As a result of this a mind-door-adverting citta arises. This is followed by five javana thought moments which are weak, lack reproductive power and serve only to determine the nature of rebirth consciousness. The javanas may or may not be followed by two registering thought moments (tadaalambana). After this comes the death consciousness (cuti citta), which is identical in constitution and object to the bhavanga citta. The cuti citta merely serves the function of signaling the end of life. It is important to appreciate the difference between the cuti citta and the javanas that precede it. The cuti citta is the end of the bhava"nga flow of an existence and does not determine the nature of rebirth. The javanas that occur just before the cuti citta arises form a kammic process and determine the nature of the rebirth consciousness.
In the 3rd dhyana you begin realizing other modes of existence in the world (ie. the other realms). In the 4th you can gain the higher knowledges of past lives.
Sorry Aaaki. This has no basis in the suttas.
In the 3rd jhana there is happiness. From the 3rd to 4th jhana, there is the intimate understanding of defilement or defiled mental states. These states, the Pali calls loka or the world, for those of mundane or faith understanding.
Regarding the actual meaning of past lives, this is found in the Khajjaniya Sutta. You need to study this desparately.
Regarding the metaphorical meaning of past lives, this the Buddha taught to Brahmins, such as in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta.
Regarding how Brahmins and other non-Buddhists believe in the metaphorical meaning and how arahants do not claim to have seen the literal meaning of past lives, this is found in the Susima Sutta.
In the 2nd where there is a natural dissociation of mind/mind object duality (although it is not realized) you establish the nature of mind. in other words that the mind is a functioning thing of its own, dependent on its own causes and conditions.
No Aaaki. The 2nd jhana has rapture, happiness & one-pointness. This makes it impossible to see anything clearly. The nature of the mind is not established. Your view is not even insight. Your view is defiled view. In brief, your statement here about the 2nd jhana is completely false.
A meditator in the 2nd jhana is dependent upon the body. Eventually, they must leave the second jhana to eat food.
The mind is always dependent on the body.
At Savatthi. "Monks, any priests or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.
"Anything whatsoever that is past, future or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: everything is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.
In the 2nd where there is a natural dissociation of mind/mind object duality (although it is not realized) you establish the nature of mind. in other words that the mind is a functioning thing of its own, dependent on its own causes and conditions.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "mind" dependent on to your understanding? I get an odd feeling you're trying to suggest it's Sankhara, which will undoubtedly be wrongly translated as "[hindu] kamma." But I am just speculating, so please clarify first. Thanks.
The mind that acts as the cause must moreover either be one which is part of yourself or one which is part of someone else. Suppose you say that a mind which is part of someone else, of someone like your father or mother, acts as the direct material cause for this mind. The problem then arises that—where the father is a skilled artisan, or say foolish, or whatever—the son must always be this way as well.
This leads us to conclude that it can only be a former mind which is part of our own stream of consciousness that provides the material cause [for our mind as it exists just after we are born.]
This means that the past history and future continuation of our minds are simply infinite; and that the existence of past and future lives can be clearly and correctly proven.
Given this text, consider now an infant who has just taken birth: consider his breathing in and out, the clarity of his powers, the feeling of anxiety in his mind, and so forth. When a person goes to take his birth, these are nothing such that they are not dependent on something of their own type which has come before, because the infant is now possessed of this in-out breath, and the clarity of his powers, anxiety in his mind, and so on.
Nor are these things only something born from the body, with its elements, alone; for they have come from something of their own type that came before them.
If this were not the case it would be absurd. Every one of the elements then would have to be a living being, for the mind is something that comes only from the elements.
Clearly these teachers have not studies genetics and the like. Mentality is simply passed on via genetic material. The capacity to breathe is found in the sperm. A new birth has some genetic dispositions, including mentality, but is also strongly influence by nurture.
Due to nurturing is why many children hold the same emotional qualities as their parents but due to random genetics can have different qualities such as intelligence or bodily strength.
Brother. Please. Your attempts to repudiate science appear akin to Christian attempts to assert Creationism.
Your posts are simply blind faith.
When in your meditation, your mind perceive emptiness, then we can possibly talk.
Comments
Good stuff. All of these words are quite dodgy in their translations.
In fact, this DN 15 sutta is quite dodgy. For example, it excludes the sense bases and includes a description of name-form inconsistant with the suttas.
It is widely acknowledged many of the DN suttas are probably post Buddha.
I offered multiple counter-arguments, most of which are still waiting to be addressed. Be more rational, say things which make more sense and relate precisely to what has already been said. The 'dancing' you feel like doing is based on an irrational idea in your emergent properties that I have somehow my arguments are in "ashes". There are multiple things that are "off the mark" in such an assessment. Particularly where you cannot address a point on logical discourse and reassert that it is in "ashes" without it having been addressed either by you or by fivebells (yet).
But his personal views & commentaries often do not authentically represent the Buddha's teachings.
Hi again aaki,
I am honoured that after a single post, you decided that I'm worthwhile to respond to again.
Please pay proper attention. Here is a direct link to the full defintion for you. Once again, the dictionary authors (i.e. the pali scholars) chose that particular usage for that sutta, not me. If you are short on time as you keep saying, it would be helpful to pay attention so we didn't have to go over these things 50 times.
They chose a definition that makes sense, and corresponds with the rest of the teachings. If you take issue with their work, I'm sure there's a Contact page on their website.
Did, aaki. The dancing I did. Which I apologized for. Shh, let go now...
Since you displayed such poor style after I said I was going to accept the rebuke for various reasons, I have changed my mind and now we will proceed to discuss why the logical reasoning has not yet failed or succeeded.
I will regive the argument and try to make it clearer in a following post.
I did. Now refer to my last reply, which says you choose to side with a figuartive listing and deny the literal meanings for no good reason. Pali/sanskrit/tibetan all tend to uses the same words for many different things in different contexts. You have chosen to rely on a particular figurative usage when it is speaking of "in the womb". I suggest that a more literal usage, such as "to enter", may be more appropriate meaning when talking about developing in wombs, consciousness, and rebirth. For example the link you provide further on says "entered his new mother's womb (kucchiŋ okkami)". You cannot assert that these people mean this in some figurative sense as well, because there is no such english equivalent. To enter is to enter in to.
This is because are completely unaware of mind and its qualities and because you do not understand and/or have never heard it carefully explained and have never studied it, such as for example the abhidharma literature. Abhidharma, too, denies your idea of a little mind finding a womb to sit inside of.
It's a lie to say that he explicitly said that. You merely infer that from what he said.
In actual fact, saying that he hopes he will come back during the time of Maitreya establishes his idea of dependent arising over 3 or more lifetimes, and his eventual nirvana using the very same system.
Aaaaki. Of everything you have posted, your sentence above is the weirdest. Bizarre.
In every Theravada monastary, which are places for practice, every morning the following words are chanted. These words cannot be any more unambiguous: The Buddha did not teach Dependent Origination over three-life times. If you wish to start another religion, so be it.
:rolleyesc
We have already quoted the Buddha for you from MN 117, who advised rebirth is not higher knowledge, it is not wisdom, it is not a factor of the path, it sides with asava or defilment.
However, Aaaaki, I have a question for you.
The Buddha advised in MN 60 and elsewhere that (mundane) nihilism, is to not believe in the results of action, to not believe there is another state or world (loka), especially to not believe there are the woeful states.
So regarding Islamic fundamentalist suicide bombers, they believe in life after death but they obviously do not believe in the results of good & bad karma.
Are they nihilists or do they have the right view you espouse???
:smilec:
The obvious scope here is that caused things change. If you accept it, then you move to the next part. However, if you don't accept it, then the scope changes to proving why a thing must be changing if it is caused.
Now this is not included as part of this reasoning. Why? Because it is not a 500 part line of reasoning which covers every existing scope - that is not the scope(s) of this reasoning. Does this mean this particular line of reasoning is somehow made invalid by this? No. It just means that this line of reasoning does not apply to that person who asserts that caused things could be unchanging. But will apply to them at the time when that point is proven to them. So an additional proof which is not given here would be required for that.
Then, what would make this whole line of reasoning invalid? If some part of the reasoning were found to be logically unsound by more accurate logic.
But is this a line of reasoning that establishes rebirth? Yes. Because it eliminates all variations in which physical matter could be the material cause for mind, and establishes that mind can only be the material cause of mind, which "means that the past history and future continuation of our minds are simply infinite; and that the existence of past and future lives can be clearly and correctly proven".
How can it prove that, when its scopes by definition don't cover every existing counter-argument that may arise? Because it is implied that these other scopes are given elsewhere and that these counter-argument are defeated there. And once those are accepted, the logic in this particular line of reasoning is flawless.
Yes, but you don't understand it in the slightest. Which is not surprising, because you are trying to read a section on right view on your own.
Futhermore you and fivebells somehow managed to turn "There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" into meaning rebirth which sides with merit, is a right view with effluents.
Not according to Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra and Madhyamika and all of their realizations, direct cognitions, tenets and reasonings. But since I can't combat your petty pali there's not much more to say (again). I guess I'll write your stuff down and mention what you've said to my sanskrit professor friend. Super good luck with your 'direct knowing' is electricity theory.
Pot.
Aaki, I'm gonna say this reeeeal slow for you: t h e d i c t i o n a r y a u t h o r s c h o s e t o p u t "declare" i n t h a t s e n t e n c e, n o t m e. Contact them if you have a problem with it.
Indeed, like every other language, so please keep that in mind and consider that, when something reads as nonsense and defies all the other teachings (i.e. consciousness being a little ethereal fairy that jumps out of your body at death and hops into a woman's vagina, which sounds an awful lot like what Sati the Fisherman's Son suggested), then you should probably refer to a dictionary to clear things up.
Yes, this is in another context, isn't it? No mention of consciousness................ who's cherry-picking now?
And you seem to be stuck on the idea that I deny literal rebirth appears in the suttas. I don't. I just, like you, feel the audience must be taken into consideration.
That's more of what YOU are suggesting. Consciousness is a process.
Still waiting for your answer of why belief and trying to recall past lives is necessary to the Path.
Such a person could never attain cessation and the more sophisticated systems of selflessness (and particularly mahayana emptiness) could never be true and no-one could ever realize them. There would be no such thing as the realization that persons lack being self-sufficiently knowable entities.
It is mistaken to do so without a good reason. The only way you could have a good reason is if you had an intimate knowledge of the language, and through understanding each element of the sentence you would understand the context of the word. Then you would know the correct meanings and usages of the word.
What does this even mean? Of course it's a process. Everything is a process of production. This does not mean consciousness doesn't function. it does not mean karma does not function.
You are merely grasping to mind as possessing a self. No such mind exists, no such mind takes rebirth. I understand it if you deny rebirth based on a notion of such a mind performing some sort of function in some place.
However if you were to understand that rebirth is just a change in perceptions you would see it makes sense, because it is also what is happening right now. Karma and consciousness is correctly understood and observed in that sense. You can die 5 breathes from now and be a dog because all that is needed is a flickering of perceptions and the right internal and external conditions.
This is a red herring. What's relevant is that that document supposedly contained a proof of literal rebirth. Now it only disproves a particularly medieval line of argument against the concept. This is true, but not what was promised, and not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
You don't listen. The authors of that dictionary, the Pali scholars, used the very sutta you referenced as an example, and THEY felt that "develop" was a more appropriate translation in that very instance. For the last time, if you have an issue with that definition and their translation of the sutta you quoted, please contact them.
What you call "mind" would not be present if not for physical matter. Mind is not ever-present. What we call "mind" arises and ceases a thousand times a day. It arises because of Contact. When the conditions described by the Buddha for Contact are no longer present, consciousness ceases. You suggest "mind" or whatever is an entity, that jumps from one body to another when we die. Can you explain the mechanics of what you're proposing?
The Buddha said it would be better, a small step closer to the truth, to regard the body as "self," rather than the mind. After death, consciousness/mind is no longer (if you feel this suggests "a person is annihilated after death!" then you are clearly the one clinging to "self"), but our bodies will still be here, and will decompose, and return to the earth, and nourish the grass that the animals eat, which in turn nourishes a person who then brings another child into the world, and then...
This is more "rebirth" than what you're speculating, and can be seen to be true firsthand. Your view is speculative and disregards the body, which means you are putting an emphasis on the mind as "self."
You provided one poorly-translated sutta quote to try to back up your position, and ignore that the dictionary disagrees with the translation in that instance, and the thousands of other suttas that contradict your explanation of consciousness.
Although I still think a lot of harm comes from calling anything "rebirth" because it suggests there's something to "re-" in the first place. I imagine there's a reason the word "birth" is used in the suttas rather than "rebirth." Everything is constantly being born and dying, there is no underlying thing to be re-born, whether in the literal sense, or the figurative sense. This is why that "silly, stupid, ignorant, unenlightened" Buddhadasa always made this distinction clear, because it's important in understanding anatta.
What does "change in perceptions" mean in this context? Again, please explain the mechanics of your idea of rebirth. What is this underlying "thing" that's reborn? How does it end up in someone's va-jay-jay after I die? How does it exist without the conditions that are necessary for it to exist no longer present?
Your views do not accord with the Buddha. I recommend you study more.
The Buddha described two kinds of nihilism: (1) moral nihilism: and (2) spiritual nihilism.
Spiritual nihilism is as follows. The Buddha did not use the term wrong view. Rather, he used the term "to over-reach": Now please note, the Buddha said the opposite of this is "to hold back". This "holding back" is done by those whose minds are not willing to embrace the three characteristics, namely, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self, and dive into stream entry.
The middle way, is to realise the causes of suffering & practise for the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is the cessation of (mental) being or becoming but it is not to "overreach".
Either way, none of the above teachings by the Buddha about nihilism have anything to do with life after death. They are about the alternatives between delight, aversion & wisdom.
That you believe the suicide bombers are not nihilist, shows wrong view. The Buddha advised, one without the view of moral nihilism, will:
Your views of nihilism & eternalism are related to ego and to believing there is a permanent unending mind, like you ludicrously posted previously.
Your views & definitions, whilst held by many Buddhists, are not what the Buddha taught.
Your views are akin to views held by fundamentalist Christians & Muslims that are learned from their Sunday School pastors. These are views held by those who have insufficient faith & gratitude to read the suttas.
In brief, to summarise again, the Buddha taught about moral nihilism and spiritual nihilism. Any views about life after death that are not directly connected to morality or the cessation of suffering do not fall within the sphere of the Buddha's teaching.
Buddha taught rebirth to unenlightened people so they would do good & avoid self-harm (rather than for clinging to ego & unbending fanatical dogmatism).
In fact, the opposite holds. To assert consciousness is reborn is to deny consciousness is merely cognition or sense-awareness, as the Buddha taught.
To assert consciousness is reborn is to give consciousness the character of a soul or what the Buddha called the jiva indriya, namely, the life faculty.
Buddha taught rebirth as a moral principle. He did not teach consciousness is reborn. Instead, Buddha taught beings are reborn according to their actions or karma.
Second, the Buddha's teachings of dependent origination, anatta & sunnata deny the status of persons.
Brother. Your post are getting more & more confused & convoluted.
What is inspiring about your view above is it brings recollection of the great suttas and the Buddha's most famous words:
If the above beings held Dependent Origination occured over three life-times, their mind's were void of realizations & direct cognitions. They were puttujanas.
In fact, the whole notion is ridiculous because there is only one birth & death in Dependent Origination.
The suttas state Dependent Origination fully arises and ceases when the sense organs make contact with a sense phenomena.
Before your Sanskrit professor comments, they should read the suttas.
You did not provide any opinion on the cause of consciousness. You merely quoted condition again, namely, mind-body (nama-rupa).
The Buddha was unconcerned with how consciousness occurs. He was only concerned with the role of consciousness in the arising & cessation of suffering.
Despite your efforts, my personal view is this sutta, namely, DN 15, warrants no attention. It is obvious the Buddha did not speak such a sutta for three reasons:
1. The sense bases were not mentioned.
2. The explanation of nama-rupa accords to the Hindu tradition, namely, literally 'name-form' rather than the Buddha's materiality & mentality. The Buddha defined rupa as the body, namely, the four elements. It cannot be taken as the perception of 'form' because this leaves out sounds, smells, etc.
3. Most crucially, in all of the discourses, except this one, consciousness is defined as six-fold. Thus, why would the Buddha be concerned with consciousness developing in the womb where an embyro has no functioning sense organs, possibly, apart from primitive body consciousness.
In short, for DN 15 to have been spoken by the Buddha appears impossible.
YOU decided to use and rely on a particular one. In the sutra I quoted it says "descend", and dictionary itself says the same word can be used and means "enter, go down into, fall into". You can't just pick your own meaning because you like the sound of it.
Secondly, all emergent properties seem like they will fall within the scopes given prior to arriving at the section on material causes. This is because they deal with unchanging things being caused, unchanging things functioning, etc. Buddhism is largely made up of hardcore logic about changing and unchanging phenomena, and pramana (valid cognition).
Right, but its production is based on a previous moment of mind. Yes, physical circumstances or even a cloud in the sky will act as conditions, but mind actually is a momentary functioning object. It is not the cloud in the sky, or some other condition. Mind is not an illusion.
Yes, contact, but it is not a contact between physical things. Ignorance is not a physical thing. And now you have another reason why bastardizing the status of persons is deadly harmful.
I will find a good explanation for you to consider, give me some time.
Your distortion of buddhadharma knows no bounds. As any sensible person can tell you, the reason why hindus and nonbuddhists in general name buddha a nihilist is because he denies a self to persons. He denies an unchanging, independent singular self to persons. He denies and enduring essence to persons.
Regarding suicide bombers: yes, in a sense their eternalism (ie. grasping to an enduring self as themselves) can annihilate their morality. It is not always the case. Some define their enduring essence as compassion or things like that and actually follow that, which will bring about fortunate circumstances at death due to kind action in their lives.
Dunno, to me you seem way more like them than me. What I do is study logic, pramana, Madhyamika and rely on real jhana. You're the one sort of placing yourself as the head arhat of arhats and saying everyone else is wrong, when you yourself know little.
When you can extend your claimed proof of rebirth to address this case, I will be very interested.
He didn't say that.
Even the people that are against rebirth are constantly quoting word of the Buddha to prove one point or another (including you), so I guess it is pretty much accepted that he had a pretty valid point of view, that pretty much agrees with our own experience, what we argue about is the interpretation.
As I have stated before, I do have faith in rebirth, although I don't act on it, it is not like I am gonna jump off a bridge in hopes to be reborn as a butterfly or something :-)
About seeing previous lives as proof of rebirth, the commentaries say that one needs the four jhanas to be able to do that, but I don't think that you need all four to reach enlightenment, so I don't think it is really necessary. Even if rebirth is literal, seeing it directly would be something like a supernormal power, which the Buddha didn't advocate. I take this information from Buddhaghosas work, although I don't put my hand in the fire for it (I feel he did mess up at some points, specially when he tries to add way too much information to complement the suttas).
This is because the person who asserts epiphenomenalism accepts each preliminary scope, and thus the elimination of possibilities of material causes proof is suited to them.
Such a person accepts that the mind is caused, that the mind is variable, that anything that is caused must be variable and that anything that is variable must be caused.
The person also acceepts that the cause must be changing or unchanging, etcetc.
It follows into the elimination of material causes section unimpeded. This is why I brought this proof up. It is extremely beneficial to consider how one's mind as a physical result could be a physical result, in light of the logical problems the proof brings up. I have been asserting that the mind is the brain since I was 12 years old, and this proof has given me clarity about my own thinking on the matter.
Haven't you ever seen a sutra where buddha talks about the results of jhana? Or about when he checks ordinarily hidden information directly with his clairvoyance?
You are required to quote the suttas. I do not ever recalling the Buddha speaking like you.
As I advised you, the Buddha correlated non-nihilism with the three modes of skillful action.
The Buddha was concerned with skilful action rather than life after death.
Life after death is a means to promote skilful action.
Your mind does not seem it has attained jhana (absorption) to me. Please describe in depth your jhana experience to me.
Sorry friend. My posts are supporting by sutta where your posts are mere opinion & heresay.
This is the discussion forum for beginners, and as such should remain a forum where discussion is conducted in a manner befitting novice readership.
Therefore, quotations are both helpful and educational, not to add advisable...
I am minded to move this thread to the forum for more advanced practitioners.
Then, source quotations are not only advisable, they are a pre-requisite.
If you wish to state that sutras/suttas state *such-and-such* a thing, then you are requested to back up this statement with sutra/sutta quotation and reference.
Thanks guys.
carry on.
Small Boat Great Mountain by Aj Amaro
Pg 113
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books9/Ajahn_Amaro_Small-Boat_Great-Mountain.pdf
As Ajahn Chah overcame his fears while meditating on the cemetary:
"...In his mind’s eye he could see the charred body. He could see
a skeleton with guts hanging out, the scorched bits of flesh hanging
off, skin and eyes dropping down the cheek, and a half-burned
mouth. As he felt this rank mess of flesh walking towards him,
he told himself: “Don’t believe it. This is just your imagination.
Stop, be still, concentrate, and let go of the fear.” In the meantime,
the footsteps were getting closer and closer. Then he heard
the steps going around and around him. Thump, thump, thump,
circling around again and again. By this time he was in a state of
white-hot fear. He had gone beyond anxiety. His body was locked
solid and sweating bullets; he was absolutely rigid.
Then this presence came and stood right in front of him.
Ajahn Chah was still determined to keep his eyes closed, not
even a peek. At this point, he was so completely fear-stricken it
burst. The fear system was going at absolutely full force when
suddenly he had the thought: “All these years I’ve been reciting,
‘The body is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perceptions
are impermanent. The body is not self, feelings are not self, perceptions
are not self, mental formations are not self, consciousness
is not self.’” So he wasn’t just afraid, he was also very concentrated and very alert. The insight flashed into his consciousness:
“Even if this is some terrible ghoulish monster that is going
to attack me, all that it can attack is that which is not me. All
that it can harm is the body, the feelings, the perceptions, mental
formations, and consciousness. That is the only stuff that can get
damaged, and that’s not me, that’s not self. That which knows all
of these cannot be touched.”
And instantly the feelings of terror evaporated. It was like
switching on a light. It disappeared completely and he went into
an incredibly blissful state. He went straight from total
dukkha—pain and incandescent fear—to an extraordinary bliss.
His mind was alert, and as that happened he heard the footsteps—
thump, thump, thump—getting fainter. Eventually the
footsteps disappeared. He never found out their source."
Then I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying you were looking into an extension which would cover the case we were discussing, namely the modern understanding that consciousness arises from physical interactions. When you have an extension which covers that, I will be very interested.
Mind as emergent property of the brain is not physical matter itself nor is it a caused effect. It arises in dependence on physical matter but is not produced (ie. is not a caused effect). "Sometimes emergentists use the example of water having a new property when Hydrogen H and Oxygen O combine to form H2O (water). In this example there "emerges" a new property of a transparent liquid that would not have been predicted by understanding hydrogen and oxygen as a gas. This is analogous to physical properties of the brain giving rise to a mental state. Emergentists try to solve the notorious mind-body gap this way. One problem for emergentism is the idea of "causal closure" in the world that does not allow for a mind-to-body causation".
The former is entirely covered in the line of reasoning. The latter is not covered entirely, it is covered by buddhist logic within buddhist causation theory. It is very complex and demands the same kind of attention as any other sophisticated system of logic does. The whole meaning of lacking self and/or inherent existence is the utter dismissal of this kind of perpetuation, be it through essences or inherent characteristic, etc. Buddhism is based on logical refutations of such positions. To say "show me these logical refutations" is to say, "I don't know buddhism, please tell explain to me what it is".
Brahmins asked how could there be rebirth without a self. Buddhadhasa asks the same thing, and because neither understand dependent arising one falls off the cliff of eternalism by saying there surely is a self because rebirth exists, while the other falls off the cliff of nihilism by saying there can't be rebirth and so persons are annihilated at death, because the self required for rebirth doesn't exist (ie. things are impermanent).
As if buddha ever asserted that the self or permanence is requried for rebirth. It is not. Rebirth is due to dependent arising.
Furthermore persons and atman (self) are 2 different things.
Of course you will completely distort the meaning of consciousness in the sutras and dismiss entire sutras and commentaries, but this is only because you rely on Buddhadhasa's so-called "intelligence", namely his spurious assertion that sense organs are mental experience. He kind of reminds me of the kind of arrogance in intellectual circles who 300 years ago announced 'we now know that the mind is the brain'.
Mindstream
This would be like a single person holding a bar of iron, because it ends before it reaches the next one.
For the Buddha it would be like a string of pearls being held by a line of many people, some chipped, some round, some oval and so on [consciousness of different kinds], but still in a process called "string of pearls" [cycle of rebirth]. In between the two hands of a single person there will be many pearls, representing the changing flux of consciousness in a single lifetime, because the "self" in this very lifetime is also impermanent. Then it moves to the other person, different pearls, same process. What links one pearl to the other is not their essence [they are different pearls], but the string. The string [ignorance] is the cause of the pearl necklace, when it ends the necklace has to end as well. Is that what would represent your point of view?
I once heard the Dalai Lama describe it like a stack of books. The stacking is totally dependent upon the books, each book being the lifetime of a person, the stacking of books being the continuum of the process.
To me it seems that the passing along of the string (ignorance) from person to person itself signifies that continuation of the process. And of course the pearls that make up the core parts of the person are also part of the necklace.
However I don't think that stopping ignorance itself is the way of stopping the process. Rather, we break the clinging of any of the other parts of dependent arising to prevent a future occurrence of ignorance. Although our minds are afflicted we can still use them to eventually see through the clinging.
Where did Buddha say this? The suttas state there is dukkha due to dependent arising. The only one distorting and dismissing the suttas is you. You cannot even quote anything apart from a false sutta. The suttas state:
It appears it is you who completely missed the point.
Regarding subtle impermanence, I've already explained it at least 4 times how things are momentary. I also quoted 2 scholars. I also refuted your faulty logic.
Cheer up. Keep meditating. In the 3rd dhyana you begin realizing other modes of existence in the world (ie. the other realms). In the 4th you can gain the higher knowledges of past lives.
In the 2nd where there is a natural dissociation of mind/mind object duality (although it is not realized) you establish the nature of mind.. in other words that the mind is a functioning thing of its own, dependent on its own causes and conditions.
Clearly what you said makes no sense. How could Buddhadasa make the same mistake as the Brahmins?
Your scholars said nothing apart from things the Buddha did not teach, such as: Sorry Aaaki. This has no basis in the suttas.
In the 3rd jhana there is happiness. From the 3rd to 4th jhana, there is the intimate understanding of defilement or defiled mental states. These states, the Pali calls loka or the world, for those of mundane or faith understanding.
Regarding the actual meaning of past lives, this is found in the Khajjaniya Sutta. You need to study this desparately.
Regarding the metaphorical meaning of past lives, this the Buddha taught to Brahmins, such as in the Bhaya-bherava Sutta.
Regarding how Brahmins and other non-Buddhists believe in the metaphorical meaning and how arahants do not claim to have seen the literal meaning of past lives, this is found in the Susima Sutta.
No Aaaki. The 2nd jhana has rapture, happiness & one-pointness. This makes it impossible to see anything clearly. The nature of the mind is not established. Your view is not even insight. Your view is defiled view. In brief, your statement here about the 2nd jhana is completely false.
A meditator in the 2nd jhana is dependent upon the body. Eventually, they must leave the second jhana to eat food.
The mind is always dependent on the body.
Just out of curiosity, what is the "mind" dependent on to your understanding? I get an odd feeling you're trying to suggest it's Sankhara, which will undoubtedly be wrongly translated as "[hindu] kamma." But I am just speculating, so please clarify first. Thanks.
I am reading this debate at http://acidharma.org/aci/online/course4.html#written:
Due to nurturing is why many children hold the same emotional qualities as their parents but due to random genetics can have different qualities such as intelligence or bodily strength.
Brother. Please. Your attempts to repudiate science appear akin to Christian attempts to assert Creationism.
When in your meditation, your mind perceive emptiness, then we can possibly talk.
Ok, so what are you suggesting the mind depends on then?