Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I am not entirely fond of relying entirely upon the suttas/sutras as the sole sources for understanding anything. Scriptural Authority is flawed regardless of the religion.
The issue of rebirth is something that I struggle to understand. I will need something other that the words of someone else to gain a better understanding of it.
On a side note... I find it interesting that Buddhism seems to be able to logically and precisely explain pretty much everything in a somewhat direct manner. One of the few exceptions that I've noticed is Ultimate Truth, which is usually explained via negation, or inferential arguments. But unlike discussions of Ultimate Truth, which make sense to me, discussions of rebirth fail to come close to a personal understanding, either for or against.
I really hope someone here can get my meditations upon rebirth heading in the appropriate direction.
Authentic love is quite rational.
To truly love another living being we must understand our nature and the other beings nature. Through this understanding we can come to recognize that all of our hopes and fears are coming from the same source and that they are ultimately insubstantial.
Genuine love comes from genuine compassion, and genuine authentic compassion comes from wisdom.
yeah, but wisdom comes from a peacock that lives inside the center of neptune ha ha ha ha
I am not entirely fond of relying entirely upon the suttas/sutras as the sole sources for understanding anything. Scriptural Authority is flawed regardless of the religion.
The issue of rebirth is something that I struggle to understand. I will need something other that the words of someone else to gain a better understanding of it.
On a side note... I find it interesting that Buddhism seems to be able to logically and precisely explain pretty much everything in a somewhat direct manner. One of the few exceptions that I've noticed is Ultimate Truth, which is usually explained via negation, or inferential arguments. But unlike discussions of Ultimate Truth, which make sense to me, discussions of rebirth fail to come close to a personal understanding, either for or against.
I really hope someone here can get my meditations upon rebirth heading in the appropriate direction.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu once wrote in a reply to a letter I sent him that the truth of the Dhamma can come only with practice, and that fortunately, the Buddha laid out some very clear guidelines on how to test his teachings. He advised me to build on what I know is true, and not on the words and opinions of others. He closed the letter by saying: "As Ajaan Fuang once said in a Dhamma talk (see Timeless & True), you learn the truth by being true."
I'm not sure what your second comment is about. In any event there's not much to elaborate on. You're both talking of consciousness/awareness as if it's the "self." And as if it either continues on or is illuminated after what we call death. It's all speculation. But we do know the body remains for a time. And it's just a constant chain of events where everything is interrelated. No rebirth, no nihilism, no self, just cause and effect.
Obviously I do not have direct meditative realization to conclude without any doubt that rebirth exists or not. Until such time I develop my mind to such a level (if I ever will) I will have to go by what is there in the suttas and what is said by known, trust worthy Buddhist meditation practitioners (like Ajhan Char for example… there maybe others). I don’t think any other source of information out there is anymore trust worthy than this. But that doesn’t mean I believe their word as the ultimate truth either.
I am not saying there is a constant transmigrating entity called the self. As you say consciousness is a thing that arises and passes away so rapidly that we identify it or fabricate it as a self but that is not a constant entity. That is fine. But that doesn't explain that consciousness completely ceases after the physical body breaks. Does it? As I said although rebirth is not explained in the DO the Buddha has clearly talked about himself in other bodies aka past lives in many suttas. Thus we just cannot conclude that we cease to exist or our consciousness doesn’t continue in some way after we die.
Obviously I do not have direct meditative realization to conclude without any doubt that rebirth exists or not.
Can I ask where you get the idea from that it is possible to know the truth on from meditation?
Even assuming you did experience that how would you know it was real and not an illusion or meditative hallucination?
Do you find it unusual that meditation doesn't play a significant role in the Buddha's first and last expositions of the path and practice?
By the way, I don't doubt at all the huge benifit of Meditation to Dharma pracice:)
But that doesn't explain that consciousness completely ceases after the physical body breaks. Does it?
We are told by the Buddha what conciousness is, it is in a sense the "now" realisation of the other four aggregates. There is no thinker, only thoughts and all that. May I ask why do you think there is something that needs to be explained here?
Regards
Mat
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
Can I ask where you get the idea from that it is possible to know the truth on from meditation?
Even assuming you did experience that how would you know it was real and not an illusion or meditative hallucination?
Do you find it unusual that meditation doesn't play a significant role in the Buddha's first and last expositions of the path and practice?
Actually, yes it does.
he sat under the Bodhi tree for six days without moving, and vowed that he would not move from his meditation until things became clear to him, and he could 'Know' with clarity.
Which was exactly what happened.
So meditation had a significant part to play, contrary to your comment above.
I am not saying there is a constant transmigrating entity called the self. As you say consciousness is a thing that arises and passes away so rapidly that we identify it or fabricate it as a self but that is not a constant entity. That is fine. But that doesn't explain that consciousness completely ceases after the physical body breaks. Does it? As I said although rebirth is not explained in the DO the Buddha has clearly talked about himself in other bodies aka past lives in many suttas. Thus we just cannot conclude that we cease to exist or our consciousness doesn’t continue in some way after we die.
We were talking about this in our sangha last night actually . The way my teacher was taught it, was to look at it as "mind-energy". East asians, especially the chinese, see "mind" as something different to us westerners, and they don't see it as part of the brain.
It is very difficult for us to disassociate our "mind" with our "brain" as we are taught by western science that "mind" is created by "brain". Therefore, when our brain dies, we have no more mind. (I wonder sometimes, what the people thought during the time of Buddha).
So what our teacher said, and how he was taught it, is to see the mind as a "mind-energy" and the brain as a processor for that energy. I was amazed by this as I had held the theory for many years that mind was an energy that constantly changes. Therefore, nothing is ever "reborn", the energy simply transmigrates to a different body or realm, and that engery isn't "you" (or a soul), it's just energy.
I personally like this explanation, but it is just explanation.
Actually, yes it does.
he sat under the Bodhi tree for six days without moving, and vowed that he would not move from his meditation until things became clear to him, and he could 'Know' with clarity.
Which was exactly what happened.
So meditation had a significant part to play, contrary to your comment above.
Hi Federica
I am afraid we cannot know exactly what happened, at all:)
I am happy to accept that the buddha discovered dharma after a long period of contemplation and meditation, absolutely. But to extrapolate from this that he somehow proved or experienced rebirth to be true doesn't seem that reaosnable, escpially when we consider rebirths awkwardness with the three marks, nobles truths, DO...
Is it not enough to say that he discovered Dharma while meditating? Bear in mind this is probably the biggest achievement of any human ever!:)
Do you find it unusual that meditation doesn't play a significant role in the Buddha's first and last expositions of the path and practice?
what about the Eightfold Path? Or talk of developing mindfulness and right concentration in those suttas? Although none of this is described as being for the purpose of recalling past lives... That isn't the point of meditation.
what about the Eightfold Path? Or talk of developing mindfulness and right concentration in those suttas? Although none of this is described as being for the purpose of recalling past lives... That isn't the point of meditation.
No No Sure Sure, as said, I am 100% behind meditation as a pracitcie of Dharma.
I have never gone as far as some have but I have often wondered "What did the Buddha see when he was as deep as he could be?"
My philosophical mind tries to put together an answer that he expericned a single point of nothingness and saw of that point that the three marks would be true of anything composed of single points. The "Single Point Philosopher" essays on my site try to capture this.
But as you note, this is an entirely distinct notion to rebirth, in fact it is one that philosophically at least it wholly incompatible with an anomalous phenomenon like rebirth.
So the answer "We know rebirth is true because The Buddha (or anyone) meditated it to see it was thus" is not one I am able to accept. If others are, that is their beliefs.
Therefore, nothing is ever "reborn", the energy simply transmigrates to a different body or realm, and that engery isn't "you" (or a soul), it's just energy.
I personally like this explanation, but it is just explanation.
Nios.
Agree with this. I guess we call it rebirth since it looks as if a self is born again just like we are deluded into taking the changing consciousness as constant self. It's just terminology. Whether you call it "rebirth" or just mind energy or consciousness or whatever it might seem reasonable to think that consciousness just doesn't cease to exist when the physical body breaks taking into consideration the many references in suttas to past lives and considering the fact that the Buddha explicitly refused the idea of "only this life" in the brahmajala sutta.
But as you say, most of us do not have the necessary meditative experiences or otherwise to say rebirth exists or not without any doubt. We just go by what is there in the suttas and what our practice indicates
I am happy to accept that the buddha discovered dharma after a long period of contemplation and meditation, absolutely. But to extrapolate from this that he somehow proved or experienced rebirth to be true doesn't seem that reaosnable......
Is it not enough to say that he discovered Dharma while meditating? Bear in mind this is probably the biggest achievement of any human ever!:)
Much peace,
Mat
I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the error in your statement.
Do you find it unusual that meditation doesn't play a significant role in the Buddha's first and last expositions of the path and practice?
I personally am a firm believer in re-birth, even if it is taken down to the Nth degree of experiencing a 'rebirth' daily, and acknowledging that I'm not the same person today that I was yesterday. new experiences affect my mentality, perception, knowledge and awareness.
I know differently today, what I knew yesterday.
Everything about me (physically and mentally) has altered, perceptibly or imperceptibly.
There is nothing to me to make me think that re-birth is not possible.
I have no proof that it is definite. And frankly - I really don't care, one way or the other.
If I'm right, I'm right.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
No big deal, either way.
it's a 'wait and see' question.
even if it is taken down to the Nth degree of experiencing a 'rebirth' daily, and acknowledging that I'm not the same person today that I was yesterday.
Sure, that is what I call metaphorical rebirth as opposed to literal rebirth. Again, its a way of looking at things, my view is that The Buddha didn't think in those terms, that it was either literal rebirth or nonrebirth.
There is nothing to me to make me think that re-birth is not possible.
Again, I have no truck with that. I have a friend who is a Shinyoen nun, she has dedicated her life to a very mystical, prayer based, god filled version of Buddhism that most of us here would think "That's not Buddhism!":)
I have never challenged her about her beliefs and she has never challenged me, there is no debate and ultimatly we could never know whoes view was right. But if she started trying to show my view was wrong I would try to respond to her, that is what debates and discussions are:)
Simply, we don't discuss rebirth.
But this is a Buddhist discusssion group, and not only that, its for "new Buddhists":
Welcome to our modest sangha on the Internet. We are a group of seekers and ponderers who share our lives with one another as friends. We do not assume to be authorities on Buddhism nor preach a particular sect of Buddhism.
And this is a Thread, "Is Rebirth real?"
So although it might be totally irrelevant to you, which i totally respect, and though sopme others might find the very notion of such a question a Buddhist Herecy, not all do:)
Some want to discuss this profound existentential question:)
I am one of those!:)
I don't think we should critcisie others for wanting to investigate the questions of dharma that interest them:)
What then is the difference between you and your belief and a Christian and theirs, though?
Do Christians have a way to verify a belief through practice?
Do you have enough evidence to prove the non-self concept outside of meditative practice and suttas? If not then why not go by what is there in the suttas about the rebirth concept?
I guess you just go by what is there in the DO until such time you prove it to yourself through your practice. Buddhists can always verify the things the Buddha taught through practice. Until then believeing there is no rebirth is also just belief.
Do Christians have a way to verify a belief through practice?
In the same way some Buddhists do. Many say they have spoken to God. Many have said that their near-death experiences took them to heaven, to god, to deceased relatives. Now you may say they're lying or just interpretting things the way they want to... But the same can be said of so-called past life recollection.
The sutta you referred to is a late sutta. It is very out-of-tune with the others. Still it refers to past dwellings as opposed to lives and in this one it seems clear it refers to any recollection of a "self" in the aggregates.
The suttas do not teach meditation to recall past lives. The suttas state it is not through this that one is awakened. If the Buddha stated he only taught a path to the freedom of suffering then it makes no sense that he would teach this.
Do you have enough evidence to prove the non-self concept outside of meditative practice and suttas? If not then why not go by what is there in the suttas about the rebirth concept?
I have yet to fund anything not subject to anicca. Therefore nothing that ought to be clung to as self. So I have verified anatta through meditation in this way. Have you not?
And yes, believing there is or isn't rebirth are both just beliefs. Noble Right View contains neither of these. It isn't relevant or applicable. Why believe rather than approach agnostically? Sarriputa was praised for such an approach by the Buddha. As long as there is belief, there is tainted perception.
On a previous thread about whether it's important to buddhist practice (to nirvana) if one believes in rebirth or not, the over-whelming majority said "no it doesn't matter". Only three said "yes it does matter". Two of those believe in rebirth, one doesn't. Food for thought.
On a previous thread about whether it's important to buddhist practice (to nirvana) if one believes in rebirth or not, the over-whelming majority said "no it doesn't matter". Only three said "yes it does matter". Two of those believe in rebirth, one doesn't. Food for thought.
Nios.
I think one needs to ask "matter to what".
Matter to the practice of The Eightold Path and matter in an existantital, philosophical or scientific sense are different senses of relevance.
The sutta you referred to is a late sutta. It is very out-of-tune with the others.
I have referred to so many suttas not just one. Are you saying all of them are faulty or distorted? If I recall right I referred to at least five suttas so far where the concept of past lives appear.
The suttas do not teach meditation to recall past lives. The suttas state it is not through this that one is awakened. If the Buddha stated he only taught a path to the freedom of suffering then it makes no sense that he would teach this.
I have repeatedly agreed with you that it is not relevant to your practice whether you believe in rebirth or not. But that doesn't mean the statement that "you cease to exist when you die" is justifiable when there are references in the suttas to past lives. Unless you are saying all those suttas are faulty or misinterpreted
Both the Bible and the Suttras can be shown to have no historical or direct connection with their key figures or teachings. There is no historical evidence really that the key figures even existed.
In this sense both are closer to the Greek Myths in terms of their providence and doctrinal lineage. This seems true of all ancient religions.
But where Buddhism diverges from other religions is that it does not fall or stand on the truth of its afterlife concepts.
We can all believe opposing things on rebirth and the Duddhist doctrine stands steadfast, the same isn't true of Christianity, for example:)
I have yet to fund anything not subject to anicca. Therefore nothing that ought to be clung to as self. So I have verified anatta through meditation in this way. Have you not?
But you still have defilements don't you? You still have ego haven't you? If you can really understand anicca and non-self by day to day observations you should be enlightened by now. I think the real realization of non-self and anicca should be experienced through deep meditation (which you probably have)
Similarly the concept of rebirth is hard to be justified through rationalizations. It probably is a realization that comes through meditation which is why I said the best trust worthy source we have are the suttas or what the experienced meditators say of the matter.
Isn't it said to be one wisdom of the Buddha (not only the Buddha) to be able to look into past lives? I can direct you to the specific sutta. Or is it just another faulty sutta?
And yes, believing there is or isn't rebirth are both just beliefs. Noble Right View contains neither of these. It isn't relevant or applicable. Why believe rather than approach agnostically? Sarriputa was praised for such an approach by the Buddha. As long as there is belief, there is tainted perception.
Once again I will repeat that I agree it is not relevant. But since we were talking of the matter so far it has become the subject of this discussion although it is not relevant to the practice.
All I'm saying is, there are so many references to past life theories in so many suttas that it is undeniable. I don't have a strong belief in it. If someone can successfully tell me all the suttas are faulty misinterpretations I will not have any issue in thinking that consciousness ceases to exist when we die.
Edit: There are also claims by experienced meditators that they have looked into past lives. I'm sure anyone can argue they are just mere metal pictures in which case the Buddha's past life recollections will also fall into that category.
the suttas say recollections of past dwellings not lives. The suttas explain that that this refers to any past recollection of the aggregates as "self." The word often translated as rebirth is "birth" or "samsara"-that is, "artistic" liberties are taken in the translation process. The suttas state that belief in rebirth and no rebirth are both wrong view in terms of untainted view that leads to nibbana. The buddha scolded a monk who suggested that consciousness is reborn. The Buddha stated he only taught suffering and it's cessation and you agree rebirth is irrelevant to this. The suttas state that rebirth teachings were REtaught to those with preexisting beliefs as a moral teaching. Nothing seems innaccurate here to me. These things are always ignored though when discussing the suttas and rebirth.
Plus, the only "proof" availabl is arguably nothing more than a daydream, hallucination, wishful thinking. It is no different than Christian belief. So on top of the things above, it seems illogical to think the Buddha would teach something unverifiable.
But you still have defilements don't you? You still have ego haven't you? If you can really understand anicca and non-self by day to day observations you should be enlightened by now. I think the real realization of non-self and anicca should be experienced through deep meditation (which you probably have)
untrue. The marks are easy to see and understand really. They're difficult to realize. I understand my dog will die someday like all things, I understand that such things aren't fit to cling to and only bring dukkha, yet I still cling to the hope that it might nit be that way. He's sick right now and I still cling despite intellectually knowing those facts.
But you still have defilements don't you? You still have ego haven't you? If you can really understand anicca and non-self by day to day observations you should be enlightened by now.
Maybe she is enlightened? If enlightenment is mundane and accessible, which it seems to have been in the Buddha's time if we believe the scriptures, then maybe it is as the Buddha alludes (perhaps states), contained in the Understanding of The Four Noble Truths.
Dont forget, all masculine hegemonies take the object of desire, "salvation", "knowledge" etc and push them further and further into the unobtainable, you can see this with everything from shamansish to modern variants of the abrhamic religions.
A question you can ask is, "If the Buddha's teaching was about a mundane kind of enlightenment over two millennia would this message have been made more esoteric, inaccessible and difficult to attain?"
You can ask yourself that question without commiting to its assumption.
the suttas say recollections of past dwellings not lives. The suttas explain that that this refers to any past recollection of the aggregates as "self."
What do you mean by dwelling here? You mean it's an imagination or thought process not a real physical existence? You mean the Buddha was talking of a past imagination when he said he was the king of so and so kingdom etc etc?
The word often translated as rebirth is "birth" or "samsara"-that is, "artistic" liberties are taken in the translation process. The suttas state that belief in rebirth and no rebirth are both wrong view in terms of untainted view that leads to nibbana.
The Buddha said this in the Brahmajala sutta that it is wrong view to think of an eternal self (rebirth that cannot be halted) and no rebirth (nihilism). You are probably referring to that?
The buddha scolded a monk who suggested that consciousness is reborn. The Buddha stated he only taught suffering and it's cessation and you agree rebirth is irrelevant to this. The suttas state that rebirth teachings were REtaught to those with preexisting beliefs as a moral teaching. Nothing seems innaccurate here to me. These things are always ignored though when discussing the suttas and rebirth.
Consciousness is not reborn. It just continues from what I have understood so far from the suttas. It rises and falls. How can we say it ceases to do that when the physical body breaks?
I don't care in what context the Buddha taught the rebirth concept. But if he did teach it then it cannot be a fairy tale can it?
untrue. The marks are easy to see and understand really. They're difficult to realize. I understand my dog will die someday like all things, I understand that such things aren't fit to cling to and only bring dukkha, yet I still cling to the hope that it might nit be that way. He's sick right now and I still cling despite intellectually knowing those facts.
Are you saying untrue to my assumptions that you have meditative realizations? I don't know about you but I am so totally not enlightened. You cannot get enlightened by observing sickness and death. It is just understanding. I understand things are unicca and thus not worth getting attached to. So where is the enlightenment I was promised? Enlightenment is probably a ground breaking meditative experience. Anyway that is not relevant to this discussion
We were talking about this in our sangha last night actually . The way my teacher was taught it, was to look at it as "mind-energy". East asians, especially the chinese, see "mind" as something different to us westerners, and they don't see it as part of the brain.
It is very difficult for us to disassociate our "mind" with our "brain" as we are taught by western science that "mind" is created by "brain". Therefore, when our brain dies, we have no more mind. (I wonder sometimes, what the people thought during the time of Buddha).
So what our teacher said, and how he was taught it, is to see the mind as a "mind-energy" and the brain as a processor for that energy. I was amazed by this as I had held the theory for many years that mind was an energy that constantly changes. Therefore, nothing is ever "reborn", the energy simply transmigrates to a different body or realm, and that engery isn't "you" (or a soul), it's just energy.
I personally like this explanation, but it is just explanation.
Nios.
I don't get something. If Buddhists don't believe in a soul as a separate entity, then how do we reincarnate? If it's just impersonal "energy" that transfers, then what about our consciousness right now? Will it be gone forever? I mean will the YOU that is aware now cease to exist?
If so, how can there be karma carried over from past lives?
And why don't we remember our past lives?
Any explanation?
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 February 2010
Yes.
Research the difference between Buddhist reincarnation and Buddhist re-birth.
Buddhist re-incarnation is for advanced and illuminated Tibetan lamas.
Buddhist re-birth is for the remaining lesser mortals such as you and me!
rebirth is the continuation of consciousness....
Buddhists do not ascribe to a transmigrating soul.
it implies a duplication of the person, which is not the case, in re-birth....
As for remembering previous lives, can you remember what you were doing on Sunday 24th march 1991?
If you can't remember that, why do you suppose you should remember a previous life?
I don't get something. If Buddhists don't believe in a soul as a separate entity, then how do we reincarnate? If it's just impersonal "energy" that transfers, then what about our consciousness right now? Will it be gone forever? I mean will the YOU that is aware now cease to exist?
If so, how can there be karma carried over from past lives?
And why don't we remember our past lives?
Any explanation?
I like the candle analogy, I'm not sure where I've heard it from though.
If you have a line of candles and light one, blow it out and light another one, with continuing, the flames are from the same essence but are different.
What I have always thought is : What is the sense of practicing Buddhism without rebirth. If we have only one life why not just act bad and do whatever we want.
Surely it would be extremely hard to attain enlightenment in this one life time.
I apologize if someone has already used this analogy and I missed it.
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
Did Buddha teach that reincarnation and rebirth were a reality or not? Why is this being disputed here?
reincarnation and rebirth are 2 different concepts. see my previous post.
The Buddha taught re-birth. I accept it, though that doesn't mean others should....
What do the earliest Buddhist canon and scriptures say?
Why not try reading them?
Some of you are saying that Buddha didn't claim there was rebirth or afterlife. Can you explain why?
not for me to tackle....
Also, since Buddha was educated, why didn't he even write anything down?
Why would he?
jesus didn't.... He was a teacher, not a writer. he had followers, not readers...
How do we know that he really existed?
there's more evidence to suggest the Buddha existed, than that Jesus existed. King Ashoka had something to do with that. again, do some on-line research. it's fascinating.....
I heard that, like Jesus, his existence is not a 100 percent fact, but remains in doubt. Is that true?
Does it matter?
I mean, really, does it?
Why didn't either Jesus or Buddha ever write anything themselves? Everything we know about them seems to come from their followers' writings.
What difference does it make to you what they did or didn't do?
isn't it better to focus on what they taught, rather than anything else?
The origin matters little, in the long run. What they teach, is far more important......
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
I like the candle analogy, I'm not sure where I've heard it from though.
If you have a line of candles and light one, blow it out and light another one, with continuing, the flames are from the same essence but are different.
What I have always thought is : What is the sense of practicing Buddhism without rebirth. If we have only one life why not just act bad and do whatever we want.
Surely it would be extremely hard to attain enlightenment in this one life time.
I apologize if someone has already used this analogy and I missed it.
May I modify slightly....?
Take a line of candles.
light the first one.
light the second from the first.
Blow the first one out.
light the third from the second.
blow the second one out...
light the fourth from the third.....
blow the third one out....
and so on....
until you reach the final candle.
tell me...
is the flame on the last candle, the same as the flame from the first candle....
or different?
Take a line of candles.
light the first one.
light the second from the first.
Blow the first one out.
light the third from the second.
blow the second one out...
light the fourth from the third.....
blow the third one out....
and so on....
until you reach the final candle.
tell me...
is the flame on the last candle, the same as the flame from the first candle....
or different?
Did Buddha teach that reincarnation and rebirth were a reality or not?
We do not know what the buddhha taught, we have to put the pieces together from what we have in the suttras, but we have a huge asset in that the Dharmic Truths stand alone, irrespective of Buddhist teachings:)
Why is this being disputed here?
Some buddhists they are certain in Rebirth, others do not:) Its a point for discussion:)
What do the earliest Buddhist canon and scriptures say?
As Fed said, try reading:) Start with the First Sermon, then The Last, I suggest:)
Some of you are saying that Buddha didn't claim there was rebirth or afterlife. Can you explain why?
Me personally, for many reasons that I have mentioned here:)
Also, since Buddha was educated, why didn't he even write anything down? How do we know that he really existed?
People were writing things down at the time and way before, we know that:) My belief is that he didn't write it down because its so simple, really:)
We don't know that he really existed, but someone discovered Dharma.
I heard that, like Jesus, his existence is not a 100 percent fact, but remains in doubt. Is that true?
Google "evidence for historical jesus" and make up your own mind:) It seems there is no evidence from the time of his life, just like Buddha.
tell me...
is the flame on the last candle, the same as the flame from the first candle....
or different?
My answer, it is causally connected but distinct. It is not the same because we can know that there could have been the first lighting without the other.
This well known "explanation" for rebirth doesn't really hold any explanatory weight, I believe:)
What if we were to light 100000000 candles of the first candle, and 100000 of each of them.. and on...
What I don't get is that we are told what the mind is, we are told it is nothing else but the aggregates, we are told there are no continuous things, we are told there are no objects, why do we need to go against these and come up with candle-flame metaphors to explain rebirth? I really don't get it:)
Yes... if you believe in rebirth.
No.... if you don 't believe in rebirth.
And if you aren't sure which to believe: it's Ok to be agnostic on rebirth too.
The thing is, nobody can "prove" to you one way or another.
What Is Reborn?
In his book What the Buddha Taught, Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula asked:
"If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body?
"When this physical body is no more capable of functioning, energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life. ... Physical and mental energies which constitute the so-called being have within themselves the power to take a new form, and grow gradually and gather force to the full.
Just a thought!
You may say "I don't believe in rebirth because there is no permanent, unchanging self" ... and I may say "I believe in rebirth because there is a impermanent, changing self trapped in samsara waiting to be released".
I am not sure what you mean here, or the possible relevance?:)
The OP is trying to work out karma according to the rules or laws of logic, or rationality. Whereas love is always beyond the mere logical, although it canvasses ALL of it. It is one of the greatest mysteries, ergo one of life's greatest gifts. Tell me, explain to me why you might love your mother or why she might love you. You could do it all day and still, you are not any closer to the Truth.
The laws and rules of karma are one of the four inconjecturables, on par with the Buddha range of a Fully Awakened Buddha, a rare but not impossible feat in today's world.
As Dogen Zenji said, all is the one inseparable body, the Buddha field, the Dharmakaya, the land of logic and reason whilst encapsulated within and part of it, can never reach the true Dharmakaya by itself. That said, medicine and sickness heal each other, and without the sickness there is no medicine.
And for this reason, those whom are interested in genuine Truth, practice, and not just talk. For those whom prefer to take up Buddhism as a hobby or mere speculative interest however, are most welcome to it. The Dharmakaya does not mind, does not impede.
The issue of rebirth is something that I struggle to understand. I will need something other that the words of someone else to gain a better understanding of it.
On a side note... I find it interesting that Buddhism seems to be able to logically and precisely explain pretty much everything in a somewhat direct manner. One of the few exceptions that I've noticed is Ultimate Truth, which is usually explained via negation, or inferential arguments. But unlike discussions of Ultimate Truth, which make sense to me, discussions of rebirth fail to come close to a personal understanding, either for or against.
I really hope someone here can get my meditations upon rebirth heading in the appropriate direction.
Hello Lobsang Jinpa
Rebirth, karma, consciousness - all these facets of discussion can be known for oneself. However not in the typical way that might be discussed in the kitchen or on internet bulletin boards.
They might initiate curiousity, but they are never the same as taking the path.
One who sits forever reading and discussing and even arguing about the map is like the lone man who never ventures out to breath the freshest air of the pristine winter night. It is not necessary, but it is not yet the point of the Buddha's teachings.
Just briefly, the reason Ultimate Truth cannot be described is not because words cannot be used to hint or point at it. In fact, teachings across multiple traditions will show that they are, and do. But just like the smell of the rose, what worth is it if I tell you how sweet it might be, when all I may want is for you to know and share for yourself the beauty that cannot be encapsulated.
The limitless, as genkaku might say, is limitless. And whilst we do use words to encourage and point, still as it is said, the work must be your and my own.
It is a challenge of sorts, but the path of the heart has its own many rewards. Perhaps not conventional but all together so beautiful.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu once wrote in a reply to a letter I sent him that the truth of the Dhamma can come only with practice, and that fortunately, the Buddha laid out some very clear guidelines on how to test his teachings. He advised me to build on what I know is true, and not on the words and opinions of others. He closed the letter by saying: "As Ajaan Fuang once said in a Dhamma talk (see Timeless & True), you learn the truth by being true."
what about the Eightfold Path? Or talk of developing mindfulness and right concentration in those suttas? Although none of this is described as being for the purpose of recalling past lives... That isn't the point of meditation.
Correct, the point is the cessation of dukkha. A peace in the heart that arises, the heart that smiles by itself, joy and wonder. We smile in pain and we smile in truth. It is always possible to be false, but it is much nicer to be true. IMO.
Comments
The issue of rebirth is something that I struggle to understand. I will need something other that the words of someone else to gain a better understanding of it.
On a side note... I find it interesting that Buddhism seems to be able to logically and precisely explain pretty much everything in a somewhat direct manner. One of the few exceptions that I've noticed is Ultimate Truth, which is usually explained via negation, or inferential arguments. But unlike discussions of Ultimate Truth, which make sense to me, discussions of rebirth fail to come close to a personal understanding, either for or against.
I really hope someone here can get my meditations upon rebirth heading in the appropriate direction.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu once wrote in a reply to a letter I sent him that the truth of the Dhamma can come only with practice, and that fortunately, the Buddha laid out some very clear guidelines on how to test his teachings. He advised me to build on what I know is true, and not on the words and opinions of others. He closed the letter by saying: "As Ajaan Fuang once said in a Dhamma talk (see Timeless & True), you learn the truth by being true."
I think that's pretty good advice.
Obviously I do not have direct meditative realization to conclude without any doubt that rebirth exists or not. Until such time I develop my mind to such a level (if I ever will) I will have to go by what is there in the suttas and what is said by known, trust worthy Buddhist meditation practitioners (like Ajhan Char for example… there maybe others). I don’t think any other source of information out there is anymore trust worthy than this. But that doesn’t mean I believe their word as the ultimate truth either.
I am not saying there is a constant transmigrating entity called the self. As you say consciousness is a thing that arises and passes away so rapidly that we identify it or fabricate it as a self but that is not a constant entity. That is fine. But that doesn't explain that consciousness completely ceases after the physical body breaks. Does it? As I said although rebirth is not explained in the DO the Buddha has clearly talked about himself in other bodies aka past lives in many suttas. Thus we just cannot conclude that we cease to exist or our consciousness doesn’t continue in some way after we die.
Can I ask where you get the idea from that it is possible to know the truth on from meditation?
Even assuming you did experience that how would you know it was real and not an illusion or meditative hallucination?
Do you find it unusual that meditation doesn't play a significant role in the Buddha's first and last expositions of the path and practice?
By the way, I don't doubt at all the huge benifit of Meditation to Dharma pracice:)
We are told by the Buddha what conciousness is, it is in a sense the "now" realisation of the other four aggregates. There is no thinker, only thoughts and all that. May I ask why do you think there is something that needs to be explained here?
Regards
Mat
he sat under the Bodhi tree for six days without moving, and vowed that he would not move from his meditation until things became clear to him, and he could 'Know' with clarity.
Which was exactly what happened.
So meditation had a significant part to play, contrary to your comment above.
We were talking about this in our sangha last night actually
It is very difficult for us to disassociate our "mind" with our "brain" as we are taught by western science that "mind" is created by "brain". Therefore, when our brain dies, we have no more mind. (I wonder sometimes, what the people thought during the time of Buddha).
So what our teacher said, and how he was taught it, is to see the mind as a "mind-energy" and the brain as a processor for that energy. I was amazed by this as I had held the theory for many years that mind was an energy that constantly changes. Therefore, nothing is ever "reborn", the energy simply transmigrates to a different body or realm, and that engery isn't "you" (or a soul), it's just energy.
I personally like this explanation, but it is just explanation.
Nios.
Hi Federica
I am afraid we cannot know exactly what happened, at all:)
I am happy to accept that the buddha discovered dharma after a long period of contemplation and meditation, absolutely. But to extrapolate from this that he somehow proved or experienced rebirth to be true doesn't seem that reaosnable, escpially when we consider rebirths awkwardness with the three marks, nobles truths, DO...
Is it not enough to say that he discovered Dharma while meditating? Bear in mind this is probably the biggest achievement of any human ever!:)
Much peace,
Mat
what about the Eightfold Path? Or talk of developing mindfulness and right concentration in those suttas? Although none of this is described as being for the purpose of recalling past lives... That isn't the point of meditation.
No No Sure Sure, as said, I am 100% behind meditation as a pracitcie of Dharma.
I have never gone as far as some have but I have often wondered "What did the Buddha see when he was as deep as he could be?"
My philosophical mind tries to put together an answer that he expericned a single point of nothingness and saw of that point that the three marks would be true of anything composed of single points. The "Single Point Philosopher" essays on my site try to capture this.
But as you note, this is an entirely distinct notion to rebirth, in fact it is one that philosophically at least it wholly incompatible with an anomalous phenomenon like rebirth.
So the answer "We know rebirth is true because The Buddha (or anyone) meditated it to see it was thus" is not one I am able to accept. If others are, that is their beliefs.
Agree with this. I guess we call it rebirth since it looks as if a self is born again just like we are deluded into taking the changing consciousness as constant self. It's just terminology. Whether you call it "rebirth" or just mind energy or consciousness or whatever it might seem reasonable to think that consciousness just doesn't cease to exist when the physical body breaks taking into consideration the many references in suttas to past lives and considering the fact that the Buddha explicitly refused the idea of "only this life" in the brahmajala sutta.
But as you say, most of us do not have the necessary meditative experiences or otherwise to say rebirth exists or not without any doubt. We just go by what is there in the suttas and what our practice indicates
I never said otherwise. I was merely pointing out the error in your statement.
I personally am a firm believer in re-birth, even if it is taken down to the Nth degree of experiencing a 'rebirth' daily, and acknowledging that I'm not the same person today that I was yesterday. new experiences affect my mentality, perception, knowledge and awareness.
I know differently today, what I knew yesterday.
Everything about me (physically and mentally) has altered, perceptibly or imperceptibly.
There is nothing to me to make me think that re-birth is not possible.
I have no proof that it is definite. And frankly - I really don't care, one way or the other.
If I'm right, I'm right.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
No big deal, either way.
it's a 'wait and see' question.
I think you are right, when you strip away the decorations there is no difference between a belief in mystical rebirth and christan heaven:)
Personally I think we should be happy to accept anyone's faith in anything. I guess the troubles come when people think faith is certain.
That is great, you have faith in rebirth I have faith in no rebirth:)
Sure, that is what I call metaphorical rebirth as opposed to literal rebirth. Again, its a way of looking at things, my view is that The Buddha didn't think in those terms, that it was either literal rebirth or nonrebirth.
Again, I have no truck with that. I have a friend who is a Shinyoen nun, she has dedicated her life to a very mystical, prayer based, god filled version of Buddhism that most of us here would think "That's not Buddhism!":)
I have never challenged her about her beliefs and she has never challenged me, there is no debate and ultimatly we could never know whoes view was right. But if she started trying to show my view was wrong I would try to respond to her, that is what debates and discussions are:)
Simply, we don't discuss rebirth.
But this is a Buddhist discusssion group, and not only that, its for "new Buddhists":
And this is a Thread, "Is Rebirth real?"
So although it might be totally irrelevant to you, which i totally respect, and though sopme others might find the very notion of such a question a Buddhist Herecy, not all do:)
Some want to discuss this profound existentential question:)
I am one of those!:)
I don't think we should critcisie others for wanting to investigate the questions of dharma that interest them:)
Peace!
Mat
Do Christians have a way to verify a belief through practice?
Do you have enough evidence to prove the non-self concept outside of meditative practice and suttas? If not then why not go by what is there in the suttas about the rebirth concept?
I guess you just go by what is there in the DO until such time you prove it to yourself through your practice. Buddhists can always verify the things the Buddha taught through practice. Until then believeing there is no rebirth is also just belief.
In the same way some Buddhists do. Many say they have spoken to God. Many have said that their near-death experiences took them to heaven, to god, to deceased relatives. Now you may say they're lying or just interpretting things the way they want to... But the same can be said of so-called past life recollection.
The sutta you referred to is a late sutta. It is very out-of-tune with the others. Still it refers to past dwellings as opposed to lives and in this one it seems clear it refers to any recollection of a "self" in the aggregates.
The suttas do not teach meditation to recall past lives. The suttas state it is not through this that one is awakened. If the Buddha stated he only taught a path to the freedom of suffering then it makes no sense that he would teach this.
I have yet to fund anything not subject to anicca. Therefore nothing that ought to be clung to as self. So I have verified anatta through meditation in this way. Have you not?
And yes, believing there is or isn't rebirth are both just beliefs. Noble Right View contains neither of these. It isn't relevant or applicable. Why believe rather than approach agnostically? Sarriputa was praised for such an approach by the Buddha. As long as there is belief, there is tainted perception.
Nios.
I think one needs to ask "matter to what".
Matter to the practice of The Eightold Path and matter in an existantital, philosophical or scientific sense are different senses of relevance.
I have referred to so many suttas not just one. Are you saying all of them are faulty or distorted? If I recall right I referred to at least five suttas so far where the concept of past lives appear.
I have repeatedly agreed with you that it is not relevant to your practice whether you believe in rebirth or not. But that doesn't mean the statement that "you cease to exist when you die" is justifiable when there are references in the suttas to past lives. Unless you are saying all those suttas are faulty or misinterpreted
In this sense both are closer to the Greek Myths in terms of their providence and doctrinal lineage. This seems true of all ancient religions.
But where Buddhism diverges from other religions is that it does not fall or stand on the truth of its afterlife concepts.
We can all believe opposing things on rebirth and the Duddhist doctrine stands steadfast, the same isn't true of Christianity, for example:)
But you still have defilements don't you? You still have ego haven't you? If you can really understand anicca and non-self by day to day observations you should be enlightened by now. I think the real realization of non-self and anicca should be experienced through deep meditation (which you probably have)
Similarly the concept of rebirth is hard to be justified through rationalizations. It probably is a realization that comes through meditation which is why I said the best trust worthy source we have are the suttas or what the experienced meditators say of the matter.
Isn't it said to be one wisdom of the Buddha (not only the Buddha) to be able to look into past lives? I can direct you to the specific sutta. Or is it just another faulty sutta?
Once again I will repeat that I agree it is not relevant. But since we were talking of the matter so far it has become the subject of this discussion although it is not relevant to the practice.
All I'm saying is, there are so many references to past life theories in so many suttas that it is undeniable. I don't have a strong belief in it. If someone can successfully tell me all the suttas are faulty misinterpretations I will not have any issue in thinking that consciousness ceases to exist when we die.
Edit: There are also claims by experienced meditators that they have looked into past lives. I'm sure anyone can argue they are just mere metal pictures in which case the Buddha's past life recollections will also fall into that category.
the suttas say recollections of past dwellings not lives. The suttas explain that that this refers to any past recollection of the aggregates as "self." The word often translated as rebirth is "birth" or "samsara"-that is, "artistic" liberties are taken in the translation process. The suttas state that belief in rebirth and no rebirth are both wrong view in terms of untainted view that leads to nibbana. The buddha scolded a monk who suggested that consciousness is reborn. The Buddha stated he only taught suffering and it's cessation and you agree rebirth is irrelevant to this. The suttas state that rebirth teachings were REtaught to those with preexisting beliefs as a moral teaching. Nothing seems innaccurate here to me. These things are always ignored though when discussing the suttas and rebirth.
Plus, the only "proof" availabl is arguably nothing more than a daydream, hallucination, wishful thinking. It is no different than Christian belief. So on top of the things above, it seems illogical to think the Buddha would teach something unverifiable.
I'm just saying.
untrue. The marks are easy to see and understand really. They're difficult to realize. I understand my dog will die someday like all things, I understand that such things aren't fit to cling to and only bring dukkha, yet I still cling to the hope that it might nit be that way. He's sick right now and I still cling despite intellectually knowing those facts.
Maybe she is enlightened? If enlightenment is mundane and accessible, which it seems to have been in the Buddha's time if we believe the scriptures, then maybe it is as the Buddha alludes (perhaps states), contained in the Understanding of The Four Noble Truths.
Dont forget, all masculine hegemonies take the object of desire, "salvation", "knowledge" etc and push them further and further into the unobtainable, you can see this with everything from shamansish to modern variants of the abrhamic religions.
A question you can ask is, "If the Buddha's teaching was about a mundane kind of enlightenment over two millennia would this message have been made more esoteric, inaccessible and difficult to attain?"
You can ask yourself that question without commiting to its assumption.
What do you mean by dwelling here? You mean it's an imagination or thought process not a real physical existence? You mean the Buddha was talking of a past imagination when he said he was the king of so and so kingdom etc etc?
The Buddha said this in the Brahmajala sutta that it is wrong view to think of an eternal self (rebirth that cannot be halted) and no rebirth (nihilism). You are probably referring to that?
Consciousness is not reborn. It just continues from what I have understood so far from the suttas. It rises and falls. How can we say it ceases to do that when the physical body breaks?
I don't care in what context the Buddha taught the rebirth concept. But if he did teach it then it cannot be a fairy tale can it?
Maybe its all fairy tale, Dharma is still truth, it cannot be doubted, I am sure.
Are you saying untrue to my assumptions that you have meditative realizations?
You mean Mundus? I thought Mundus was a he.
I dont think enlightenment is gender relevant:p
Did Buddha teach that reincarnation and rebirth were a reality or not? Why is this being disputed here?
What do the earliest Buddhist canon and scriptures say?
Some of you are saying that Buddha didn't claim there was rebirth or afterlife. Can you explain why?
Also, since Buddha was educated, why didn't he even write anything down? How do we know that he really existed?
I heard that, like Jesus, his existence is not a 100 percent fact, but remains in doubt. Is that true?
Why didn't either Jesus or Buddha ever write anything themselves? Everything we know about them seems to come from their followers' writings.
I don't get something. If Buddhists don't believe in a soul as a separate entity, then how do we reincarnate? If it's just impersonal "energy" that transfers, then what about our consciousness right now? Will it be gone forever? I mean will the YOU that is aware now cease to exist?
If so, how can there be karma carried over from past lives?
And why don't we remember our past lives?
Any explanation?
Research the difference between Buddhist reincarnation and Buddhist re-birth.
Buddhist re-incarnation is for advanced and illuminated Tibetan lamas.
Buddhist re-birth is for the remaining lesser mortals such as you and me!
rebirth is the continuation of consciousness....
Buddhists do not ascribe to a transmigrating soul.
it implies a duplication of the person, which is not the case, in re-birth....
As for remembering previous lives, can you remember what you were doing on Sunday 24th march 1991?
If you can't remember that, why do you suppose you should remember a previous life?
I like the candle analogy, I'm not sure where I've heard it from though.
If you have a line of candles and light one, blow it out and light another one, with continuing, the flames are from the same essence but are different.
What I have always thought is : What is the sense of practicing Buddhism without rebirth. If we have only one life why not just act bad and do whatever we want.
Surely it would be extremely hard to attain enlightenment in this one life time.
I apologize if someone has already used this analogy and I missed it.
reincarnation and rebirth are 2 different concepts. see my previous post.
The Buddha taught re-birth. I accept it, though that doesn't mean others should....
Why not try reading them?
not for me to tackle....
Why would he?
jesus didn't.... He was a teacher, not a writer. he had followers, not readers... there's more evidence to suggest the Buddha existed, than that Jesus existed. King Ashoka had something to do with that. again, do some on-line research. it's fascinating.....
Does it matter?
I mean, really, does it?
What difference does it make to you what they did or didn't do?
isn't it better to focus on what they taught, rather than anything else?
The origin matters little, in the long run. What they teach, is far more important......
May I modify slightly....?
Take a line of candles.
light the first one.
light the second from the first.
Blow the first one out.
light the third from the second.
blow the second one out...
light the fourth from the third.....
blow the third one out....
and so on....
until you reach the final candle.
tell me...
is the flame on the last candle, the same as the flame from the first candle....
or different?
hope you don't mind......:o
^^This is the one that I was familiar with.
No, that's a lot better. I couldn't find the exact analogy.
Thanks
these are my answer to your questions:
We do not know what the buddhha taught, we have to put the pieces together from what we have in the suttras, but we have a huge asset in that the Dharmic Truths stand alone, irrespective of Buddhist teachings:)
Some buddhists they are certain in Rebirth, others do not:) Its a point for discussion:)
As Fed said, try reading:) Start with the First Sermon, then The Last, I suggest:)
Me personally, for many reasons that I have mentioned here:)
People were writing things down at the time and way before, we know that:) My belief is that he didn't write it down because its so simple, really:)
We don't know that he really existed, but someone discovered Dharma.
Google "evidence for historical jesus" and make up your own mind:) It seems there is no evidence from the time of his life, just like Buddha.
Thanks
Mat
My answer, it is causally connected but distinct. It is not the same because we can know that there could have been the first lighting without the other.
This well known "explanation" for rebirth doesn't really hold any explanatory weight, I believe:)
What if we were to light 100000000 candles of the first candle, and 100000 of each of them.. and on...
What I don't get is that we are told what the mind is, we are told it is nothing else but the aggregates, we are told there are no continuous things, we are told there are no objects, why do we need to go against these and come up with candle-flame metaphors to explain rebirth? I really don't get it:)
Mystified,
Mat
Yes... if you believe in rebirth.
No.... if you don 't believe in rebirth.
And if you aren't sure which to believe: it's Ok to be agnostic on rebirth too.
The thing is, nobody can "prove" to you one way or another.
What Is Reborn?
In his book What the Buddha Taught, Theravada scholar Walpola Rahula asked:
Just a thought!
You may say "I don't believe in rebirth because there is no permanent, unchanging self" ... and I may say "I believe in rebirth because there is a impermanent, changing self trapped in samsara waiting to be released".
Did I say that? You have a habit of misinterpreting information don't you Mat Assaulted?
Yes, very much so! Especially on the internet;) (But I guess not as much as I am missinterpreted, on the internet:) )
The OP is trying to work out karma according to the rules or laws of logic, or rationality. Whereas love is always beyond the mere logical, although it canvasses ALL of it. It is one of the greatest mysteries, ergo one of life's greatest gifts. Tell me, explain to me why you might love your mother or why she might love you. You could do it all day and still, you are not any closer to the Truth.
The laws and rules of karma are one of the four inconjecturables, on par with the Buddha range of a Fully Awakened Buddha, a rare but not impossible feat in today's world.
As Dogen Zenji said, all is the one inseparable body, the Buddha field, the Dharmakaya, the land of logic and reason whilst encapsulated within and part of it, can never reach the true Dharmakaya by itself. That said, medicine and sickness heal each other, and without the sickness there is no medicine.
And for this reason, those whom are interested in genuine Truth, practice, and not just talk. For those whom prefer to take up Buddhism as a hobby or mere speculative interest however, are most welcome to it. The Dharmakaya does not mind, does not impede.
Blessings,
Abu
Hello Lobsang Jinpa
Rebirth, karma, consciousness - all these facets of discussion can be known for oneself. However not in the typical way that might be discussed in the kitchen or on internet bulletin boards.
They might initiate curiousity, but they are never the same as taking the path.
One who sits forever reading and discussing and even arguing about the map is like the lone man who never ventures out to breath the freshest air of the pristine winter night. It is not necessary, but it is not yet the point of the Buddha's teachings.
Just briefly, the reason Ultimate Truth cannot be described is not because words cannot be used to hint or point at it. In fact, teachings across multiple traditions will show that they are, and do. But just like the smell of the rose, what worth is it if I tell you how sweet it might be, when all I may want is for you to know and share for yourself the beauty that cannot be encapsulated.
The limitless, as genkaku might say, is limitless. And whilst we do use words to encourage and point, still as it is said, the work must be your and my own.
It is a challenge of sorts, but the path of the heart has its own many rewards. Perhaps not conventional but all together so beautiful.
In Gassho,
Abu
Beautiful. Thanks for sharing Elohim, Jason yo
Namaste.
Correct, the point is the cessation of dukkha. A peace in the heart that arises, the heart that smiles by itself, joy and wonder. We smile in pain and we smile in truth. It is always possible to be false, but it is much nicer to be true. IMO.