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.
One of the arguments they use is that we are born with certain characteristics that have no explanation. You are born with a bad temper, for instance. They say it has to have a cause as everything else, it can't be pure randomness, so they call the cause for that rebirth.
Among humans as well some come with larger bodies, and then some with smaller ones. Certain people come with a very sharp intellect, and others with one which is dull. Some children display a great amount of understanding and love and the like, while others show a tendency towards attachment and other bad thoughts. According to you, these and similar cases should be impossible, because beings take birth only through the elements, without having to depend on any earlier instance of a similar type.
A combination of nature and nurture is not a satisfying, more reasonable explanation?
Suppose you say that atoms [organ\body parts\cells\molecules or atoms] provide the material cause for the mind. If it's that the mind arises through each of the atoms [organ\ body parts], acting independently of each other, then many different mental consciousnesses would have to arise at the same time. If it's that the atoms must act all together in a group, then the mind could never arise if even a single atom [organ\body part] were absent.
What does "many different mental consciousnesses" mean? That does, frankly, make consciousness sound like an entity rather than a process. Many different "consciousnesses" do arise simultaneously - or do you only hear, or see, or think, etc. one at a time?
What about a case where the power of the eye [or any body part, the brain for instance] is damaged, and because of this the consciousness of the eye loses its ability to see its object?
There is no "consciousness of the eye" working in the background. That is not how the Buddha taught. He taught that consciousness of the eye arises when the eye and its corresponding neurosensory system + an object to be seen come into contact. Not that eye consciousness is always present but will lose its ability to see if the eye is damaged.
This reasoning, where we use the process of eliminating all other possibilities, brings us to the conclusion that the material cause for mind is mind itself.
:wtf:
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
It matters cause if the founder of a religion didn't write anything, then we can't know for sure what he said or taught. His followers could be making it up or distorting it. We just don't know.
Neither Jesus nor the Buddha had any intention of founding a religion. they just taught.
Others decided to follow them, and it was through following that orders were created.
Nothing was written during the times of either the Buddha or Jesus, because it wasn't deemed either necessary or appropriate.
but as with much in those days, assigning teachings to memory was far more productive. Verbatim recitation was the norm, and has since continued in many branches of Buddhism....
Today any guru or leader will usually write stuff. It's just common sense. Otherwise, a question mark looms over everything. We have no certainty.
Reading many of the books and literature being published worldwide by so called new-age gurus and Life coaches, certainty is still absent.....
Simply because something is written, it doesn't make it either true or reliable. I place very little trust in the written word, simply because it's either written or ancient, modern or anything else for that matter.
I prefer to test it and see if it works...
That's where the proof lies.
in whether what you absorb, actually works for you or not.
Simply because something is written, it doesn't make it either true or reliable. I place very little trust in the written word, simply because it's either written or ancient, modern or anything else for that matter.
I prefer to test it and see if it works...
That's where the proof lies.
in whether what you absorb, actually works for you or not.
I completely agree.
We all have our own criteria for the proof that will satisfy us. Some are skeptcial some are not. Some are empirical some are not. And so on....
This is a fact I guess we often forget and so we end up thinking other people should share our criteria, which is a nonsense:)
For a very different take on this issue, and one that many find highly illuminating, I would recommend a persusal of the writings of Buddhadasa Bhikhu. I will not pull an excerpt out of context, because i think that does neither the passage nor the reader any favours, but I would recommend some googling...
Simply because something is written, it doesn't make it either true or reliable. I place very little trust in the written word, simply because it's either written or ancient, modern or anything else for that matter.
I prefer to test it and see if it works...
That's where the proof lies.
in whether what you absorb, actually works for you or not.
I believe rebirth is logically necessary. The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept, it's meaningless sans the temporal progression toward it's eventual extent.. i.e. death. Life/death form an interdependent concept. That is, each cannot exist without the inevitibility of the other. Hence, rebirth is logically necessary for death.
By the very concept itself: that which lives must die; why would you believe the opposite not be true? (Moreover, Nibbana is necessary to end this samsaric cycle.)
For clarity, are you speaking of rebirth, or reincarnation? Are you saying that because someone dies, that somehow that logically indicates that their "essence" will be reborn somewhere else?..because I don't see that that necessarily follows. The body will decompose, right? Does it not follow that the consciousness will also "decompose"? What mechanism would provide for their body/mindstream/karma to be deposited, somewhat intact, into a new physical host?
Conservation of energy says that these elements will be disseminated and reused..and I see and agree with that definition of "rebirth". I accept that the particles in my body were ejected as part of the Big Bang (probably), were processed as stellar material, were probably part of a former star in this vicinity, have coalesced in the neighborhood of the Earth, have been part of countless living beings/plants/minerals/whatever..this, to me is sensible, and I actually find peace and a sense of interbeing in it.
I have a harder time with the idea of "past lives".
"It just follows" isn't really an explanation to someone who's come through the fires of engineering school.
No argument intended, btw..just trying to make a paltry contribution to the other side of this conversation.
I also am fine with other, metaphorical notions of rebirth, ie, being reborn with each breath, etc.
I believe rebirth is logically necessary. The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept, it's meaningless sans the temporal progression toward it's eventual extent.. i.e. death. Life/death form an interdependent concept. That is, each cannot exist without the inevitibility of the other. Hence, rebirth is logically necessary for death.
By the very concept itself: that which lives must die; why would you believe the opposite not be true? (Moreover, Nibbana is necessary to end this samsaric cycle.)
For clarity, are you speaking of rebirth, or reincarnation? Are you saying that because someone dies, that somehow that logically indicates that their "essence" will be reborn somewhere else?..because I don't see that that necessarily follows. The body will decompose, right? Does it not follow that the consciousness will also "decompose"? What mechanism would provide for their body/mindstream/karma to be deposited, somewhat intact, into a new physical host?
Conservation of energy says that these elements will be disseminated and reused..and I see and agree with that definition of "rebirth". I accept that the particles in my body were ejected as part of the Big Bang (probably), were processed as stellar material, were probably part of a former star in this vicinity, have coalesced in the neighborhood of the Earth, have been part of countless living beings/plants/minerals/whatever..this, to me is sensible, and I actually find peace and a sense of interbeing in it.
I have a harder time with the idea of "past lives".
"It just follows" isn't really an explanation to someone who's come through the fires of engineering school.
No argument intended, btw..just trying to make a paltry contribution to the other side of this conversation.
I also am fine with other, metaphorical notions of rebirth, ie, being reborn with each breath, etc.
Hi Ray
I enjoyed reading that, and agree.
But one thing I have realized is that I can just say "it's mysterious" and then the lack of connection with your engineering mind doesn't become the refutation etc that It might seem, often very clearly:)
Using ‘Your Logic’ that birth leading to death necessitates rebirth, one might go on to say samsara leading to nirvana necessitates re-samsara. But, I don’t believe you think this latter assertion. Or do you?
I hope you can see that logic is not the best tool to decide this issue. : ^ )
Just a little aside:
There are scientists out there that actually now claim that death is nothing but a disease. They go on to claim a cure for this dreaded affliction someday. Hummm Where would that leave reincarnation? ; ^ )
However, a kind of recycling, or ecology within this material world is rather obvious. Calling this natural occurrence “rebirth” certainly muddies the issue or at least serves to confuse people as to what is being discussed. Everyone is forced to ask repeatedly are you speaking about reincarnation or not? That in itself seems unproductive of aiding understanding in an area that is far too subtle to add another difficulty factor.
A: The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept.
S9: Actually Life is a great mystery not yet solved. Again this word would depend on what you are speaking of when you say life. There are those of us that believe life may actually be continuous, and that death to the physical doesn’t decrease it at/all. Death merely represents change. But then so does birth merely represent change. Meaning Life is constant with manifested differences coming and going or should I say rearranging, much like the metaphor of the ocean being a constant and each wave a temporary manifestaion made up completely of the ocean.
For clarity, are you speaking of rebirth, or reincarnation? Are you saying that because someone dies, that somehow that logically indicates that their "essence" will be reborn somewhere else?..because I don't see that that necessarily follows. The body will decompose, right? Does it not follow that the consciousness will also "decompose"? What mechanism would provide for their body/mindstream/karma to be deposited, somewhat intact, into a new physical host?
Conservation of energy says that these elements will be disseminated and reused..and I see and agree with that definition of "rebirth". I accept that the particles in my body were ejected as part of the Big Bang (probably), were processed as stellar material, were probably part of a former star in this vicinity, have coalesced in the neighborhood of the Earth, have been part of countless living beings/plants/minerals/whatever..this, to me is sensible, and I actually find peace and a sense of interbeing in it.
I have a harder time with the idea of "past lives".
"It just follows" isn't really an explanation to someone who's come through the fires of engineering school.
No argument intended, btw..just trying to make a paltry contribution to the other side of this conversation.
I also am fine with other, metaphorical notions of rebirth, ie, being reborn with each breath, etc.
I'm simply referring to the Buddha's teaching regarding rebirth.
Using ‘Your Logic’ that birth leading to death necessitates rebirth, one might go on to say samsara leading to nirvana necessitates re-samsara. But, I don’t believe you think this latter assertion. Or do you?
I hope you can see that logic is not the best tool to decide this issue. : ^ )
Well, nibbana is defined as the cessation of samsara; a state of non-being. This seems contrary to the current logic in question.
I realize logic has it's limitations, yet it remains essential to human understanding.
A: The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept.
S9: Actually Life is a great mystery not yet solved. Again this word would depend on what you are speaking of when you say life. There are those of us that believe life may actually be continuous, and that death to the physical doesn’t decrease it at/all. Death merely represents change. But then so does birth merely represent change. Meaning Life is constant with manifested differences coming and going or should I say rearranging, much like the metaphor of the ocean being a constant and each wave a temporary manifestaion made up completely of the ocean.
Would we then claim a wave to be a rebirth?
Just something to chew on,
S9
Yes, wonderful description! That's very near to what I was (prosaically..via logic ) referring to.
A: Well, nibbana is defined as the cessation of samsara; a state of non-being.
S9: But, isn’t death also considered the cessation of life, a state of non-life, by many? If you say, “Not by me,” you are simply saying that your belief proves your point.
What you were actually presenting wasn’t logic. It was extrapolation.
Jokingly: I heard a story about what extrapolation could lead us to believe, or thinking that the way things were happening necessitated continuation. They said in NYC when horses were the main tool of transportation that in this year by continuing to use horses, we would be up to our hips in Horse poop.
A: Yes, wonderful description! That's very near to what I was (prosaically...via logic ) referring to.
S9: Ah, so we are agreeing. Let’s enjoy the moment. What a nice surprise. ; ^ )
I'm simply referring to the Buddha's teaching regarding rebirth.
And there's the rub..
If you read Anagarika Govinda on rebirth or Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, you will have two very different takes on the subject and both claim to represent what the Buddha taught most accurately.
I will say straight away that Buddhadasa's view makes much more sense to me.
But in the end it doesnt matter what I think.
I think what matters is the legacy of practises that the Buddha bequeathed to us. And because they "do what they say on the tin", I am confident that if I follow them to their conclusion , the truth of the matter will be clear.
And there's the rub..
If you read Anagarika Govinda on rebirth or Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, you will have two very different takes on the subject and both claim to represent what the Buddha taught most accurately.
I will say straight away that Buddhadasa's view makes much more sense to me.
But in the end it doesnt matter what I think. I think what matters is the legacy of practises that the Buddha bequeathed to us. And because they "do what they say on the tin", I am confident that if I follow them to their conclusion , the truth of the matter will be clear.
Please clarify this statement. What do you mean by the term 'the legacy of the practices'? Is rebirth is 'real' or not?
With respect, none of you fine, intelligent folks are going to tell me anything that convinces me that rebirth is real.
If, in the continuation of my practice, (my meditation, my ethical path, etc., mindfulness, concentration, etc.), I come to an experiential realization that shows me the truth of rebirth..great. If not, then that's okay too.
With respect, none of you fine, intelligent folks are going to tell me anything that convinces me that rebirth is real.
If, in the continuation of my practice, (my meditation, my ethical path, etc., mindfulness, concentration, etc.), I come to an experiential realization that shows me the truth of rebirth..great. If not, then that's okay too.
I'm touched by the phowa teachings and teachings on the bardo. I find it useful to consider that conscious rebirth and coming back as a bodhisattva is possible.
I'm not out to convince you or anyone. I just want a place at the table and to be present for the discussion. I aim to honor the lineage that I practice in, as well as everyone elses.
There are at least three rebirth threads and I have posted further food for thought in those places. Not to convince anyone else, but just to explain how I come to my views.
I think the mods ought to merge the rebirth threads.
I'm not out to convince you or anyone. I just want a place at the table and to be present for the discussion.
I can see where what I said might have come across as meaning that the thread is useless...sorry, that wasn't my intention. It is an interesting topic; I just had an urge to speak from the heart for a moment.
Please clarify this statement. What do you mean by the term 'the legacy of the practices'? Is rebirth is 'real' or not?
By the legacy of the practices I mean the body of meditative practises that Buddhism is rich in. Varieties of anapanasati, vipassana, metta bhavana and so on.
What do you mean by " rebirth"?
What do you mean by " real" ?
My best answer is to direct you to the writing of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
I can see where what I said might have come across as meaning that the thread is useless...sorry, that wasn't my intention. It is an interesting topic; I just had an urge to speak from the heart for a moment.
<==can be an antisocial ass at times.
I didn't take your post that way at all. I know you're a scientist. I continue to think well of you.
By the legacy of the practices I mean the body of meditative practises that Buddhism is rich in. Varieties of anapanasati, vipassana, metta bhavana and so on.
What do you mean by " rebirth"?
What do you mean by " real" ?
My best answer is to direct you to the writing of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
Citta-
The legacy of practices that Buddhism is rich in include the vajrayana. In the vajrayana, we have extensive teachings on transference of consciousness, bardos, tertons, reincarnate lamas etc.
What I'm aiming for is some inclusivity in this thread. I respect that your view is to refer back to the oldest teachings of Buddhism that come direct from the Buddha's words. That's completely natural.
In the vajrayana, we have the teachings of Padmasambhava, who is considered in Tibet to be a second buddha.
We all are practicing Buddhist meditation, we may have heard different teachings, or the teachings we have heard have emphasized different parts of the dharma.
The view of the vajrayana has relevance to any discussion of rebirth, in my opinion.
A: Well, nibbana is defined as the cessation of samsara; a state of non-being.
S9: But, isn’t death also considered the cessation of life, a state of non-life, by many? If you say, “Not by me,” you are simply saying that your belief proves your point.
I'm saying, death is the cessation of life and life is the cessation of death..... while nibbana is the cessation of this cycle of life/death
What you were actually presenting wasn’t logic. It was extrapolation.
Jokingly: I heard a story about what extrapolation could lead us to believe, or thinking that the way things were happening necessitated continuation. They said in NYC when horses were the main tool of transportation that in this year by continuing to use horses, we would be up to our hips in Horse poop.
I'm not sure how illustrating logical necessity transpires into extrapolation.. I'm not predicting rebirth, I'm stating life and death are necessarily interrelated concepts.
Perhaps a wave is a good analogy for life and death. It arises in dependence on necessary conditions, travels a long way and then dies when it reaches the shore, returning to the ocean and er....well anyway
Perhaps a wave is a good analogy for life and death. It arises in dependence on necessary conditions, travels a long way and then dies when it reaches the shore, returning to the ocean....
When a wave is gone it is gone,
Maybe life really is a beach;)
Well, nibbana is defined as the cessation of samsara; a state of non-being.
This is contrary to what is written in the suttas. What is your source for this definition? What precisely do you mean by "non-being"?
Hope no one minds me quoting this, but it came to mind when I read this discussion:
Ultimately a verbal/cognitive answer will never do in this situation. With that limitation in mind I will try to answer your question. It's not the end of waveness but waves is wave, wave is ocean, ocean is wave, ocean is ocean, all being 100% true. So now the wave is total wave, free of duality, free of fear of death and can be fully alive and it is fully ocean.
Ultimately nothing was really born in the first place so nothing dies. Life and death are illusions because the wave never had a life of its own, it was an articulation of the ocean and its ‘self' , at its root, is unborn and undying.
The ceaseless of cycles is real but the attachment to our self as being something that was created and will be destroyed is an attachment to our illusion of the cycle. We never had an individual life apart from Nature. If you realize yourself as an expression of Nature you have gone beyond the cycle of life and death. This realization comes from the root of self as Nature and not as the self being filled with nature. So the waves constantly rise and fall but ultimately their source is unborn/undying.
D.T. Suzuki has the analogy of a wave on the ocean as symbolic of man's sense of self. A wave arises on the ocean and looks down and sees the ocean all around. It says, “ I am I because I am not the ocean nor am I all the other individual waves”. It has separated itself to know itself.
This separation actually creates the ‘self'; it is both an act and a fact of separation. Now it makes all its judgments as a separated self. In this act it is also separated from itself, it knows that it is but not who it is. Now it tries to go outward to find itself but it cannot. When it goes inward it is also problematic, why? Because the act of going inward is still the act of separating to be able to go inward. This is still a self-creating action. So this wave is alienated from itself, it's surroundings and the ocean. But the fact of the matter is, who is the wave fundamentally? Is it the individual wave? No, there's really no such thing. So who is looking for this awakening? The fact is that the wave is really just a manifestation of the ocean; it never was separated in reality but only knew itself to be a self when separated. It was a delusion the entire time; it has no real self as apart from the ocean. It is empty of any individual substance because it is the full expression of the ocean at its root. So the wave cannot obtain Buddhahood for that maintains its separation from the ocean in doing so. It has to stop the ego process, the act of separating in the hope that the ocean can rise up to see itself as both the wave and the ocean. It is one hundred percent wave and one hundred percent ocean, not at any point ever separated. The wave seeking the ocean/enlightenment/nirvana is the ocean seeking the wave. When the breakthrough occurs it is not new or just starting but a realization of what always really was.
There is nothing here to reincarnate. The wave/self was just a particular construction of the ocean at that particular time and yet never was anything other than the ocean. So the self does not attain Buddhahood, Buddhahood is the realization of the emptiness of self and the fullness of the universe simultaneous, completely and thorough going, beyond body, mind and cognition.
The Buddha taught the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. To say the wave continues is one extreme, to say the wave is gone is another extreme. If we say being and non-being are extremes, that leaves us with no rational conclusion. It makes no sense. So dont make sense of it. Just sit with it like a Koan until it hatches, and if you actually do the practice under the guidance of a teacher, with discipline, it will hatch. Life outside of the egg shell.
The Buddha taught the middle way between the extremes of nihilism and eternalism. To say the wave continues is one extreme, to say the wave is gone is another extreme. If we say being and non-being are extremes, that leaves us with no rational conclusion.
Yes I can look to the millpond and say "There is no wave in the millpond."
I can make waves in the millpond, and when they are gone, they are gone.
They may not have clear edges, but like life itself, It ultimately either is or isn't.
Jah Bless.
(BTW From your pic I think my answer is now certainly a "small")
It makes no sense. So dont make sense of it. Just sit with it like a Koan until it hatches, and if you actually do the practice under the guidance of a teacher, with discipline, it will hatch. Life outside of the egg shell.[/QUOTE]
Yes I can look to the millpond and say "There is no wave in the millpond."
I can make waves in the millpond, and when they are gone, they are gone.
They may not have clear edges, but like life itself, It ultimately either is or isn't.
Jah Bless.
(BTW From your pic I think my answer is now certainly a "small")
It makes no sense. So dont make sense of it. Just sit with it like a Koan until it hatches, and if you actually do the practice under the guidance of a teacher, with discipline, it will hatch. Life outside of the egg shell.
[/quote]
Dapple Dog is huge to me.;)
A "wave" is not a descrete entity, and has no descrete beginning and end. In seeking its beginning and end we merge with the energy of wind and water, which in turn merges into something else.
We draw the circle of name where it suits us. Then say we found it.
A "wave" is not a descrete entity, and has no descrete beginning and end. In seeking its beginning and end we merge with the energy of wind and water, which in turn merges into something else.[/QUOTE]
But I don't know what you could mean by "discrete"?
I am sure the buddha is right when he says there are no discrete things.
If nothing is discrete why should a wave be? A wave is no different to a boulder or a thought.
When you throw a stone into a millpond, the wave ends, might this not be the same with these lives of ours?
The millpond will have no wave. My corpse will have no life.
And if so, is it not wise to think that the wave does not leave the millpond for another pond to be reborn. It just goes, not anywhere, but nowhere.
P: Perhaps a wave is a good analogy for life and death. It arises in dependence on necessary conditions, travels a long way and then dies when it reaches the shore, returning to the ocean and er....well anyway
S9: Did you know that the water in a wave doesn’t actually move as water except up and down? It seems that energy picks up water in one place and drops it in that same place, and then picks up water further along and drops it once again, and so forth, all the way to the shore if the energy lasts that long.
Science is saying that a wave isn’t actually a water wave, but rather an energy wave moving. What we believe we are seeing is an illusion of our vision, probably a little like a mirage is a visual illusion formed somewhere between our eyes and our brains, a projection.
Anyway, the wave doesn’t have its own water essence, but merely borrows this water essence from the ocean. The wave is empty of personal water essence, or has no individual self. No small piece of water is actually being born as a wave, and no small piece of water is actually dying consequentially.
This is a bit like when a leaf is picked up by the wind and dropped when the wind dissipates.
Poetically it is quite lovely though. : ^ )
In this same way, the human animal is a manifestation of energy, as it picks up flesh and lays it down, like a wave as it moves through life. Every cell in our body is picked up and dropped back into the material pot only to be replaced many times before the grave. So in essence this physical self borrows its essence along the way, as well. The physical self like the wave is empty.
A: I'm saying, death is the cessation of life and life is the cessation of death..... while nibbana is the cessation of this cycle of life/death.
S9: I see Nibbana as the Real, the Constant, AKA Buddha Nature, and life and death as a temporary illusion or dream that veils our vision of it.
For practical purposes we can say that when the body lies down once and for all, and will no longer get up, that it died. Or when a body/baby showed up out of our screaming mom, it was born. But this does not necessitate any further extrapolation on our part, things like we weren’t before birth, and we are not anymore after death, or it alternate view either.
Practically speaking, I am saying that both life and death are just one thing, dual concepts within finitude, co-dependent, like two sides of one coin. It depends on which side you look at as to what you actually are seeing.
A: I'm not sure how illustrating logical necessity transpires into extrapolation.
S9: I don’t believe logic turns into extrapolation, I believe they are two different modes. But heaven knows I am no logician. : ^ ) Maybe someone else could clear this up quite handily for both of us both.
A: I'm not predicting rebirth, I'm stating life and death are necessarily interrelated concepts.
S9: Ah yes, very workable concepts indeed, but certainly not ultimate truth at the same time, would you agree? Yet like most conventional/convenient wisdom, workable only, on a certain level, no doubt.
A: I'm saying, death is the cessation of life and life is the cessation of death..... while nibbana is the cessation of this cycle of life/death.
S9: I see Nibbana as the Real, the Constant, AKA Buddha Nature, and life and death as a temporary illusion or dream that veils our vision of it.
For practical purposes we can say that when the body lies down once and for all, and will no longer get up, that it died. Or when a body/baby showed up out of our screaming mom, it was born. But this does not necessitate any further extrapolation on our part, things like we weren’t before birth, and we are not anymore after death, or it alternate view either.
Practically speaking, I am saying that both life and death are just one thing, dual concepts within finitude, co-dependent, like two sides of one coin. It depends on which side you look at as to what you actually are seeing.
A: I'm not sure how illustrating logical necessity transpires into extrapolation.
S9: I don’t believe logic turns into extrapolation, I believe they are two different modes. But heaven knows I am no logician. : ^ ) Maybe someone else could clear this up quite handily for both of us both.
A: I'm not predicting rebirth, I'm stating life and death are necessarily interrelated concepts.
S9: Ah yes, very workable concepts indeed, but certainly not ultimate truth at the same time, would you agree? Yet like most conventional/convenient wisdom, workable only, on a certain level, no doubt.
Warm Regards,
S9
Fair enough.
Anyhow, I'm just grappling (much like everyone else.) with the idea of rebirth. Perhaps it is as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu states: (thanks:Citta)
"There is just a feeling of "I" and "mine" arising due to the foolishness whereby one is deluded by the beguiling nature of sense-experience. Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole question of rebirth is utterly foolish and nothing to do with Buddhism at all."
This is contrary to what is written in the suttas. What is your source for this definition? What precisely do you mean by "non-being"?
Hi, Freya
Honestly, I can't really tell you. No doubt from a speech/sutta commentary...Nibbana/non-being described as "blowing out": an end to composite existence, Dukkha and subsequent end to cyclical samsara.
I'm noticing several contrary versions of the Buddha's teachings. I'm curious, what suttas are you referring to, I'd like to read them.
Comments
; ^ )
Just kidding,
S9
What does "many different mental consciousnesses" mean? That does, frankly, make consciousness sound like an entity rather than a process. Many different "consciousnesses" do arise simultaneously - or do you only hear, or see, or think, etc. one at a time?
There is no "consciousness of the eye" working in the background. That is not how the Buddha taught. He taught that consciousness of the eye arises when the eye and its corresponding neurosensory system + an object to be seen come into contact. Not that eye consciousness is always present but will lose its ability to see if the eye is damaged.
:wtf:
Others decided to follow them, and it was through following that orders were created.
Nothing was written during the times of either the Buddha or Jesus, because it wasn't deemed either necessary or appropriate.
but as with much in those days, assigning teachings to memory was far more productive. Verbatim recitation was the norm, and has since continued in many branches of Buddhism....
Reading many of the books and literature being published worldwide by so called new-age gurus and Life coaches, certainty is still absent.....
Simply because something is written, it doesn't make it either true or reliable. I place very little trust in the written word, simply because it's either written or ancient, modern or anything else for that matter.
I prefer to test it and see if it works...
That's where the proof lies.
in whether what you absorb, actually works for you or not.
I completely agree.
We all have our own criteria for the proof that will satisfy us. Some are skeptcial some are not. Some are empirical some are not. And so on....
This is a fact I guess we often forget and so we end up thinking other people should share our criteria, which is a nonsense:)
Mat
Well said!
To add my .02 to this discussion:
I believe rebirth is logically necessary. The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept, it's meaningless sans the temporal progression toward it's eventual extent.. i.e. death. Life/death form an interdependent concept. That is, each cannot exist without the inevitibility of the other. Hence, rebirth is logically necessary for death.
By the very concept itself: that which lives must die; why would you believe the opposite not be true? (Moreover, Nibbana is necessary to end this samsaric cycle.)
Conservation of energy says that these elements will be disseminated and reused..and I see and agree with that definition of "rebirth". I accept that the particles in my body were ejected as part of the Big Bang (probably), were processed as stellar material, were probably part of a former star in this vicinity, have coalesced in the neighborhood of the Earth, have been part of countless living beings/plants/minerals/whatever..this, to me is sensible, and I actually find peace and a sense of interbeing in it.
I have a harder time with the idea of "past lives".
"It just follows" isn't really an explanation to someone who's come through the fires of engineering school.
No argument intended, btw..just trying to make a paltry contribution to the other side of this conversation.
I also am fine with other, metaphorical notions of rebirth, ie, being reborn with each breath, etc.
Hi Ray
I enjoyed reading that, and agree.
But one thing I have realized is that I can just say "it's mysterious" and then the lack of connection with your engineering mind doesn't become the refutation etc that It might seem, often very clearly:)
Mat
Using ‘Your Logic’ that birth leading to death necessitates rebirth, one might go on to say samsara leading to nirvana necessitates re-samsara. But, I don’t believe you think this latter assertion. Or do you?
I hope you can see that logic is not the best tool to decide this issue. : ^ )
Just a little aside:
There are scientists out there that actually now claim that death is nothing but a disease. They go on to claim a cure for this dreaded affliction someday. Hummm Where would that leave reincarnation? ; ^ )
However, a kind of recycling, or ecology within this material world is rather obvious. Calling this natural occurrence “rebirth” certainly muddies the issue or at least serves to confuse people as to what is being discussed. Everyone is forced to ask repeatedly are you speaking about reincarnation or not? That in itself seems unproductive of aiding understanding in an area that is far too subtle to add another difficulty factor.
A: The concept of life itself is not an inherently independent existing concept.
S9: Actually Life is a great mystery not yet solved. Again this word would depend on what you are speaking of when you say life. There are those of us that believe life may actually be continuous, and that death to the physical doesn’t decrease it at/all. Death merely represents change. But then so does birth merely represent change. Meaning Life is constant with manifested differences coming and going or should I say rearranging, much like the metaphor of the ocean being a constant and each wave a temporary manifestaion made up completely of the ocean.
Would we then claim a wave to be a rebirth?
Just something to chew on,
S9
I'm simply referring to the Buddha's teaching regarding rebirth.
I realize logic has it's limitations, yet it remains essential to human understanding.
Yes, wonderful description! That's very near to what I was (prosaically..via logic
A: Well, nibbana is defined as the cessation of samsara; a state of non-being.
S9: But, isn’t death also considered the cessation of life, a state of non-life, by many? If you say, “Not by me,” you are simply saying that your belief proves your point.
What you were actually presenting wasn’t logic. It was extrapolation.
Jokingly: I heard a story about what extrapolation could lead us to believe, or thinking that the way things were happening necessitated continuation. They said in NYC when horses were the main tool of transportation that in this year by continuing to use horses, we would be up to our hips in Horse poop.
A: Yes, wonderful description! That's very near to what I was (prosaically...via logic ) referring to.
S9: Ah, so we are agreeing. Let’s enjoy the moment. What a nice surprise. ; ^ )
Warm regards,
S9
It depends on what teachings you've had and whether they make sense to you in your own life.
For me, I find it useful to consider rebirth, just as I consider karma, and living and dying.
And there's the rub..
If you read Anagarika Govinda on rebirth or Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, you will have two very different takes on the subject and both claim to represent what the Buddha taught most accurately.
I will say straight away that Buddhadasa's view makes much more sense to me.
But in the end it doesnt matter what I think.
I think what matters is the legacy of practises that the Buddha bequeathed to us. And because they "do what they say on the tin", I am confident that if I follow them to their conclusion , the truth of the matter will be clear.
If, in the continuation of my practice, (my meditation, my ethical path, etc., mindfulness, concentration, etc.), I come to an experiential realization that shows me the truth of rebirth..great. If not, then that's okay too.
I'm not out to convince you or anyone. I just want a place at the table and to be present for the discussion. I aim to honor the lineage that I practice in, as well as everyone elses.
There are at least three rebirth threads and I have posted further food for thought in those places. Not to convince anyone else, but just to explain how I come to my views.
I think the mods ought to merge the rebirth threads.
I can see where what I said might have come across as meaning that the thread is useless...sorry, that wasn't my intention. It is an interesting topic; I just had an urge to speak from the heart for a moment.
<==can be an antisocial ass at times.
By the legacy of the practices I mean the body of meditative practises that Buddhism is rich in. Varieties of anapanasati, vipassana, metta bhavana and so on.
What do you mean by " rebirth"?
What do you mean by " real" ?
My best answer is to direct you to the writing of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
The legacy of practices that Buddhism is rich in include the vajrayana. In the vajrayana, we have extensive teachings on transference of consciousness, bardos, tertons, reincarnate lamas etc.
What I'm aiming for is some inclusivity in this thread. I respect that your view is to refer back to the oldest teachings of Buddhism that come direct from the Buddha's words. That's completely natural.
In the vajrayana, we have the teachings of Padmasambhava, who is considered in Tibet to be a second buddha.
We all are practicing Buddhist meditation, we may have heard different teachings, or the teachings we have heard have emphasized different parts of the dharma.
The view of the vajrayana has relevance to any discussion of rebirth, in my opinion.
May all beings benefit.
sky
And?
How does that inform your view of rebirth?
Have I offended you?
Over the years my view of rebirth, tulkus, transfer of consciousness, etc has ceased to be literal and linear.
I'm saying, death is the cessation of life and life is the cessation of death..... while nibbana is the cessation of this cycle of life/death
I'm not sure how illustrating logical necessity transpires into extrapolation.
Perhaps a wave is a good analogy for life and death. It arises in dependence on necessary conditions, travels a long way and then dies when it reaches the shore, returning to the ocean and er....well anyway
P
When a wave is gone it is gone,
Maybe life really is a beach;)
This is contrary to what is written in the suttas. What is your source for this definition? What precisely do you mean by "non-being"?
Hope no one minds me quoting this, but it came to mind when I read this discussion:
Or dont. whatever.
Yes I can look to the millpond and say "There is no wave in the millpond."
I can make waves in the millpond, and when they are gone, they are gone.
They may not have clear edges, but like life itself, It ultimately either is or isn't.
Jah Bless.
(BTW From your pic I think my answer is now certainly a "small")
It makes no sense. So dont make sense of it. Just sit with it like a Koan until it hatches, and if you actually do the practice under the guidance of a teacher, with discipline, it will hatch. Life outside of the egg shell.[/QUOTE]
Dapple Dog is huge to me.;)
A "wave" is not a descrete entity, and has no descrete beginning and end. In seeking its beginning and end we merge with the energy of wind and water, which in turn merges into something else.
We draw the circle of name where it suits us. Then say we found it.
But I don't know what you could mean by "discrete"?
I am sure the buddha is right when he says there are no discrete things.
If nothing is discrete why should a wave be? A wave is no different to a boulder or a thought.
When you throw a stone into a millpond, the wave ends, might this not be the same with these lives of ours?
The millpond will have no wave. My corpse will have no life.
And if so, is it not wise to think that the wave does not leave the millpond for another pond to be reborn. It just goes, not anywhere, but nowhere.
There is no wave only water.
Ohm Shanti.
I like these bits
There are no bits, only bytes;)
P: Perhaps a wave is a good analogy for life and death. It arises in dependence on necessary conditions, travels a long way and then dies when it reaches the shore, returning to the ocean and er....well anyway
S9: Did you know that the water in a wave doesn’t actually move as water except up and down? It seems that energy picks up water in one place and drops it in that same place, and then picks up water further along and drops it once again, and so forth, all the way to the shore if the energy lasts that long.
Science is saying that a wave isn’t actually a water wave, but rather an energy wave moving. What we believe we are seeing is an illusion of our vision, probably a little like a mirage is a visual illusion formed somewhere between our eyes and our brains, a projection.
Anyway, the wave doesn’t have its own water essence, but merely borrows this water essence from the ocean. The wave is empty of personal water essence, or has no individual self. No small piece of water is actually being born as a wave, and no small piece of water is actually dying consequentially.
This is a bit like when a leaf is picked up by the wind and dropped when the wind dissipates.
Poetically it is quite lovely though. : ^ )
In this same way, the human animal is a manifestation of energy, as it picks up flesh and lays it down, like a wave as it moves through life. Every cell in our body is picked up and dropped back into the material pot only to be replaced many times before the grave. So in essence this physical self borrows its essence along the way, as well. The physical self like the wave is empty.
Kind Regards,
S9
I would check that fact.
This energy is?
Salome:0
Mat
A: I'm saying, death is the cessation of life and life is the cessation of death..... while nibbana is the cessation of this cycle of life/death.
S9: I see Nibbana as the Real, the Constant, AKA Buddha Nature, and life and death as a temporary illusion or dream that veils our vision of it.
For practical purposes we can say that when the body lies down once and for all, and will no longer get up, that it died. Or when a body/baby showed up out of our screaming mom, it was born. But this does not necessitate any further extrapolation on our part, things like we weren’t before birth, and we are not anymore after death, or it alternate view either.
Practically speaking, I am saying that both life and death are just one thing, dual concepts within finitude, co-dependent, like two sides of one coin. It depends on which side you look at as to what you actually are seeing.
A: I'm not sure how illustrating logical necessity transpires into extrapolation.
S9: I don’t believe logic turns into extrapolation, I believe they are two different modes. But heaven knows I am no logician. : ^ ) Maybe someone else could clear this up quite handily for both of us both.
A: I'm not predicting rebirth, I'm stating life and death are necessarily interrelated concepts.
S9: Ah yes, very workable concepts indeed, but certainly not ultimate truth at the same time, would you agree? Yet like most conventional/convenient wisdom, workable only, on a certain level, no doubt.
Warm Regards,
S9
RE: S9: Science is saying that a wave isn’t actually a water wave, but rather an energy wave moving.
M: I would check that fact.
S9: Go ahead, be my guest, and let us know what you found out. : ^ ) It isn’t me that doubts it.
RE: S9: In this same way, the human animal is a manifestation of energy, as it picks up flesh and lays it down, like a wave as it moves through life.
M: This energy is?
S9: I’m sorry. I don’t understand your question. Please be more explicit. Thanx
Kind Regard,
S9
Is it heat Light, kinetic, molecular, atomic or gravitational... etc?
How does it conserve with these types of the energy, in this universe?
What can you say about it other than it solves the riddle of rebirth?
I really like that quote. Thank you for sharing it.
Can I ask you where you found it, or who said it?
I would like to read more by this person, or whatever. : ^ )
Friendly regards,
S9
M: Is it heat Light, kinetic, molecular, atomic or gravitational... etc?
S9: Google wave energy, wiki and you will know more about waves than you probably ever wanted to. : ^ ) Then you can explain it to me. He/He/He
M: How does it conserve with these types of the energy, in this universe?
S9: I don’t know…I am not that smart. : ^ (
M: What can you say about it other than it solves the riddle of rebirth?
S9: Solves the riddle of rebirth? Did I say that? OH MY GOD! ; ^ )
Q: “Loose lips sinks ships.”
S9: I am going to go right out on a limb and say you can explain this all to us. I have vast faith in your ability to do so.
Q: “Frankly Charlotte, I don’t give a damn.” ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Anyhow, I'm just grappling (much like everyone else.) with the idea of rebirth. Perhaps it is as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu states: (thanks:Citta)
"There is just a feeling of "I" and "mine" arising due to the foolishness whereby one is deluded by the beguiling nature of sense-experience. Therefore, there being no one born here, there is no one who dies and is reborn. So, the whole question of rebirth is utterly foolish and nothing to do with Buddhism at all."
Honestly, I can't really tell you. No doubt from a speech/sutta commentary...Nibbana/non-being described as "blowing out": an end to composite existence, Dukkha and subsequent end to cyclical samsara.
I'm noticing several contrary versions of the Buddha's teachings. I'm curious, what suttas are you referring to, I'd like to read them.