Anatman and rebirth?

Now-Is-reality

Anatman is a fundamanetal teaching in buddhism of no-self. Rebirth and this seemingly contradict because if there is no "soul" then how are we reborn? What exactly is reborn?
I have read that any view of a self is due to the five skandhas (or aggregates) which come together to give us the impression of a self, but there is none. I can accept this... but then moving past this life, what is there? If there is a continuance, somehting must continue, no? If there is always one Dalai Lama, then what always makes this Dalai Lama? Can someone please explain to me how Anatman and rebirth are connected? I am probably misinterpreting something somewhere... but... I am not sure where, so help would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Ashley.

Jeffrey

Buddhism says the self is not unsatisfactory. It doesn't say there is no self. For a self to be satisfactory it must not be impermanent. Or composite (which would make it impermanent)..

Form, feeling (Its good, Its bad, Its ugly), perception, karmic formations, consciousness....

Those things the buddha said was not the self

PS the da lai lama himself said that if the people did not need a da lai lama then there wouldn't be one

jinzang

if there is no "soul" then how are we reborn?

Cause and effect. One moment of mind gives rise to the next moment. The first moment in this life had its cause in a previous life. The last moment in this life will have its effect in another life.

What exactly is reborn?

It's not a thing. It's a process, just as life is not a substance, but a process.

NamelessRiver

Rebirth and this seemingly contradict because if there is no "soul" then how are we reborn? What exactly is reborn?

First of all you are starting with the idea that the Buddha believe that the mind depended on the body to exist, which I think was not the case.

Second of all, when asked if there was a "soul" or not the Buddha refused to answer.

You can view anatta more as an absence of essence, something unchanging behind our thoughts, rather than a view on the existence of a soul.

Now-Is-reality

Well just about every site I have read disagrees with what you guys are saying, so sorry if i am misunderstanding...

Anatta (Pali, Sanskrit, anatman, "no-self") is a fundamental precept in Buddhism that since there is no subsistent reality to be found in or underlying appearances, there cannot be a subsistent self or soul in the human appearance. This is in sharp contrast to Hinduism where the comprehension of the terms atman and jiva gives a fundamental understanding of the human predicament and how to escape it. If all is subject to dukkha (transient and the grief that arises from trying to find the non-transient within it) then human appearance is no exception. The human is constituted by five aggregates, skandha, which flow together and give rise to the impression of identity and persistence through time. Thus even if there is "no soul," there is that which has the nature of having that nature. There were major disputes concerning the best candidates for constituting such an impression…but agreement in general was reached that no soul resides within the human body, so to speak, like a driver of a bus, and gets out at the end of the journey. There is only the aggregation of components, which is caused by the previous moment and causes the next. Thus while there is momentarily some one person who is rightly identified as the Dalai Lama, there is no person who is always the Dalai Lama.
[SIZE=-1]Bowker, John, The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, New York, Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 63-64[/SIZE]

Jeffrey

That is an interpretation right off to use the christian word soul for a topic in buddhism. Buddhism had not yet come in contact with Christianity. Was the atman in hinduism identical with the soul in christianity.

The ultimate answer is for YOU to examine your own experience and look for your soul. Do you find it? I think that would be more useful.

Valtiel

Now-is-Reality -

I would personally suggest this teaching to get a better understanding: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf

Jason

It's kind of long, but I suggest listening to "Anatta: Selves and Not-Selves," a study course given at the Sati Center by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on May 2, 2009. (Just scroll down a bit.)

Now-Is-reality

Thank you Mundus and Jason

Stephen

The idea of no-self, or selflessness, simply means there is no permanent, unchanging part of what you call your "self" (the mind and body, with all of its component parts).

Every part of the mind-body complex that you identify with as belonging to you is dependent upon the other parts as well as conditions, such as sustenance.

Rebirth is the concept that the only part of this mind-body complex, which Buddhists call the five aggregates (body, mind, feelings, perceptions and consciousness) is the consciousness. It is this consciousness that continues on, in the case of rebirth, being one of the conditions to create a new life in one of the realms of existence upon death.

Some people view this as literal, others view rebirth as simply referring (metaphorically) to the rise and fall of thought-consciousness itself from moment to moment. Others may even discount it entirely, believing that consciousness is not a requirement of life-creation and that it only develops after the brain reaches a certain stage, and ceases upon death.

Whatever your belief, the Buddha meant it in the literal sense. That much is clear from reading the Dhamma. Further, whether it exists or not, it does not change the aim of Buddhism in any way, which is liberation from suffering.

MatSalted

Aldrisang wrote: »

Some people view this as literal, others view rebirth as simply referring (metaphorically) to the rise and fall of thought-consciousness itself from moment to moment. Others may even discount it entirely, believing that consciousness is not a requirement of life-creation and that it only develops after the brain reaches a certain stage, and ceases upon death.

And some people think the Buddha was grouping rebirth with all mystcial unsupported and culturally antecedent notions which he says we must steer well clear of along the middle path. IE they hold that The Buddha was anti the very idea of rebirth:)

Aldrisang wrote: »

Whatever your belief, the Buddha meant it in the literal sense. That much is clear from reading the Dhamma.

Could you point me to where you get this certainty from within the suttras:) It isn't in The First Sermon, Fire Sermon, Kalama Suttra....:)

Thanks

Mat

PietroPumokin

as far as i understand... what is being reborn is the latent buddha seed, being blown through the maze & round of birth and rebirth, as you know by the winds of your karmic past and your presently-generated karmic now. now i don't know what this actually entails though, exactly, but i would like to listen to and read those links posted, because those look good. something very strange i came across the other night reading daisetz t. suzuki's 'mysticism, christian and buddhist', daisetz suzuki who though not in any way an official in buddhadharma, any moreso than the any buddha doctor, still he was a very learned man. he said:

What is gahakaraka? ["the builder of this house"]
The gahakaraka detected is our relative, empirical ego, and the mind freed from its binding conditions (sankhara) is the absolute ego, Atman, as it is elucidated in the Nirvana Sutra. The denial of Atman as maintained by earlier Buddhists refers to Atman as the relative ego and not to the absolute ego, the ego after enlightenment-experience.
[...]
Or we may express the idea in this way: the absolute ego creates the relative ego in order to see itself reflected in it, that is, in the relative ego. The absolute ego, as long as it remains absolute, has no means whereby to assert itself, to manifest itself, to work out all its possibilities. It requires a gahakaraka to execute its biddings. While the gahakaraka is not to build his house according to his own design, he is an efficient agent to actualise whatever lies quiescently in the Atman in the sense of the Nirvana Sutra.

that is just food for thought, but i agree with you wholeheartedly with you jeffrey, what it pretty much comes down to is investigating ourselves, finding out what selflessness really means.

Stephen

MatSalted wrote: »

And some people think the Buddha was grouping rebirth with all mystcial unsupported and culturally antecedent notions which he says we must steer well clear of along the middle path. IE they hold that The Buddha was anti the very idea of rebirth:)



Could you point me to where you get this certainty from within the suttras:) It isn't in The First Sermon, Fire Sermon, Kalama Suttra....:)

Thanks

Mat

I wouldn't know specifically. My method of self-study hasn't been straightforward. I've read a deal of the suttas and abhidhamma, have gone through at least a couple self-study courses on websites, have probably read about eight books by various authors on Buddhism and have listened to audio lectures as well. That being said, these sources all contained the doctrinal view that from consciousness do the five aggregates arise and with ignorance does the consciousness continue to be reborn in one of the states of being (one life ends, another begins, but it's only the consciousness that is actually similar to both lives).

I've read specifically where the Buddha laid this out in the teachings, and it was backed up by other suttas, but it would've been a wasted effort to try memorizing all of it. My goal was to understand it; my end was to realize it. Now it's not so important. The only reason I'd be delving back into the teachings now would be for clarification on the path to Nibbana, which I'm not at this time seeking. Otherwise I carry the core teachings with me as realization rather than memorization.

What you say is exactly what I've been saying. The question isn't whether rebirth takes place or not, but whether how it applies to the goal at all. The only difference I can see in choosing to believe in it one way or another (as opposed to having personal realization of it) is that if you do not believe in it, you'll strive harder in this life toward your goal. If you do believe in it, you would tend to think you have countless lives to get it right.

If you take my own stance, which is to neither believe nor disbelieve, you won't become attached to either view and it will not hinder your efforts to attain wisdom. Only locking your mind in stone before knowing the truth can hurt you. I believe it is the Buddha's teachings that rebirth is a process for all humans, animals and insects (don't think they understood plants as being life like we do, so who knows about them?), but I will simply have confidence that I will understand better in the future.

MatSalted

Aldrisang wrote: »

I've read specifically where the Buddha laid this out in the teachings, and it was backed up by other suttas, but it would've been a wasted effort to try memorizing all of it.

I don't know what you could mean. I have read many times what I consider the key suttras based on my research:

The First Sermon, The Fire Sermon, The Kalamasutra, The Mahaparinibbba Sutra.

I am unlikely to believe anything from later texts that isn't consistent with my understanding of these texts:)

Is that stupid of me?


>>>My goal was to understand it; my end was to realize it. Now it's not so important. The only reason I'd be delving back into the teachings now would be for clarification on the path to Nibbana, which I'm not at this time seeking. Otherwise I carry the core teachings with me as realization rather than memorization.

Do you know the Mirror of Dharma? It is in the Last Sermon (MPS). Its a gift the Buddha gives Ananda that can help him deal with the troublesome notion of rebirth. And this gift is to declare something like "this is my last life, I wont come back as anything."

That is to reject it totally. And what's more, this is defined as the start of the path to enligtenement:)

This is not deep ahibdharma, this is a common and generally accepted key suttra stating reject rebirth before starting on the path:)

>>If you take my own stance, which is to neither believe nor disbelieve, you won't become attached to either view and it will not hinder your efforts to attain wisdom.

That is your stance, not mine:)

Thanks

Mat

shenpennangwa

MatSalted wrote: »

And this gift is to declare something like "this is my last life, I wont come back as anything."

That is to reject it totally. And what's more, this is defined as the start of the path to enligtenement:)

that may be the strangest interpretation of this quote I have ever seen.
not only is it strange but it is hugely out of context with the rest of the teachings.

MatSalted

shenpen nangwa wrote: »

that may be the strangest interpretation of this quote I have ever seen.
not only is it strange but it is hugely out of context with the rest of the teachings.

I have the book in my hands, what am I missing?:)

Stephen

Alright maybe I need to clarify. After my own awakening experience, I saw no reason to believe in rebirth; it does not at all seem necessary, hence why my very first thread (and very first post) here on these forums was questioning it.

However, with some feedback, I've come to realize that it would be in error to discount rebirth simply because I find nothing real to base it on. So, I hold that it can be true. Just as I do not believe in God because I do not find anything real to base that belief on, I also hold that He can exist.

If either of these, or more truths, were to make more sense later I would not be surprised. I've become unattached to extreme views in regards to these types of questions.

So, my quest as far as asking other people about what they think about rebirth has ended; only for myself, and to myself, will I look for the answer. Your quest to find any clarification of the issue on the forums may not be fruitful in of itself, that's all I'm saying.

Valtiel

Do you know the Mirror of Dharma? It is in the Last Sermon (MPS). Its a gift the Buddha gives Ananda that can help him deal with the troublesome notion of rebirth. And this gift is to declare something like "this is my last life, I wont come back as anything."

In this sutta the Buddha teaches that stream-enterers (someone beyond the point of "starting the Path") will not fall back into the lower realms of samsara. You can argue over whether this is literal or metaphorical (as you know I do do not feel the Buddha taught literal rebirth as truth and tend to go with the latter interpretation), or even say it's a false sutta if you feel like it, but your paraphrased quote (basically, suggesting the Buddha taught Ananda that declaring "This is my only life! Rebirth is untrue!" is part of the Path...) is absolutely not what the sutta says. Completely twisting words like this does not help your case at all.

"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

shenpennangwa

MatSalted wrote: »

I have the book in my hands, what am I missing?:)

your interpreting statements out of context and in a way that supports your already established views. we all do it, its difficult to avoid.
Also the selective application of scriptures that you interpret to support your ideas and the dismissal of all others isnt really helping your cause.

MatSalted

shenpen nangwa wrote: »

your interpreting statements out of context and in a way that supports your already established views. we all do it, its difficult to avoid.

Kindly show me how. its easy to say "oh your just cherry picking" but take the whole MP Suttra if you like and show me where I am missing the context.

>>>Also the selective application of scriptures that you interpret to support your ideas and the dismissal of all others isnt really helping your cause.

I am focussing on the earliest key sutras in the hope they are closer to the original. Should I be looking to Zen or Shinyoen for these answers? if so, why?

I am not being selective.

Nios

MatSalted wrote: »

I am focussing on the earliest key sutras in the hope they are closer to the original.

Hi Mat,

I am playing devils advocate here :rarr:

In what way are you sure of what the original texts are?

It seems to me, the only way to be sure is to find the oldest existing texts. We know of the Gandharan Buddhist texts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_Texts but without public access to them, we can't know whether they speak about rebirth.

We also know of the Sutta Pitaka being the earliest, however, this is a collection of over 10,000 texts. As I am not a scholar, nor an archaeologist I am not privy to know which ones were written first....

You have chosen a hand full of suttas that you keep insisting are the earliest (and therefore slightly more authentic) teachings of the buddha (which, incidentally, also agree with your beliefs). I was just wondering, for the benifit of all on this sight, how have you come to the conclusion of what were the earliest texts? Have you read the Gandharan texts? Are you a Buddhist scholar?

The Devil

err, I mean, Nios.

MatSalted

Nios wrote: »

In what way are you sure of what the original texts are?

I am not sure. Can you tell me why the suttras are any different from the greek myths or the Arthurian legends or the tale of the Noahs Ark?

I think you cannot.

So I am not sure, all we can be is more certain that some texts are more accurate than others.

I think that texts purporting to be key stages in the Buddhas life, like his enlightenment and death, are likely to be more verbatim than those recounting the enlightenment of a Courtesan. Do you agree?

I think that texts in the Suttra Pittaka, the first collection of the Pali Cannon are more likley to be verbatim than those in the Vianya and the Ahibdharma. Please do your own research on this. My essay here (http://goo.gl/LVZe) may convince you if you are not already.

An important thing to remeber is we know from the history of the cannon that there were rifts in it and these were to do with herecy. I think it was King Ashoka's time? The point is, that is evidence from with the cannon that the cannon at one point contained herecy and this has been revised out.


Once we get out of the Pali Cannon I simply have no reason to belive any connection. These later vehicles may be the best and most perfect etc etc but just on pure historical fact they cannot be said to be direct accounts of the teachings.

So I cant be sure, but I can be sure that if in the last Suttra the Buddha says that by renowincing ones rebirth they are bound for enlightenment that's much more evidence for my view than some from the Lotus Suttra. That seems just reasonable, isnt it?

>>It seems to me, the only way to be sure is to find the oldest existing texts. We know of the Gandharan Buddhist texts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandh%C4%81ran_Buddhist_Texts but without public access to them, we can't know whether they speak about rebirth.

No, I think not. Even if we had the very first written accounts of Buddhism we would still have to explain what happened in the centuries after the first council and what happened in the month before it, just after the Buddha died.

We can never know what is teaching of the Buddha and what is contamination afterwards, we just cannot.

So what should we do?

We do what the Buddha tells us...

Doubt all and that which you cannot doubt, is Dharma.

Salome:)

mat

MatSalted

Nios

>>You have chosen a hand full of suttas that you keep insisting are the earliest (and therefore slightly more authentic) teachings of the buddha

Oh no, I am not insisiting. I am just saying it seems more likely that.. which it does:) But my point is I dont really have to rely on any suttra for my beliefs. If there were no Suttras there would still be dharma.

>>>(which, incidentally, also agree with your beliefs).

Errr.. no... my beliefs are in part supported by them:) Its the otehr way round:)

>>Are you a Buddhist scholar?

What does that mean? I have studied nigh on nothing else for 8 years, but simply as part of my life's struggle along the eightfold path.

I am certainly not an expert Buddhist scholar:)

Yet when I ask Expert Buddhist scholars my simple question about rebirth they cant answer, it seems. I wait...

.. and no answer comes.

Where does rebirth connect with dharma?

Nios

What I'm trying to say is, it seems what you hold to be the "earliest" texts (not just on this thread but on many others) are the ones that agree with your idea of dharma. This is why other people have said you are "cherry picking".

I'm hoping this is not the case so I was trying to find the reason you keep calling the handful of suttas that you keep quoting as the "earliest", as if, being the earliest, they are somehow better than, say the Lotus Sutra.

It seems clear, that you believe them to be the "earliest" because they agree with your view of dharma (in that you cannot doubt what they are saying). Would that be correct?

Nios.

Nios

MatSalted wrote: »

Yet when I ask Expert Buddhist scholars my simple question about rebirth they cant answer, it seems. I wait...

.. and no answer comes.

Where does rebirth connect with dharma?

I am not a scholar.

MatSalted

Nios wrote: »

I am not a scholar.

But you clearly understand Buddhism. you could tell me how Tanha does, Im sure. So why not rebirth? Does it not seem strange that rebirth does not fit in?

Does it not seems strange that the Buddha says there is nothing strange about death right before he shows how to renounce rebirth?

I have no problem with anyone accepting rebirth on faith. Why would I? It doesn't change the path in any meaningful way.

MatSalted

Nios wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is, it seems what you hold to be the "earliest" texts (not just on this thread but on many others) are the ones that agree with your idea of dharma. This is why other people have said you are "cherry picking".

I'm hoping this is not the case so I was trying to find the reason you keep calling the handful of suttas that you keep quoting as the "earliest", as if, being the earliest, they are somehow better than, say the Lotus Sutra.

It seems clear, that you believe them to be the "earliest" because they agree with your view of dharma (in that you cannot doubt what they are saying). Would that be correct?

Nios.

As I said here, three months ago, I am happy to not rely on the suttras for any of my beliefs about Dharma. They provide supporting evidence for what to me has been a clear view for ages.

I will keep trying to understd how the suttras represent and misrepresent Dharma and the buddhas teachings.

It doenst matter to me if you think I am cherry picking, Im simply stating how i see things.

Im not here to "win anyone over", the very best I could hope for from my time here is to learn more for myself and make people question more for themselves:) Is that bad?

Doubt everything, be your own light.



things and you are find to call me a cherry picker, as I have been called before.

Nios

MatSalted wrote: »

But you clearly understand Buddhism. you could tell me how Tanha does, Im sure. So why not rebirth? Does it not seem strange that rebirth does not fit in?

Does it not seems strange that the Buddha says there is nothing strange about death right before he shows how to renounce rebirth?

I have no problem with anyone accepting rebirth on faith. Why would I? It doesn't change the path in any meaningful way.

Now I'm getting confused.

You have stated many times that you believe it is important to dharma to denounce rebirth, have you not? You have writen pages and pages and even created two blogs with your beliefs, have you not. I even found some of your posts on another forum. So how can you then say that it's not a problem to you, when it clearly is, and then say it doesn't change the path, when in another thread you think it's important. I don't get it. Either it is important to you (which is why you've talked about it so much) or it isn't important, which makes all these threads pointless. :skeptical

I missed where buddha shows how to denounce rebirth... I will go over your posts and try and find the quote.

I am not telling you what to believe and what not to believe. I am not telling you what buddhism is or isn't. I am not learned enough to do that.

Nios.

MatSalted

Nios wrote: »

Now I'm getting confused.

You have stated many times that you believe it is important to dharma to denounce rebirth, have you not?

You have writen pages and pages and even created two blogs with your beliefs, have you not. I even found some of your posts on another forum. So how can you then say that it's not a problem to you, when it clearly is.[/quote]

Its not a problem for me what anyone else belives about rebirth.

It is a "problem" in a dialetic sense if I spend hours of my life writing an essay on dharma and publish it in a forum and people assume I am wrong with a few pithy remarks and then when I try to defend essay became more and more combative which makes me either have to shut up or argue back. Thats problematical for me, but so far, I go on.

Find me one place where I have spouted with any of the authoritarian arrogance that you may have seen I had spouted at me other forums. Newbuddhist is a good forum for debate, even with the forum dukka!:)

>>>and then say it doesn't change the path, when in another thread you think it's important.

OK, this is pretty important for me. Last week I reread the Last Suttra from start to finish some parts many times. The Mirror of Dharma, which was a vague memory, shone out. It seemed that this was the part where Buddha hands over to ananda from the old ways with rebirth to the new ways, the enlightened way without rebirth.

So yes, I have changed from thinking "the buddha was against rebirth because x,y,z" to thinking "the buddha was against rebirth so much so that its renounciation, is the start of the path. "bound for enligtenment".

What else can that mean?

So if you have noticed a change in my take on this in the last week, yes it has:) I am more sure, not less.

>>>I missed where buddha shows how to denounce rebirth... I will go over your posts and try and find the quote.


For you convieneince:

The Mirror of the Dhamma
8. "But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
9. "And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself?
"In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, 18 inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'
"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.
10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

I look forward to your, or anyone's interpretation of that passage:)

Mat

Nios

MatSalted wrote: »

So yes, I have changed from thinking "the buddha was against rebirth because x,y,z" to thinking "the buddha was against rebirth so much so that its renounciation, is the start of the path. "bound for enligtenment".

What else can that mean?

I see it slightly different Mat. I have no authority on this text, as I have said, but, like you, I'd like to give my understanding, if I may.

10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

To me, this means, someone who has attained the way, is a stream enterer, and with wisdom of the path will no longer be reborn in lower realms (realms of woe), but will continue to be reborn in favourable realms until enlightenment or become enlightened in this life.

You see, the hell realms, animal realms, ghost realms and such are all lower realms. Unfavourable realms. The human realm is more favourable because we have a better chance at learning the dharma and becoming enlightend. (Some people believe them to be "literal" places, others believe them to be states of mind.) To me (and others), this is clear. But I know this is not clear to you.

Well, this is what I believe.

Nios.

Now-Is-reality

Hmm... Well, just out of curiosity, what is your view Mat? How does the mirror of the dhamma show that there is no rebirth? I have not really formed an opinion either way yet, as I don't want to believe something on faith alone, but rather understand it. But the words here "No more rebirth" seem to show there was rebirth. Having no more of something would mean there had to be something to begin with, right? Or do you have another interpretation for the realms?
Ashley

BrotherBob

Hi,

Being rid of the idea that the English word 'rebirth' is a correct translation of some Dhammic principle may help.

I will agree that the word 'rebirth' is not found in any part of the Buddhadharma (except in English translation - it's probably a western word misapplied), as I imagine it. I will also include that there is probably no 're' anything pointed to in the teachings - remembering, recalling, reciting, re, re, re,....

I imagine annica and anatta both pointing to the appearance of stuff in one moment similar to an appearance in a previous moment, based on circumstances. (human beings may be considered stuff)

When life and death are known as mere appearance and disappearance in the perceptual field - similar to a previous appearance. The idea of 're' anything dissolves (disappears hehehe! )

What a relief!!!

By the way the word 'transmigration' has replaced 'rebirth' in most current western expressions of the Buddhadharma. So, let's get up to speed, Okay?!?

:):)

Glow

Most of Wikipedia's articles on Buddhism need substantial work, but oddly enough, the one on rebirth actually explains the concept fairly well. Also, it's one of the better-sourced articles in their Buddhism section.

upekka

MatSalted wrote: »

****************
The Mirror of the Dhamma
8. "But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you

the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma,

possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself:

"'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"

the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahant, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, 18 inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'
"He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration — the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.'
"And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind.

10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
****************


I look forward to your, or anyone's interpretation of that passage:)

Mat

the Mirror of Dhamma is 'the seeing' the teaching of Dependent Origination (cause and effect theory)

once there is 'the seeing' one has no more questions of life, 'world', rebirth, kamma, nirvana

once this 'the seeing' happens there is unwaverd faith in Buddha (the one who found this Truth'), Dhamma (the Truth itself), and Sangha (those who seen the Truth)

once this 'the seeing' happens try to be virtues always not because 'some authority' ask/say to do so, but he knows it is conducive to have concentrated mind

the question is 'how we get 'the seeing'?

MatSalted

upekka wrote: »

the Mirror of Dhamma is 'the seeing' the teaching of Dependent Origination (cause and effect theory)

Maybe:) But it also clearly holds a number of other points, such as the renounciation of another rebirth and the methodology for faith:

"He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.'

Evident - that is it is clear to see.
Timeless - it is true of all possible worlds
Inviting investigation - it is there to be investigated.

It seems more than you suggest?:)

And lets not forget what the Buddha says the gift is for:)

mat

upekka

MatSalted wrote: »

Evident - that is it is clear to see.
Timeless - it is true of all possible worlds
Inviting investigation - it is there to be investigated.

It seems more than you suggest?:)

And lets not forget what the Buddha says the gift is for:)

all these included once one gain the 'the seeing'
'the seeing' is realization of Dhamma

MatSalted

upekka wrote: »

all these included once one gain the 'the seeing'
'the seeing' is realization of Dhamma

I think it is clear its not just "seeing", there is knowledge and wisdom and science too:) (See First sermon)

This idea Buddha just taught an empirical path doesnt really seem to be the case:)

upekka

MatSalted wrote: »

I think it is clear its not just "seeing", there is knowledge and wisdom and science too:) (See First sermon)

you say 'I think'

so you are not sure that means it is another belief

Valtiel

MatSalted wrote: »

Kindly show me how. its easy to say "oh your just cherry picking" but take the whole MP Suttra if you like and show me where I am missing the context.

>>>Also the selective application of scriptures that you interpret to support your ideas and the dismissal of all others isnt really helping your cause.

I am focussing on the earliest key sutras in the hope they are closer to the original. Should I be looking to Zen or Shinyoen for these answers? if so, why?

I am not being selective.

Mat

I already explained how you are wrong. I even provided the original quote. The quote is truly self-explainatory. Kindly back up your own interpretation with actual reference to the sutta if you feel the rest of the world is wrong.

Brigid

Brother Bob wrote: »

By the way the word 'transmigration' has replaced 'rebirth' in most current western expressions of the Buddhadharma. So, let's get up to speed, Okay?!?

:):)

I can't tell if that's a joke or not, Bob. Just in case it isn't (and to save a little time) I just wanted to say that that isn't my understanding at all. I understand the word 'transmigration' to specifically refer to a 'soul' which passes into a different body after death.

If you were just joking, then.......nervermind.

BrotherBob

From 'Transmigrate' - transitive verb : to cause to go from one state of existence or place to another.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transmigration

BrotherBob

also, a couple of sutra references;

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html

and

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.013.than.html