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.
Poll: Are You a Believer in Rebirth
As a result of the considerable interest and debate in the thread "Is rebirth for real" I decided to start this poll:
- I am a believer in rebirth.
- I am not a believer in rebirth.
- I am agnostic on the issue of rebirth.
0
Comments
I have an issue with the word "believe". I would say that I am confident in rebirth as it is taught in the Buddhist tradition. Rather than say that I "believe" in rebirth. To me belief implies an uninvestigated assumption or hardened view. That is not how I feel about rebirth, nor is it how I came to my own feelings about it.
I also feel that rebirth as it is taught in the Buddhist tradition is completely rational, plausible, and sophisticated to the point were I feel that a single life theory is far less plausible.
There is nothing mystical or magical about Buddhist rebirth.
Totally agree. This is not just a "belief" based on blind faith but a realistic conclusion based on documented as well as practical information. It seems highly illogical to think that there is no continuity of any form after the physical body breaks
My apologies... really meant belief founded on an unwavering confidence in the rebirth doctrine (and not 'blind' faith). Original post edited.
I was talking about my "belief" Sukhitha not about what you meant when you put it. So it's cool :rolleyes:
I think that most Buddhists who believe in rebirth would view the body as the container for the mind. Once the body dies, the mind is free to enter another container.
When you say mind, what are you referring to? Vinnana?
That makes it sound like the mind is some permanent thing and it also sounds like you're identifying "self" with the mind.
I mean our consciousness, although some might say soul (if you are not Buddhist). If one has not attained Nirvana, where does our consciousness go when we die?
I suppose that if one does not believe in rebirth, then they also disagree with Karma, right?
I have never seen anything to suggest that "mind" is not dependent on the physical body. But I am open to being shown otherwise.
Where do you think it goes? Where does it abide inbetween "containers"? How do you know these things for certain?
I do not believe in the kind of rebirth you're referring to, where the mind is not dependent on the physical body. But I certainly know kamma as the Buddha taught it.
Deshy,
I don't understand your post really. Vinnana is dependent on the brain, an object, and a sense organ. Vinnana largely forms what we call "mind."
Of course?
I take it you understand karma to be some mystical judicious that ether "punishes" or "rewards" (for want of better terms here) you in the next life based on your actions in this life?
Punishes or rewards? Perhaps not how one might view it, but I do believe that karmic law determines which plane of existence we are reborn into.
How do you view karma?
Read this: Law of Karma
My view of karma is akin to the law of cause and effect. (In example) Cause: I eat meat. Effect: I increase my risk of heart disease. As to whether in has effects in my next life I must say I'm wholly undecided there, as I'm undecided on the idea of rebirth itself. Quite simply it's just not something that I really give thought to ether way.
Then those are your beliefs. I don't believe there is a "right" or "wrong" way of viewing a topic like this.
As The Buddha once said (and it's quite fitting for a topic such as this):
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
Nor do I.
Yep.
I dont think that rebirth has anything to do with a "mind" that transmigrates.
In my opinion ordinary mind functions in tandem with the ordinary physical body. When the body dies, ordinary mind dies.
What is without beginning and end is something else. This something else is of course non inherently existent but manifests as an active and luminous potentiality that animates and permeates all of conditioned existence.
Just because some "thing" continues beyond life and death doesnt meant that "thing" is permanent.
There is nothing to understand in my post Mundus, I was merely asking you a question. Anyway according to your description I am confused as to how the "Rupa Loka" in the Buddhist Cosmology exists. It talks about an existence of a consciousness without a physical body or are you a non-believer of the different planes of existence as well?
I'm just asking you know
I'm not really interested in Buddhist cosmology in any event whether it's literal or figurative. It's not necessary to my practice.
Not really interested in something I have to believe in such as the literal planes of existence.
How do I explain what? The sense organ is the physical aspect necessary for consciousness to arise.
Where does he describe vinnana as an entity?
Did you just say that he describes the sense organs arising from vinnana? He describes vinnana as arising from the sense organs... ergo...
Yep. Or can we just say that consciousness arises and dies only to arise again based on its causes and then ceases again. This might as well be a sequence of minds arising and dieing thus the (birth and death process). Now the question is, does this process halt when the physical body breaks? I think not necessarily. When the physical body breaks still having the causes of this consciousness, then based on those causes a new consciousness can arise. aka as long as ignorance and mental fabrications exist this cycle turns. This also explains how an arahant ceases to exist when the physical body breaks and we are not. This also explains all the other suttas where the Buddha talks about other lives (some of his own)
That doesn't mean consciousness is a permanent entity; it is only something that continues as long as its causes exist and it is not a self (not a permanent solid entity which is eternal). But if this "thing" also ceases when the physical body breaks then the Buddha would have called the "physical body" as its cause and claimed that "it ceases to exist when the physical body ceases to exist". He would have at least said that in some other sutta if not in the DO instead of going on and on about his own existence in different bodies.
Thinking everything comes to an end when we die is wrong view and clearly mentioned so in the Brahmajala sutta. But you can always say "I don't care" and continue with your practice.
So you are getting back to this "it is not necessary" theory. Of course it is not necessary. But that doesn't make it is wrong does it? In that sense this whole argument of rebirth is also not necessary but since we are at it, how about an explanation?
Oh is it?
With ignorance as condition Fabrications
With fabrications as condition consciousness
with consciousness as condition name and form
with name and form as condition the six sense base
with six sense base as condition the contact
so on...
Oh, you got me, Deshy, you got me! :crazy: How did I ever miss this thing called Dependent Origination in my 7 years of study? Oh wait..
In D.O. what arises is ignorant-tainted-______. Tainted-consciousness leads to tainted-sense-spheres.
The way you're reading it, it is annihilation that is Nibbana, rather than here-and-now Nibbana. Do those things in D.O. cease altogether with Nibbana, or does ignorance tainting them cease?
It is also at odds with the suttas. For example, MN 38:
And, still, I wonder where he described consciousness as an entity as you claim?
hi
I believe:
After death the mind goes nowhere, the mind is simply the emergent experience of all of its thought processes (as Five Aggriogates and Science describes). When these processes stop at death so does the mind.
"There is no thinker, only thoughts." When the thoughts stop, so does the illusionary thinker-ego that emerges from them:)
Mat
It's there in suttas Mundus. Are you saying the suttas are wrong or the Buddha was saying superstitious fairy tales to lull people into following his teachings? Besides there is one plane of existence in the cosmology which is not superstitious at all: the animals. Since we can see it we cannot deny it. So it is possible the rest is also true although we cannot justify it
We cannot reason either rebirth or no-rebirth as of now without any meditative relaizations or otherwise. At least there is evidence in the suttas to back up the rebirth theory. What proof do we have to say there is no rebirth other than the fact that "we don't get it because we cannot see it"?
Who claims consciousness is an entity? I am saying it is something that rises and falls (birth and death) and this doesn't necessarily cease to do so when the physical body breaks.
And yeah yeah yeah I get what you are saying about tainted consciousness.
But that doesn't mean rebirth is not mentioned anywhere else either. That doesn't mean the Buddha agreed with the anihilist point of view aka there is no continuity of existence after the physical body breaks. It is okey if someone says "it is not relevant" but it is hard to say there is no rebirth with certainty when there are so many suttas that directly say there is. Apart from the fact that it is said to be one of Buddha's wisdom to be able to look into past lives and the fact that the Buddha has vivid stories of his past lives in so many suttas, the Buddha has explicitly claimed the nihilist point of view as wrong view in the Brahmajala sutta. If someone disputes the concept of rebirth then all these suttas (and some real experiences of meditators) become futile.
It is a mundane teaching.
Enlightenment is peace and tranquility, not gaining all this bizarre knowledge and psychic abilities about different planes of existence and such.
They work as a metaphor, they aid in practice in this way to an extent, and that's it.
And er, yeah, the animals... and that means the rest are possibly true... because of the animals... well ok. I state that there's an animal realm and a realm of walking, talking dog turds in which we can be reborn. Since we know the animal realm to be true, it's definitely possible that other realm is true as well and we shouldn't deny it. I mean, you can't prove me wrong, can you?
"Meditative realizations" of this nature mean nothing just as Christians experiencing near-death and going to Heaven doesn't prove a thing. I do not claim no-rebirth. I know for certain that we are composed of the aggregates. I know for certain my body will remain for a time after "I die." I know what I refer to as "I" is constant death-and-birth. But have I ever seen any evidence that the mind is not a series of processes emerging from physical material? No. And the suttas don't suggest otherwise, either. So I see no logic in believing that "mind" floats around without a body and hops into another, but if it's proven to be true someday, I'll believe it. It won't affect my practice at all, though. And yes, that's relevant; Buddhism is about practice and dukkha.
Well, you did: "Also, the Buddha talks... talks about another entity called a consciousness based on which the sense organs arise."
In any event, I once again have never seen evidence to suggest this. Have you?
Then once again, where does the Buddha say that consciousness leads to/creates sense-spheres/the physical body or anything similar? You quoted that to prove your claim. Do you have an actual quote from the suttas?
There is continuity. The physical body doesn't disappear; it simply changes, and this we know for certain.
Mundus, I know what enlightenment is supposed to be. This conversation is not about "what we need for enlightenment" but about "do we believe in rebirth". So I really don't see a reason for you to point this out. Once again I agree that your belief in all these things is NOT relevant to your practice.
Well you still didn't give me an answer to my initial question. Do you think the suttas that state these things are wrong or do you think the Buddha was just making up a story. I don't care to whome he said it or why as long as he has mentioned it over and over again in so many suttas. I know you think it is not relevant and I most certainly am not saying otherwise or clinging to the suttas. If I cling to the suttas then I must be holding on to it's contents even when someone is giving me a better explanation. So until you give me a good enough explanation to point out that all these things are just jargon I have a reason to accept its content and move on from there. That doesn't mean un-dieing faith in it
How do you say that for sure? There are some very experienced meditators claiming otherwise. So what do you think is meant by the wisdom of the Buddha to look into past lives? Shouldn't that part of the suttas be taken as meaning anything other than near-death or heaven experience?
If we can see the after-death phenomena then we wouldn't be here discussing whether it exists or not would we? We would know for sure with absolute certainty whether it exists or not. As I agreed, DO gives no clue to what would happen when the body breaks according to my understanding so far. So we really cannot find an answer to this from the DO. But what about the other suttas? Existence in many physical bodies are discussed in so many other suttas.
Well that comment on consciousness as an entity is probably my mistake. But I have repeatedly said in my other comments what I think of consciousness is (something that rises and falls - birth, death)
What do you say that I quoted to prove my claim? I don't get it.
The nihilist point of view is specifically quoted as wrong view in the Brahmajala sutta. So does view of an eternal self. I will quote this sutta to you tomorrow as I do not have the book with me now. But you can always look up the net for it. If I remember right it is in DN
I did answer. Please refer to the quoted passage from MN 68.
Because it doesn't make sense, firstly. The cessation of ignorance/greed/aversion brings about psychic powers to recall past lives? Secondly, because there is absolutely no difference between Christians who claim similar things and it would be hypocritical and ignorant of me to give more weight to one person's claim than to others' who hold different beliefs. There is no way to prove that these people have recalled what is a past life, or that they're not even just pulling things out of their butts altogether.
And as I have repeatedly said, the suttas do not say "past lives" but "past dwellings" and recollections of "the aggregates as self."
Refer once again to the sutta I quoted.
Then this is incredibly foolish. Parents tell children over and over that Santa is real. Context is important.
You claimed that the suttas state that consciousness gives rise to the sense-spheres. Your proof of this was quoting the 12 Nidanas. You then backtracked and admitted that this is not what is meant by the 12 Nidanas. So where in the suttas does it actually state what you claim ("entity called a consciousness based on which the sense organs arise")?
It also says:
This is in accord with other suttas such as MN 117:
Rebirth-belief is said in the suttas to lead to further becoming, which is counterproductive to Nibbana.
Nibbana does not grant special psychic powers. It only gives wisdom to anicca, suffering and non-self. But there are references that meditation gives rise to special wisdom and knowledge for some people and the Buddha is said to have them. Having the ability to look into past lives is one of them. I cannot remember the sutta where it was referred but I can dig up and find it for you.
What do you mean by past dwellings here?
Never heard of 12 Nidanas. What is it anyway? I already said it was a mistake to take consciousness as an entity; I probably was sleepy when I wrote it.
I can get you the essay that explains the 13 spheres of existence if that is what you want. And the specific statements in AN where the Buddha claims his past lives (or is it dwellings?? ) as different persons.
I read the part of the sutta you quoted. It basically says that the Buddha has preached about rebirth as a way to inspire the minds of faithful clansmen to get them to follow the Dhamma. That comes as no surprise. I understand that the teaching of rebirth is probably a moral teaching. My point is, that doesn't make it wrong as in the Buddha probably was not saying a lie about rebirth. No matter for what purpose he used it, he preached that "when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place"". I think that just proved my point
What matters is what the Buddha meant. You say he referred to past lives. What is translated so often as past lives is actually "past dwellings." The Buddha explains what this means.
It is MN 12.
He has the "ability" to recall past dwellings. That is, past clingings to the aggregates as I/self/mine.
What you are suggesting, these powers to recall past lives through meditation - how can it be proven that it's not just a daydream, a hallucination, wishful thinking?
What do you mean "explains"? I am familiar with the realms of rebirth, the spheres of existence, etc. Unless the essay provides indisputable proof of their existence, and indisputable proof that consciousness/mind leaps from our body and travels to another body in one of those realms...
:wtf: The purpose and context is incredibly relevant. Parents tell their children that Santa will bring them gifts on Christmas if they behave themselves. That doesn't mean the parents believe in Santa or that Santa is real. It means it's a moral teaching. It is the modern children's rebirth doctrine.
The Buddha even states in that sutta that he isn't telling it for the purpose of deceiving, but to inspire people of that preexisting faith to better things.
What sutra is this? Can I get a link?
Okey I'll go through this and see what dwelling is. I am dieing to know how the Buddha explained dwelling to mean something other than physical existence in a different body
When parents tell their children that Santa will bring them presents the parents LIE. Are you saying the Buddha is lying here? I really don't get you Mundus. I do not see any indication in this text to say that the Buddha is telling a fantasy, a myth or a lie just to deceive some stupid bunch because they are not intelligent enough to grasp his theories.
He has actually said he is not intending to deceive anyone here.
" it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people ..."
It is true that he is saying it to inspire and motivate the lot but that doesn't mean he is lying or saying a fantasy story like your mama used to say about Santa
He speaks of recollections of a false "self" in the past, at any point in time. You can theoretically extend this to literal past lives if you wish, but it's only theoretical. You can see past self-identification in this very life, and that is what's useful. As the Buddha said, he only taught dukkha and its cessation.
"In the past, I was an athlete, I had a fit body, I was youthful, I was..." - has that body and all that was self-identified with not died, decayed, disappeared? Are we not constantly "reborn"? Is it not clinging to such things that leads to dukkha?
He said what he said. That he doesn't teach it for the purpose of. Just as parents don't teach about Santa for the purpose of deceiving their children.
The Buddha recognized that not all people are interested in the path he chose, the path to Nibbana. The rebirth teaching is said to lead to further becoming, not to Nibbana. The Buddha stated that he retaught rebirth in a way that would lead those with that preexisting belief to a more moral life, to inspire them to be better people. It's as simple as that. No one said anything about stupidity.
Ok let me read this. I'm off to bed so this might take a while
So, are you saying that the Buddha just entertained the false belief of rebirth just so that the people who already believe in it will be pleased from it and inspired by it, but it is just a false belief nonetheless?
And what about the Brahmajala sutta? Where he explicitly denied the notion that everything ceases to exist when the physical body breaks.
I quoted from the Brahmajala sutta already which suggests your belief is wrong.
I never said everything ceases. I explained that the physical body is just as much "self," or I should say, "not-self," as the mind. The physical body, we know for fact, does not disappear... it just takes on new form. If you can show this to be true of the mind, can show proof that the mind is self-sustaining and doesn't require physical material for the processes that make it up to arise, then I would be more than happy to see it.
Otherwise, we are going in circles, and I will step away now. You have backtracked, and ignored sutta quotations which definitively state that with belief in rebirth there is further becoming, and more, so there is no point in continuing.
Then you don't know me CI
I will PM you Mundus and I actually get to see you have a point in your posts and a really good one. Let's take this off the forum shall we?
A mun tells a child a story about a mythical character called Santa with the purpose of getting the child to behave and we all know that the story of the Santa is mythical thus the mum was telling a lie with all the good intentions in the world. Question is, was the Buddha also going on about a mythical scenario when he was telling "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" aka was he lying about the whole rebirth thing (even to entertain the already existing belief) with the all the good intentions in the world?