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.
Awakened, Is Rebirth Necessary?
I have realized the truths of selflessness, impermanence and dependent arising. Whatsoever one does for oneself, not in the pursuit of a higher future-state of all life, one does in waste. Not even the Pharaohs of Egypt could take it with them, try as they might.
However, upon realizing this first state of awakening, I fail to see any necessity for an individual's consciousness to leave the aggregates upon death to be one of the requirements of new life. I see only the actions, both of word and of body, as affecting change. I see the dissolution of the body and mind, with only kamma from this life perpetuating into the future, whether for good or ill.
As consciousness arises, so too does it cease. It is only the consciousness of all life that persists (in essence, the Universe, the vehicle of all change, is alive). It is not the cessation of consciousness that Nibbana leads to, but the cessation of all mental dukkha.
I understand the doctrine, but even with the first stage of true wisdom attained, it seems that rebirth may seem more reasonable as a selfish desire (why must an individual's consciousness persist if nothing else of an individual life-form persists? Why may consciousness not also arise dependent on conditions, and not dependent on both itself and a mind-body complex?).
If any who also have realized any stage of awakening can better explain this to me, I will be greatly appreciative. It perplexes me, and yet it seems that whether rebirth is reality or not, still the awakening to the true nature of life will not be affected one way or the other. The truth changes how we live, and that is our only legacy.
However, upon realizing this first state of awakening, I fail to see any necessity for an individual's consciousness to leave the aggregates upon death to be one of the requirements of new life. I see only the actions, both of word and of body, as affecting change. I see the dissolution of the body and mind, with only kamma from this life perpetuating into the future, whether for good or ill.
As consciousness arises, so too does it cease. It is only the consciousness of all life that persists (in essence, the Universe, the vehicle of all change, is alive). It is not the cessation of consciousness that Nibbana leads to, but the cessation of all mental dukkha.
I understand the doctrine, but even with the first stage of true wisdom attained, it seems that rebirth may seem more reasonable as a selfish desire (why must an individual's consciousness persist if nothing else of an individual life-form persists? Why may consciousness not also arise dependent on conditions, and not dependent on both itself and a mind-body complex?).
If any who also have realized any stage of awakening can better explain this to me, I will be greatly appreciative. It perplexes me, and yet it seems that whether rebirth is reality or not, still the awakening to the true nature of life will not be affected one way or the other. The truth changes how we live, and that is our only legacy.
0
Comments
There are no Buddhists where I am, though I'm sure if I went an hour or two in any direction I could find a school. Christianity, atheism and agnosticism are the predominant beliefs of everyone around me. I've had to study Buddhism on my own, without personal guidance or becoming a bhikkhu.
I agree. The idea of rebirth does seem ultimately selfish and egobased.
But equally nobody can say "there is no rebirth". How could anyone be certain of that. I am very very very sure there isn't, But I may be wrong. Whats important to me is what you say, the path is important, the the unanswerable realm that is its foundation:)
Thanks:)
mat
Understanding is much different than "realization".
Rebirth is not selfish or egobased. its quite the opposite really. The theory of rebirth is related to view and conduct its not self serving but keeps one away from extreme views and non virtuous conduct.
It then boils down to what actually makes sense to the awakened mind.
It is here, on this forum, that I come to find an answer to this question. To you who are able to satisfactorily with your own awakened mind extol the truth, you act as my teacher.
That is an opinion but not one that can be any more valid than many others. I have never had a teacher in a long term sense, not do i want one. my belief is that we can all follow our own path so long as it is the noble eightfold path. It seems strange anyone would deny anyone this path.
>>Buddhism is a living tradition that cannot be learned through books etc. alone.
One could believe that at the Time of the Buddha's enlightement it wasn't a tradition etc how come he got enligtened? And the countless people who became enlightened shortly after this and during the Buddha's life.
Buddhism did not become a "tradition" until many years after his death, i believe:)
Mat
Buddha passed away a long time ago but he transmitted his teachings on to others who continue to pass them on to us. You wont find the answer on a forum or in books. All you are going to find is a way to further delude yourself into thinking that you have realization.
a teacher would ground you and actually be able to show you what you have experienced.
I think we agree on more than I initially thought from our previous conversation.
I personally think rebirth is plausible (depending on how you interpret rebirth) but it is not pertinent or necessary to one's practice towards enlightenment.
As far as a teacher I think of it as a coach. Some people excell by learning on their own, others only excell when they are coached. I personally learn best on my own and that is why I haven't subscribed to following a particular school or teacher, but I still seek advice from some teachers and others. In addition, I believe all beings that we interact with on any level can serve as our teachers.
I still await the one who will come that has insight and can post an awakened view on rebirth. Saying that I must go seek out a teacher is not helpful. I am seeking out a teacher - here. If a response that harmonizes with reality finds its way here, then by applying correct understanding and meditating upon it I may know it to be true.
It's that simple, and I have only the sincerest gratitude for anyone that spends their time helping others even on an internet forum.
say you have a map to a difficult to find area. the map will be very good at pointing you in the right direction but if you have someone who has actually gone to where you are trying to go they will be able to help you interpret the map, the landscape, and obstacles that you might encounter, and lead you safely to the destination.
I like that analogy and I agree others can give us great insight to what we are experiencing as they have seen it so many times and help us interpret our actions and motives. However, in samsara, sometimes being lost on our own can be a great catalyst for our awakening.
The three jewels make it so we dont have to be anymore.
seriously though, i can personally attest to the fact that the scriptures are support for the living transmission of Dharma and that it is individuals who breathe life into them and make them active and potent tools for liberation.
Books are great and study is necessary but there is no substitute for an authentic guide.
With that, let's let this one go.
it was the entire post, its wording, the way you stated a perceived understanding/realization etc. Its not the one question that i am suggesting you go to a teacher to have answered. its the total package.
also, its not divisive, its informative and its about the way in which we approach the teachings. When someone says "i have realized this" or something similar on an internet forum it is an indication that that individual would greatly benefit from authentic guidance.
In this fashion I seek a well-thought answer that has been realized by an awakened mind, as I have not yet found this one answer myself. A little nudge is all I need; I'm not seeking Nibbana at this point. I feel rather that there is work to be done that has nothing to do with my self, and if it becomes beneficial to later attain further wisdom I will do so.
What is an awakened mind?
Do you really think that this is the best place to look for this "awakened mind"?
QW (speculative, when you die you will know or not know for certain.)
>>It is only the consciousness of all life that persists (in essence, the Universe, the vehicle of all change, is alive)
QW(Also speculative, how do you know that it does not die, how do you know it does not cease after you lose consciousness?)
>>It is not the cessation of consciousness that Nibbana leads to, but the cessation of all mental dukkha.
QW(I agree)
>>I understand the doctrine, but even with the first stage of true wisdom attained, it seems that rebirth may seem more reasonable as a selfish desire
QW(It very much can lead to a selfish desire, if you look at doing good actions for a reward but doing good for a reward in this life has its consequences as well. The attachment to the reward needs to be realized as something that is temporary and fleeting. But rebirht may very well be a universal law, our beingness (for lack of a better word), whatever that is defined as, potentially may change into something else as it leaves this corporeal realm.)
>>One thing to consider (why must an individual's consciousness persist if nothing else of an individual life-form persists? Why may consciousness not also arise dependent on conditions, and not dependent on both itself and a mind-body complex?).
QW(it is not necessary and at best one can only speculate. I believe speculating on such things only gets in the way.)
Nevertheless, my mind is at ease that whether or not rebirth occurs, it does not change anything. With realization, we re-order our lives in accord with reality, and it is our kamma in this life that propagates into the future. Indeed, if rebirth does occur, then every life is "this life" to us.
perhaps some reasons that there are so few cases of people being able to recount their previous lives is because what we are trying to do is very difficult and also it may not benefit people on the path if people talk to openly about their abilities or attainments. There is too much potential for corruption when these things are advertised.
but, who knows?
Or perhaps its because the path stops in this life:)
but then again, i dont have any kind of realization so who am i to say.
its generally taboo to talk about one's attainments or abilities l but i think that if there have been people who were able to recollect past lives they would be very few.
the majority of practitioners dont even realize the precious opportunity of this life and the rarity of ones affinity for dharma, let alone any siddhis.
Live for the now, for the benefit of others and all life, and cast aside concerns that are illusory, such as beginnings and endings. We know that everything changes, so such thoughts are incorrectly pursued.
With that, I give up on this post. If nothing else, this thread has supported the idea that it is incorrect to say that rebirth either exists or does not exist, in the same way that it is incorrect to say that one either does or does not exist upon dissolution of the aggregates.
Thank you all for your replies, and consider me disillusioned with this subject.
Nice post:)
Some people just don't see it like that. Their view of this life changes radically if Rebirth is the case or is not. I don't see any reason why this would be Wrong View, a life with nothing at the end and a life with another life at the end are two very different thoughts. I also don't see anywhere in Buddhism that encourages this kind of philosophical nihilism, at least about meaningful questions:)
its more related to the idea that the denial of rebirth is tantamount to nihilism, which is an extreme view.
Its about avoiding the extremes of nihilism or eternalism not rebirth (as a doctrine) itself. I understand that many people think of it in a dogmatic sense that the mere denial of rebirth is itself the wrong view, thats not the case though.
The implications of denying rebirth are where the problems come in.
Its a philosophical problem, not a dogmatic one.
Im Genuinly intrigued...
You assume its nhilistic. One could believe that in fact Dharma is that which rises out of nothing, it is not a negative thing, in such views. Do you think that there is no rebirth and yet there is dharma is compatible within this view?
Could you tell me what the implications are to dharma of denying rebirth please?
Thanks
Mat
We can look to history for an easy answer, the 500 BCE sramana movement in what is now modern India spawned a multitude of "spiritual" teachers and teachings, some promoted views of an eternal self or atman and others asserted that there was no karma and no rebirth. One of the primary things that Buddhism does is avoid these two extreme views and falls in the middle, this is arguably the defining characteristic of Buddhist historical development (other than Buddha himself of course). There is no permanent self, however, we cannot go so far as to say that the end of life is a snuffing out of an individuals "existence" or the continuity of causality. If we fail to maintain this balance free from extremes we will have a very difficult time maintaining right view in the Buddhist sense.
That said, I dont think anyone has to "believe" in rebirth in order to avoid wrong view, what we have to be careful of is making sure that we dont go too far in our skepticism and end up promoting a view that denies continuity and dependent origination. So taking an "i dont know" approach when it comes to rebirth is quite safe.
There are many "dharma's" that are compatible with a view that flatly denies rebirth, they just arent Buddhist. That in itself is the implication to dharma, if one denies rebirth, one falls into an extreme view and can no longer assert that they are maintaining Buddhist right view.
And as I said in the earlier post, its not about dogma, its about a philosophical extreme of denial.
Sure, I see what your saying, but still I think you are equating "rebirth denial" with nihilism when I don't think it is.
Nobody has the right to decide what is and what is not "Buddhist", that is dogma, however you do its eye shadow:) All there is is The Dharma and we Buddhists trying to understand and follow that Dharma:)
To neither believe nor disbelieve without direct experience and realization is the Buddhist path. Eternalism and nihilism are to be avoided, that much is sure. It may be necessary for some to believe in rebirth on other grounds, such as perhaps because they are coming from another religion that professes a soul, and rebirth at least gives them a sense of security that they have an individual existence that persists.
Such may or may not be. Who knows. I don't care anymore.
Buddhist dharma avoids the two extremes, the denial of continuity, causality, dependent origination and the promotion of a view of "nothing happens when you die" is nihilistic. Nihilism is one of the two extremes (its actually categorized as the worse of the two) and is therefore wrong view.
Buddha Shakyamuni had the right to decide what his view was and it was a view that is free from extremes and does not promote an eternal noncomposite soul and nor does it promote a view of nothingness.
The teachings on rebirth are how Buddhists avoid the extreme view of nihilism. Personally, I think its more than a philosophical tool. I dont think there is anything supernatural about rebirth as it is taught in Buddhism.
To me a single life theory is far less plausible than a continuity of natural awareness that is composite, impermanent, and based upon causes and conditions.
It's not "Buddhism" as a whole that makes this assertion, it's certain schools and teachers. If one does not equate "self" with consciousness then how is it nihilism?
The Buddha said it would be "more" rational to consider the body as "self" than consciousness because it lasts longer. Consciousness is dependent on the body and arises and ceases constantly throughout our lives. It makes no sense to me that consciousness somehow continues without the body and seems to go against the Buddha's words.
However, I certainly don't doubt that my body will remain for quite some time. And it will return to the earth and nourish it and feed other sentient beings which continues the cycle of life. But for some reason, Buddhist rebirth doctrine seems to hold consciousness as more "self" than anything else including the body... why isn't what I described considered "rebirth"? How is what I described nihilism whereas your view is not?
i stand corrected.
This has given me something new to think on, thanks for bringing to my anttention.
So, what did my teacher mean when I was told that all things are born of mind and mind arises, endures, and fades away many many many times in the snap of a finger and this may be considered rebirth?
And what about the story I was told of the two crabs in a bucket full of crabs that with great effort clawed their way to the top of the bucket where one, when seeing freedom took it and the other threw him/herself back into the bucket and started helping others up out of the bucket and that this was like the choice facing those who reach the moment of liberation?
Oh, and one other thing (regarding having a teacher) I've trained in martial arts for about 47 years now and higher martial arts for about 37 years. I trained on my own, in prison, after receiving very excellent instruction with several world class masters (proving my ability in a lot of combat). Upon release from prison, I began training in the community once again and was told by a master to teach in my local community. I followed the masters instructions and was also told to travel to see him (80 miles each way by bus and the cost of overnight lodging). I thought I had mastered all the stuff I had been taught until the first corrections session with the master where he told me that I had developed such poor posture that I could not possibly transmit chi through my body and that to teach others this was doing harm. The master actually had to do a physical manipulation of my spine, which was excruciatingly painful in order for me to have any chance of accomplishing any correction to my posture. I diligently worked through the pain of the exercises he gave me and returned for my next correction. This time I was told that my shoulders were not structured correctly over my rib cage and was given another set of excruciatingly painful corrective exercises. So, what's the point?!? just this; no matter how intelligent (I.Q. 147) strong or athletic (6'4" 220lbs) top competitive athlete much of my life, considered very dangerous. I could not practice on my own without error based on misunderstanding and needing correction; which I'm luckily and happily finally receiving. This is also true of my Buddhist training. I've been at it for about the same time as my martial arts training, having accomplished seminary, monastic, and other (can't talk about) training from some of the worlds top masters and still need correction from my peers and elders in order to avoid going off on some misunderstood tangent into a very harmful path, not only to myself but to others. Do I think I need a teacher? No! Do I wish for a teacher? No. I do need correction and I do wish for that with all my heart. And the only ones I know can give me the correction I need are those who have tread the path, accomplished their own direct realizations, and are willing to engage in an intimate personal relationship with me; so they can give me the corrections suited to my unique circumstances.
I imagine this is the kind of relationship that's being allude to when folks ask if one's got or had a live, in person, teacher.
Shugs!
rebirth is happening all the time for worldlings in the ultimate sense
in other words, a concisousness arises and ceaces everymoment and each such moment is a rebirth
but in conventional terms we consider 'a person/animal (being) born' into this world is a rebirth if we believe buddhism or hundusim?
key is to understand (not the knowledge but experience) the dependent orighnation or the cause and effect theory
It is considered nihilism if there is a "self" to die.
Mundus,
I see and agree with your view, sort of.