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.
... understanding a middle way between views of eternalism and nihilism.
Buddhism teaches not-self. If we think we are annihilating something then we have accepted the existence of a self in the first place. What is it that we are annihilating?? Buddhism is not nihilism because there is no self to annihilate in the first place.
Please read the BrahmaJala sutta. I couldn't find an online resource though.
Buddhism teaches not-self. If we think we are annihilating something then we have accepted the existence of a self in the first place. What is it that we are annihilating?? Buddhism is not nihilism because there is no self to annihilate in the first place.
Agree but because the delusion of a permanent self is very real for many, even people who see it as delusion without the chance of eternalise in rebirth / reincarnation it’s very easy to become filled with “what’s the point”. For me the acceptance of no-self often leads to the feeling of nihilism. I intellectually understand the gist of the philosophy but depending on my mental state it either makes me feel wonderful or filled with a deep dispare.
M: Show me why Enligtenment is so hidden in the depths of lifelong practice today when it wasn’t in the time of the Buddha.
S9: I don’t think that it was easier to get Enlightened or Realized in the day of Buddha, than it is now.
I also don’t think that a person who isn’t 100% Enlightened, themselves, is in a position to make the claim to understand that it IS easy. All that you can say with any integrity is, “This is what I know…so far. : ^ )
I have heard some very wise and fully Realized types say that, “Although Enlightenment is simple, it is not easy.”
Why is that?
This emptying out of our habitual illusion, which we ‘so dearly love,’ is a real bear. Our minds continue to cling tenaciously to the familiar, and fear the unknown, almost as though survival itself depended upon it. Ego’s self does depend upon it.
I think this is also why we cling to the notion of rebirth and/or reincarnation, because we 'so dearly love' this ‘no-self,’ which we also claim wanting to be rid of.
Working like this, in opposite directions, pushing and pulling makes good taffy, but can only prove to bring tension and anxiety at best. Fruit from such a plant could only be called dissatisfaction.
Agree but because the delusion of a permanent self is very real for many, even people who see it as delusion without the chance of eternalise in rebirth / reincarnation it’s very easy to become filled with “what’s the point”. For me the acceptance of no-self often leads to the feeling of nihilism. I intellectually understand the gist of the philosophy but depending on my mental state it either makes me feel wonderful or filled with a deep dispare.
I get what you are saying. But, if you do good deeds and follow the practice in the hope of a better life after death then religions like Christianity preach the same things isn't it? Why do you meditate at all?
I don't know for sure if rebirth exists or not. All I know is that it's clearly not mentioned in the DO. If rightly cultivated, the DO is a doctrine which can be used to reap the results here and now. I have tried it in a very basic level and still it works. Imagine cultivating it more...
Why believe in another life when you can find the freedom from dukkha in this very life? So, what we can do is, forget about rebirth and follow the practice here and now. The rest will take care of itself.
S9: I don’t think that doing good deeds automatically means that you can’t also meditate. Especially if you believe that, meditation puts you mentally in a good place for doing such good deeds or metta.
If rightly cultivated, the DO is a doctrine, which can be used to reap the results here and now.
S9: Receiving good results here and now doesn’t mean that you cannot also get good results later, as well. Now, does it. ; ^ )
Why believe in another life when you can find the freedom from dukkha in this very life?
S9: Perhaps for the same reason that you hope that your release from Dukka doesn’t only last for one day, or just a minute. BAM, that sure was good, but awfully short. ; ^ )
If something is good, more of has to be better still. For this very reason, it is really easy for me to suspect that reincarnation could be ‘wishful thinking.’
Not to mention a second wish fulfilled, “If at first you don’t succeed, you can try/try again.” Reincarnation is a 2/4.
So, what we can do is, forget about rebirth and follow the practice here and now. The rest will take care of itself.
S9: Hey, thanks for that…a third wish fulfilled. ; ^ ) Can't lose.
But, if you do good deeds and follow the practice in the hope of a better life after death then religions like Christianity preach the same things isn't it?
No it's not. Belief in the after life for Christians is all important. Belief in rebirth is not (well, for most buddhist sects).
The focus of Buddhism should be for enlightenment, not a favourable rebirth. I am, however, aware that this was used, in the past, by some Buddhist schools, possibly to gain converts.
Why believe in another life when you can find the freedom from dukkha in this very life? So, what we can do is, forget about rebirth and follow the practice here and now. The rest will take care of itself.
T: I intellectually understand the gist of the philosophy but depending on my mental state it either makes me feel wonderful or filled with a deep despair.
S9: That is a good reason not to ‘shallow anything whole.’ But to move along at your own pace, with each step representing your OWN understanding.
Buddha’s words were like a map, directing you to where you must look in order to find these things out for yourself. Just like he did before you.
You cannot live in a map. It will prove to be insubstantial. Truth is lived, not just accumulated as words and notions.
M: I think enlightenment is more mundane than mystical.
S9: I take it that by mundane, you mean a very practical set of rules, 8 isn’t it? Do this and you will get that, sort of one to one, or is it 8 to 8? ; ^ )
I can easily understand that. So why don’t we just get that list from you, right now, and do it, ‘a done deal?’
And:
Why did it take so many doggone sutras to say it, any old way? ; ^ )
M: I don't think enlightenment is easy, mainly because the understanding dependent origination isn't that easy.
S9: Why not? It seems pretty obvious to me?
I’m thinking that it goes more like this:
The practical part of Buddhism (not even touching the mystical part) is difficult because saying it and even understanding it is a whole lot easier than actually living it.
Living it doesn’t just take a strong will to imitate what should be done, and doing it, it takes Becoming It to such a degree that; you actually live from it spontaneously. You are not following Buddha’s words meticulously. You actually are a Buddha.
So when Mat becomes Realized, he won’t be the an all new/new, in every way a better Mat. There won’t be any Mat, no how, no way, anymore. (S9 begins to cry at this great loss.) No, surprised…I am very happy for 'not-Mat.' ; ^ )
This is a metamorphosis, a little like a butterfly is not REALLY a crawly caterpillar any more. It flies free.
S9: I take it that by mundane, you mean a very practical set of rules.
M: Mundane: "of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven."
This doesn't mean it is valueless, or trivial, or unprofound, or shallow, It means that it isn't conceptually exotic or mystical.
We can all agree enlightenment , whatver it is, is "deep" but that doesnt mean it isn't mundane:)
For example, I am a spiritual person, but that spirit is emergent not mysticial.
So why don’t we just get that list from you, right now, and do it, ‘a done deal?’
You mean a list other than the four noble truths?
S9:Why did it take so many doggone sutras to say it, any old way?
I cant answer that, nobody can. But I agree it's a huge mystery about Buddhism.
How did the genius of the Budda, that was so clearly realised to his friends in the deerpark, become a corpus of 10,000+ suttras that takes countless lives to master?
It beffudles me still.
(M: I don't think enlightenment is easy, mainly because the understanding
dependent origination isn't that easy.)
S9: Why not? It seems pretty obvious to me?
It is obvious when you see it, perhaps. But even so it is deep and complex, no so much the simple principle of many to many causation but the way that causality conditions all things, including human suffering, joy and experience etc.
The Buddha taught 84,000 different methods based on the variety of human minds. What makes any of us think we can know and master each one.
There is plenty of room for all the Buddhist schools, branches and lineages. It's all good.
If it helps someone's mediatation to consider rebirth so be it. If it doesn't then don't take up the teachings, go to what you do know and understand well.
I hope MatSalted is reading this one. This is what I was attempting to communicate, at least in part. Sky Dancer is more concise than I am!
M: Mundane: "of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven."
S9: I get the impression that you think that transcendence means not HERE anymore, but up in the sky, or in heaven, or something. This is simply not the case.
Look at it this way. If you transcend a mistake, you don’t have to travel to Paris to do that. You can stay right where you are, without moving in place or in time, and simply extricate yourself from the mistake.
In this same way we can extricate ourselves from illusion without going somewhere else. So earth doesn’t JUST belong to the mundane thinker.
M: This doesn't mean it is valueless, or trivial, or unprofound, or shallow, It means that it isn't conceptually exotic or mystical.
S9: Woo, I never said such disrespectful things to you. ; ^ ) I do however think that there is more to be understood beyond merely being practical.
The strange thing is that my MORE is actually Less. A good deal of what the mind holds onto and tries to understand is excess baggage.
M: We can all agree Enlightenment, whatever it is, is "deep" but that doesn’t mean it isn't mundane.
S9: Yes, Enlightenment is “deep” and profound, but certainly not because of its complexity. The mind is the complex guy. ; ^ ) My God, are we agreeing? ; ^ )
M: For example, I am a spiritual person, but that spirit is emergent not mystical.
S9: I think your definition of mystical isn’t my definition.
RE: S9: So why don’t we just get that list from you, right now, and do it, ‘a done deal?’
M: You mean a list other than the four noble truths?
S9: Mat, even Buddha said things beyond these. They were just an outline for his later details. He knew that it took some explaining for other to understand him. Simple doesn’t mean concentrate the message and stubbornly refuse to explain.
Of course, the big problem comes in when people don’t understand the message, and the explanations are all over the place.
M: How did the genius of the Buddha, that was so clearly realized to his friends in the Deer Park, become a corpus of 10,000+ suttras that takes countless lives to master?
S9: I would say that his friends in Deer Park where probably like so many of us today, all over the place in our understanding. But, when they depicted themselves for history, they added a little shine to the story. ; ^ ) Let me just add that total understanding of Buddha’s message isn’t a property of the mind.
M: It is obvious when you see it, perhaps.
S9: But, do we see it with the mind’s eye?
M: Even so it is deep and complex.
S9: Complex is what the mind does. Deep is outside of the mind, far more fundamental. We are not traveling to the edge of the universe and trying to understand the full extent of our mistake. We simply have to turn around and return home, back to the place before we created this huge illusion. This, my friend, is the PEACE that we are seeking. “The peace beyond all understanding.” : ^ )
That is why meditation is such a blessing. Because we simply stop weaving mind world, and relax outside of mind thought. That is why it is refreshing, because it is our natural state.
M: So much the simple principle of many to many causation but the way that causality conditions all things, including human suffering, joy and experience, etc.
the mind is a giant aurora borealis polar bear and its mind is a beetlewasp, and a street sweeping negroid/mongoloid gentleman, tellme it's gentle, he's gentle for what else would the mind be but gentle even in its cotton pickin toothpick dreams clouds in the gums. the gentle gentle mind that if you use a perimicrotelescope into the inner cavern of the brain you find a little piece of infinity & this is where all the colors emit from & all ideas and all funks and all buddhas and all the buddha's orgasms. the eye sees through colors and colours are an important aspect of our existence because if you could imagine an existence without color you'd hardly be imagining anything at all in terms of visual stimulation at least. colours, colours are all around us and take notice of them because you haven't in past lives and that's why you're here today eating sloppy baloney sloppy joes and spam. don't eat spam. good god this machine-fetished civilization. the heads are all mechanical in this mechanized civilization, neoheads that weren't quite the same in siddhartha guatama's day where his heads were more made out of silly putty and rice... or something like that... and uh there is a balancing point between these two stretches of mind. it's still in the tarot cards. but there's even more than machines and mechanics even though they will evolve from machines. ANYWAYS what i was going to say is that well rebirth & anatman can be coexistent as far as i know (which i'm not going to say i know is very far because i'm just a doofus and no specialist or anything) because what is the self? is anatman atman? i don't know but i'll put the dish on the table for other people to clear this up for me please. is anatman atman and what is a self and what is an unself? is zero the same as one. the infinite somersault of life i usually believe in because i think it's very reasonable, that is when we say nothing to annihilate upon death, if right now there is perception and feeling and upon death there is none, this is a view of self, because it goes *ploum* (birth) and you're living, all these senses and everything, then *woop* and you're dead and all these senses are gone too, this is self-view of annihilation i think but when i think it goes *plum* , and *plum**plum**plum*, it's just stuff all in the whole universe sphere (sunyata), and it makes different noises allll the time and there is no death because there's no birth either and rebirth is just a cyclical reorientation and then enlightenment is passing thru into the mystical maze or pleasure garden or imaginarium or i don't know what. the point being is i ( and i mean only to say i as in it's just my personal opinion and you can think whatever you'd like) believe in rebirth and i simply wonder why we should give matter precedence so muchso over mind,
No it's not. Belief in the after life for Christians is all important. Belief in rebirth is not (well, for most buddhist sects).
The focus of Buddhism should be for enlightenment, not a favourable rebirth.
S9: I don*t think that it was easier to get Enlightened or Realized in the day of Buddha, than it is now.
MS: I do
If the suttas are so unreliable that we can have reasonable doubts about whether the Buddha existed, then we can also have reasonable doubts about whether anyone attained enlightenment.
On the other hand, the number of people who attained enlightenment was not part of the Buddha's teaching, and therefore could be exaggerated without modifying either the spirit or the letter of the Buddha's teaching. Intentional falsehoods are banned, but an unintentional exaggeration would be far less serious than attributing a teaching to the Buddha (for example, rebirth) that the Buddha didn't actually teach, even if it was done unintentionally.
Another point is that, as the founder and leader of the sangha, if the Buddha announced that someone had attained enlightenment, that settled the matter. Nowadays, there is no one with that kind of authority, and people are discouraged from declaring themselves enlightened, no matter how strongly they may believe that they are. So not only are we currently unable to count the people who are enlightened, but we can't even count the people who think they are enlightened. We have no way of knowing whether more people attained enlightenment in the Buddha's time, since we have no way of counting enlightened people in our time.
S9: I get the impression that you think that transcendence means not HERE anymore, but up in the sky, or in heaven, or something. This is simply not the case.
M: No, not at all:) Though literal rebirth does mean something along those lines.
S:In this same way we can extricate ourselves from illusion without going somewhere else. So earth doesn’t JUST belong to the mundane thinker.
M: Let is remain clear of the distinction between mundane and mystical:)
S9: I do however think that there is more to be understood beyond merely being practical.
M: Absolutely!:) You misrepresent my view when you make out I think its some practical "shopping list" of practice.
To reiterate: I believe people can have rich and deep spiritual lives, as do you. We seem to differ in that I don't believe that such lives have any real, rather than illusionary, mystical aspects.
The strange thing is that my MORE is actually Less.
M:Again I agree!:) I have been saying the architectural "less is more" is a very dharmic concept for years:)
S9: I think your definition of mystical isn’t my definition.
M: How about something like: "Mystcial" of or pertaining to laws, principles and properties not of this world.
So when someone says "There is literal rebirth" I say "well OK, but don't you go trying to make sense of that relative to this universe because this universe doesn't have the laws and properties consistent with rebirth. "
S9: Mat, even Buddha said things beyond these.
M: I disagree:) I think all of Dharma is contained in the 4NT, from the Three marks to our rich experiences. You cannot see dependent origination without seeing the whole emerging/arising dharmic system. You cannot understand suffering and its cessation without understating the Buddhist mind, morality and metaphysics.
S9: They were just an outline for his later details.
M: Ok, so here is a big question for you/us: what is not in the 4NT that he explained later? I am not talking about "guides to practice" but actual dhramic principles.
S9: I would say that his friends in Deer Park where probably like so many of us today, all over the place in our understanding. But, when they depicted themselves for history, they added a little shine to the story. ; ^ )
M: I dont call adding inhuman volumes of doctrine, including doctrine that seems completely absent and maybe even contradictory "a little shine". In other religions we call it "revisionism"!:)
S9: Complex is what the mind does. Deep is outside of the mind, far more fundamental. We are not traveling to the edge of the universe and trying to understand the full extent of our mistake.
M: I don't really get your disctions or metaphores here.
S9: “The peace beyond all understanding.”
M: That is just words that removes these concepts from understaning. I just don't believe that. Why cant I just say to you "You can only understand when you have stopped understaing." It sounds deep but to me its bunkum.
S9: This is all mind stuff.
M: Its all either mind, world or majic, and the first two, dharma shows us, are interconnected at all levels.
P: i think but when i think it goes *plum* , and *plum**plum**plum*, it's just stuff.
S9: I think that the ‘stream of consciousness piece,' which you have shared with us here, is QUITE astute. Thank you.
: ^ )
At some point along the path, we will all reach this point; this impasse, which is a very good point, I might add. You are beginning to see through, even beyond the imaginations or concepts of your mind, and subtract your trust from all of her fantasies and empty promises.
: ^ )
I won’t pretend that this is an easy place to be, and...
Nothing I can say will make it any easier.
Because, if you can no longer trust your own mind, then why would you be satisfied with anything I could say to you? (It's so 2nd handed compared to personal experience.)
This feeling of 'the ground falling out from beneath your feet,' is exactly why the mind pretends and creates explanations and world views constantly…these worlds that it can make sense of, and that seem more safe, and reliable than simply "not knowing."
But as Zen might say, "Isn't it the empty cup that is finally capable of being filled?"
OR:
"If you are too full of what you think you know...where exactly is receptivity?"
Try to look behind the mind at you’re very Awareness (AKA your Buddha Nature), which is Unaffected by 'all of the mind’s playing around.' Where have you ever been that it wasn't right there with you?
As Lin Chi says, "Who is this fellow coming in, and going out, of my eyes?" "LOOK/LOOK!"
Look for the 'Unchanging One' that is not temporary, or impermanent. This is a great opportunity.
Find your "Original Face," which is previous to the mind, was never born, and will never die, and yet is Constantly Present right Here and Now.
After a while, you will be truly surprised how obvious it is, always has been. (I was!) But, you and I didn't know what we were looking right at our whole life. Right there in front of our face!
The masters have been shouting it from every roof top, in a loud voice, for centuries, and we could not here them. ; ^ )
It makes perfect sense to me that rebirth is not unlike the continuum of this life. One breath resolves into the next, moment to moment.
When the body no longer breathes, what happens?
We don't know for certain.
Why do we have the practice of p'howa, the transfer of consciousness at death? If consciousness doesn't continue why do we have this Buddhist meditation practice?
I think there are two types of answer to that question:
Nothing Happens:The brain gets starved of oxygen and energy and no longer is able to function and thus all memories, perceptions, thoughts and experiences cease then there is nonthingness?
Or
Something happens that has never been observed, cannot be explained, seems contradictory to science, impermiance and emptiness and and implies a world that logically cannot be distinguished no different from any other imaginary world of magic, heaven, ghosts, rebirth etc?
Maybe it is our very illusionary egos like to cling to the idea that there is more than this life?
I think there are two types of answer to that question:
Nothing Happens:The brain gets starved of oxygen and energy and no longer is able to function and thus all memories, perceptions, thoughts and experiences cease then there is nonthingness?
Or
Something happens that has never been observed, cannot be explained, seems contradictory to science, impermiance and emptiness and and implies a world that logically cannot be distinguished no different from any other imaginary world of magic, heaven, ghosts, rebirth etc?
Maybe it is our very illusionary egos like to cling to the idea that there is more than this life?
Why have a meditation practice designed to transfer the consciousness at death if the consciousness doesn't transfer?
It is true that the phowa practice opens the skull.
If consciousness doesn't continue why do we have this Buddhist meditation practice?
Please refer to me a sutta where the Buddha explains conciousness as existing independently without the six sense bases please? I don't mind learning something new.
We have the Buddhist meditation pratice to eliminate suffering due to delution
However, I don't know if rebirth exists or not. On a negative note: I am yet to find a sutta where he explained how rebirth happens.
On a positive note: The incidences where the Buddha was going to teach the Dhamma to a dieing man seems peculiar if there is no continuation after death. Why would he bother? The guy was dieing after all
Ok. Then we don't have much to share with one another. I am not a scholar of scripture. My teachings come from oral, symbolic and mind to mind transmission.
I always have real trouble with this idea, if consciousness is transfered, what is the difference between this and the Hindu concept of transmigration?
So this means consciousness is in reality the soul? And also consciousness passing on goes against the major concept of impermanence?
I always have real trouble with this idea, if consciousness is transfered, what is the difference between this and the Hindu concept of transmigration?
So this means consciousness is in reality the soul? And also consciousness passing on goes against the major concept of impermanence?
The teachings on the bardo thodol and the bardo are completely consistent with the buddha's teachings on impermanence and emptiness.
This is not a hindu transmigration of the soul we're talking about.
It may be complete folly on my part to discuss this topic at all.
Not quite. You seemed to be suggesting that belief in rebirth is no different to belief in a christian afterlife. I was pointing out that it is different.
If I had misunderstood you, I apologise.
I always have real trouble with this idea, if consciousness is transfered, what is the difference between this and the Hindu concept of transmigration?
So this means consciousness is in reality the soul? And also consciousness passing on goes against the major concept of impermanence?
Tony,
I really do understand your trouble here. It is very commonplace for us all. All I can share with you is the following, for whatever it is worth.
When the depth of interconnectedness of all beings is directly experienced,
When we realize no-self and emptiness,
When we realize that the only separation between me, you, and all beings is the existence of separate physical bodies and the trillions of delusional ego constructs that reveal a separate "self"
When we understand that the answer to: "what happens to our consciousness after we die?" has the same answer as: "What happens to our sense of smell when we die?" (the buddha taught six sense fields, mind being the sixth), and most importantly
When we understand that our passing does not create a separation from all beings that never was there to begin with!
Then we can then understand both the profundity and simplicity of re-birth.
I would love to hear from my wonderful brothers and sisters in dhamma if they agree with me, or if I am missing some important understanding. Many blessings to you all.
If you have no first hand knowledge of this practice why condemn it?
I condem nothing and doubt everything, as the buddha says. people are asking simple questions here and the answer " from practice" may satisfy you but that doesnt mean it will satisfy everyone:)
Incidentally, I have much first hand knowledge of practice:)
I always have real trouble with this idea, if consciousness is transfered, what is the difference between this and the Hindu concept of transmigration?
So this means consciousness is in reality the soul? And also consciousness passing on goes against the major concept of impermanence?
The Buddha has never said consciousness is transferred or transmigrated from one body to the other. If he has, I would like to see a sutta reference. Consciousness is only explained by the Buddha as arising based on the six sense bases. But "teachers" who came later have claimed to say something the Buddha didn't say in any of the original pali suttas.
And what is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.
"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said?
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye.
Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear.
Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose.
Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue.
Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body.
Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
'The six classes of consciousness should be known.'
"If anyone were to say, 'The six classes of consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the six classes of consciousness are discerned
The Blessed One asked him, "Sàti is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another?"
"Exactly so, bhante. As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another."
"What is that consciousness, Sàti?"
"Bhante, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions."
"You foolish fellow, to whom have you ever known me to teach dhamma in that way?
You foolish fellow, have I not stated in many discourses that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition consciousness does not come into being?
But you, you foolish fellow, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time."
Consciousness is not described by the Buddha as something that exists independently of the six sense bases, which leaves the body after the physical body breaks, lands on a womb or somewhere and .... Oh well, whatever. I'm off to bed
This is not a hindu transmigration of the soul we're talking about.
I think sky, if I can try to explain "from the other side":)
Many Buddhists, many on this forum, rebirth is in all relevant senses the same as reincarnation, hevaen or wandering as a ghost for eternity.
It isnt so much the details and terminology but the entire foundation that there is something after this life that people are questioning.
We humans have been seduced by this idea for far longer than the time of the Buddha, yet there remains simply no reason to believe it, other than that others tell us too, its engrained in our culture and it is a very comforting idea to believe.
It is pointless trying to convince anyone of any of these mystical ideas using reason and reference to other's opinions (eg, the suttras, the news, school...) because people who don't believe in such things do so for reasons.
If you meet anyone who says "there is no heaven, of this I am certain" then you can bet they are not saying that out of idle provocation but because that is a very hard-line position. Most people enjoy the comfort of agnosticism:)
These hard-core nonbelivers have to admit that they can never be sure but they are fine with the fact that it is much much much more likley that these short fragile lives of ours are flukes of nature, like galaxies and love, than that they are part of some bigger, more important, schema, like Samsara or Heaven.
I think this is a point often overlooked and I imagine if it becomes understood on this forum we will be much less likely to argue and get all dukka:)
There is nothing wrong with faith in the mystical but as Buddhists we have to admit there is something wrong in thinking something is not as it is.
Much metta,
Mat
It may be complete folly on my part to discuss this topic at all.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if anyone can help me with finding samvattanika viññana (ever evolving consciousness) or viññana sotam (stream of consciousness) <REF>in the suttas, if it's there at all? I read on the internet that this was a later developement.
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.4 (Linux)"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style> It's strange because to me this “interconnectedness” points not to rebirth (in the reincarnation of conciousness sense) but to no rebirth, there's nothing to be reborn in that sense. It's something much large and more complex, but far more simple. I can't quite grasp it, I think that what's enlightenment might be.
It seems as MatSalted and Deshy point out the that later people tried to link the concept of rebirth with what Buddha taught. As someone from a Christian background it reminds me of how the early church tried to link the concept of a single God with Jesus being God incarnate. Mashing greek ideas to Jewish ones.
It's strange because to me this “interconnectedness” points not to rebirth (in the reincarnation of conciousness sense) but to no rebirth, there's nothing to be reborn in that sense.
Yes, me too:) There seems to be no place to pin an answer as to "what gets reborn" if you accept annica and anataman:)
It seems as MatSalted and Deshy point out the that later people tried to link the concept of rebirth with what Buddha taught. As someone from a Christian background it reminds me of how the early church tried to link the concept of a single God with Jesus being God incarnate. Mashing greek ideas to Jewish ones.
Yes:) Why should Buddhism be differnt from any religin when it comes to its ability to be influenced by other forces:)
...<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> &nbs</style>there's nothing to be reborn
Correct, but with a caveat. There was nothing separate to begin with, aside from those vehicles of ego operation which creates the experience of separateness.
What some like MatSalted appear to be suggesting the way I read him, is that none of the products of our ego are substantive or permanent enough to transmigrate into some new being.
Of course I would absolutely agree with him there. This is why the answer to the question "what happens to 'me' after I die" (referring to conscious mind operation) is the same answer to the question "what happens to my other five senses, like smell, taste, etc. after I die." The answer to that is...they were always impermanent, localized phenomenon.
I wonder if anyone can help me with finding samvattanika vinnana (ever evolving consciousness) or vinnana sotam (stream of consciousness) <REF>in the suttas, if it's there at all? I read on the internet that this was a later developement.
Vinnana-sota is in DN 28. It's is a rare term in the suttas and if it appears anywhere else, I'm not aware of it. Perhaps one of the resident sutta experts knows of another occurance.
The Digha Nikaya corresponds closely to the Dharmagupta Dirgha Agama, so the Digha is presumably mostly older material. However, there are four suttas in the Pali that aren't found in the Chinese. I don't know which four they are. If DN 28 is one of them, then it is probably more recent than the rest of the Nikaya. If it DN 28 has a corresponding sutra in the Chinese, then it is probably old, but the reference to vinnana-sota could still be a later interpolation.
Where did you see the claim that vinnana-sota is a later development?
What some like MatSalted appear to be suggesting the way I read him, is that none of the products of our ego are substantive or permanent enough to transmigrate into some new being.
The ego is illusion.
The ego is the very realisation of mental events in the moment.
The illusionary ego projected into imaginary situations. (The imaginary past, future, the thoughts of others or thoughts of self.)
Comments
Buddhism teaches not-self. If we think we are annihilating something then we have accepted the existence of a self in the first place. What is it that we are annihilating?? Buddhism is not nihilism because there is no self to annihilate in the first place.
Please read the BrahmaJala sutta. I couldn't find an online resource though.
I'm glad views on rebirth are not a factor of the path.
The sutta reference is great!
Agree but because the delusion of a permanent self is very real for many, even people who see it as delusion without the chance of eternalise in rebirth / reincarnation it’s very easy to become filled with “what’s the point”. For me the acceptance of no-self often leads to the feeling of nihilism. I intellectually understand the gist of the philosophy but depending on my mental state it either makes me feel wonderful or filled with a deep dispare.
M: Show me why Enligtenment is so hidden in the depths of lifelong practice today when it wasn’t in the time of the Buddha.
S9: I don’t think that it was easier to get Enlightened or Realized in the day of Buddha, than it is now.
I also don’t think that a person who isn’t 100% Enlightened, themselves, is in a position to make the claim to understand that it IS easy. All that you can say with any integrity is, “This is what I know…so far. : ^ )
I have heard some very wise and fully Realized types say that, “Although Enlightenment is simple, it is not easy.”
Why is that?
This emptying out of our habitual illusion, which we ‘so dearly love,’ is a real bear. Our minds continue to cling tenaciously to the familiar, and fear the unknown, almost as though survival itself depended upon it. Ego’s self does depend upon it.
I think this is also why we cling to the notion of rebirth and/or reincarnation, because we 'so dearly love' this ‘no-self,’ which we also claim wanting to be rid of.
Working like this, in opposite directions, pushing and pulling makes good taffy, but can only prove to bring tension and anxiety at best. Fruit from such a plant could only be called dissatisfaction.
Warm Regards,
S9
I get what you are saying. But, if you do good deeds and follow the practice in the hope of a better life after death then religions like Christianity preach the same things isn't it? Why do you meditate at all?
I don't know for sure if rebirth exists or not. All I know is that it's clearly not mentioned in the DO. If rightly cultivated, the DO is a doctrine which can be used to reap the results here and now. I have tried it in a very basic level and still it works. Imagine cultivating it more...
Why believe in another life when you can find the freedom from dukkha in this very life? So, what we can do is, forget about rebirth and follow the practice here and now. The rest will take care of itself.
S9: I don’t think that doing good deeds automatically means that you can’t also meditate. Especially if you believe that, meditation puts you mentally in a good place for doing such good deeds or metta.
S9: Receiving good results here and now doesn’t mean that you cannot also get good results later, as well. Now, does it. ; ^ )
S9: Perhaps for the same reason that you hope that your release from Dukka doesn’t only last for one day, or just a minute. BAM, that sure was good, but awfully short. ; ^ )
If something is good, more of has to be better still. For this very reason, it is really easy for me to suspect that reincarnation could be ‘wishful thinking.’
Not to mention a second wish fulfilled, “If at first you don’t succeed, you can try/try again.” Reincarnation is a 2/4.
S9: Hey, thanks for that…a third wish fulfilled. ; ^ ) Can't lose.
Friendly Regards,
S9
No it's not. Belief in the after life for Christians is all important. Belief in rebirth is not (well, for most buddhist sects).
The focus of Buddhism should be for enlightenment, not a favourable rebirth. I am, however, aware that this was used, in the past, by some Buddhist schools, possibly to gain converts.
This is very good advice.
Nios.
T: I intellectually understand the gist of the philosophy but depending on my mental state it either makes me feel wonderful or filled with a deep despair.
S9: That is a good reason not to ‘shallow anything whole.’ But to move along at your own pace, with each step representing your OWN understanding.
Buddha’s words were like a map, directing you to where you must look in order to find these things out for yourself. Just like he did before you.
You cannot live in a map. It will prove to be insubstantial. Truth is lived, not just accumulated as words and notions.
Peace is a skill,
S9
S9: I don’t think that it was easier to get Enlightened or Realized in the day of Buddha, than it is now.
I do:)
I think enlightenment is more mundane than mystical:)
I don't think enlightenment is easy, mainly because the understanding dependent origination isn't that easy.
mat
M: I think enlightenment is more mundane than mystical.
S9: I take it that by mundane, you mean a very practical set of rules, 8 isn’t it? Do this and you will get that, sort of one to one, or is it 8 to 8? ; ^ )
I can easily understand that. So why don’t we just get that list from you, right now, and do it, ‘a done deal?’
And:
Why did it take so many doggone sutras to say it, any old way? ; ^ )
M: I don't think enlightenment is easy, mainly because the understanding dependent origination isn't that easy.
S9: Why not? It seems pretty obvious to me?
I’m thinking that it goes more like this:
The practical part of Buddhism (not even touching the mystical part) is difficult because saying it and even understanding it is a whole lot easier than actually living it.
Living it doesn’t just take a strong will to imitate what should be done, and doing it, it takes Becoming It to such a degree that; you actually live from it spontaneously. You are not following Buddha’s words meticulously. You actually are a Buddha.
So when Mat becomes Realized, he won’t be the an all new/new, in every way a better Mat. There won’t be any Mat, no how, no way, anymore. (S9 begins to cry at this great loss.) No, surprised…I am very happy for 'not-Mat.' ; ^ )
This is a metamorphosis, a little like a butterfly is not REALLY a crawly caterpillar any more. It flies free.
Friendly Regards,
S9
M: Mundane: "of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven."
This doesn't mean it is valueless, or trivial, or unprofound, or shallow, It means that it isn't conceptually exotic or mystical.
We can all agree enlightenment , whatver it is, is "deep" but that doesnt mean it isn't mundane:)
For example, I am a spiritual person, but that spirit is emergent not mysticial.
You mean a list other than the four noble truths?
S9:Why did it take so many doggone sutras to say it, any old way?
I cant answer that, nobody can. But I agree it's a huge mystery about Buddhism.
How did the genius of the Budda, that was so clearly realised to his friends in the deerpark, become a corpus of 10,000+ suttras that takes countless lives to master?
It beffudles me still.
(M: I don't think enlightenment is easy, mainly because the understanding
dependent origination isn't that easy.)
S9: Why not? It seems pretty obvious to me?
It is obvious when you see it, perhaps. But even so it is deep and complex, no so much the simple principle of many to many causation but the way that causality conditions all things, including human suffering, joy and experience etc.
Mat
I hope MatSalted is reading this one. This is what I was attempting to communicate, at least in part. Sky Dancer is more concise than I am!
M: Mundane: "of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven."
S9: I get the impression that you think that transcendence means not HERE anymore, but up in the sky, or in heaven, or something. This is simply not the case.
Look at it this way. If you transcend a mistake, you don’t have to travel to Paris to do that. You can stay right where you are, without moving in place or in time, and simply extricate yourself from the mistake.
In this same way we can extricate ourselves from illusion without going somewhere else. So earth doesn’t JUST belong to the mundane thinker.
M: This doesn't mean it is valueless, or trivial, or unprofound, or shallow, It means that it isn't conceptually exotic or mystical.
S9: Woo, I never said such disrespectful things to you. ; ^ ) I do however think that there is more to be understood beyond merely being practical.
The strange thing is that my MORE is actually Less. A good deal of what the mind holds onto and tries to understand is excess baggage.
M: We can all agree Enlightenment, whatever it is, is "deep" but that doesn’t mean it isn't mundane.
S9: Yes, Enlightenment is “deep” and profound, but certainly not because of its complexity. The mind is the complex guy. ; ^ ) My God, are we agreeing? ; ^ )
M: For example, I am a spiritual person, but that spirit is emergent not mystical.
S9: I think your definition of mystical isn’t my definition.
RE: S9: So why don’t we just get that list from you, right now, and do it, ‘a done deal?’
M: You mean a list other than the four noble truths?
S9: Mat, even Buddha said things beyond these. They were just an outline for his later details. He knew that it took some explaining for other to understand him. Simple doesn’t mean concentrate the message and stubbornly refuse to explain.
Of course, the big problem comes in when people don’t understand the message, and the explanations are all over the place.
M: How did the genius of the Buddha, that was so clearly realized to his friends in the Deer Park, become a corpus of 10,000+ suttras that takes countless lives to master?
S9: I would say that his friends in Deer Park where probably like so many of us today, all over the place in our understanding. But, when they depicted themselves for history, they added a little shine to the story. ; ^ ) Let me just add that total understanding of Buddha’s message isn’t a property of the mind.
M: It is obvious when you see it, perhaps.
S9: But, do we see it with the mind’s eye?
M: Even so it is deep and complex.
S9: Complex is what the mind does. Deep is outside of the mind, far more fundamental. We are not traveling to the edge of the universe and trying to understand the full extent of our mistake. We simply have to turn around and return home, back to the place before we created this huge illusion. This, my friend, is the PEACE that we are seeking. “The peace beyond all understanding.” : ^ )
That is why meditation is such a blessing. Because we simply stop weaving mind world, and relax outside of mind thought. That is why it is refreshing, because it is our natural state.
M: So much the simple principle of many to many causation but the way that causality conditions all things, including human suffering, joy and experience, etc.
S9: This is all mind stuff.
Warm Regards,
S9
Which is exactly what I am saying you know
On the other hand, the number of people who attained enlightenment was not part of the Buddha's teaching, and therefore could be exaggerated without modifying either the spirit or the letter of the Buddha's teaching. Intentional falsehoods are banned, but an unintentional exaggeration would be far less serious than attributing a teaching to the Buddha (for example, rebirth) that the Buddha didn't actually teach, even if it was done unintentionally.
Another point is that, as the founder and leader of the sangha, if the Buddha announced that someone had attained enlightenment, that settled the matter. Nowadays, there is no one with that kind of authority, and people are discouraged from declaring themselves enlightened, no matter how strongly they may believe that they are. So not only are we currently unable to count the people who are enlightened, but we can't even count the people who think they are enlightened. We have no way of knowing whether more people attained enlightenment in the Buddha's time, since we have no way of counting enlightened people in our time.
M: No, not at all:) Though literal rebirth does mean something along those lines.
S:In this same way we can extricate ourselves from illusion without going somewhere else. So earth doesn’t JUST belong to the mundane thinker.
M: Let is remain clear of the distinction between mundane and mystical:)
S9: I do however think that there is more to be understood beyond merely being practical.
M: Absolutely!:) You misrepresent my view when you make out I think its some practical "shopping list" of practice.
To reiterate: I believe people can have rich and deep spiritual lives, as do you. We seem to differ in that I don't believe that such lives have any real, rather than illusionary, mystical aspects.
M:Again I agree!:) I have been saying the architectural "less is more" is a very dharmic concept for years:)
S9: I think your definition of mystical isn’t my definition.
M: How about something like: "Mystcial" of or pertaining to laws, principles and properties not of this world.
So when someone says "There is literal rebirth" I say "well OK, but don't you go trying to make sense of that relative to this universe because this universe doesn't have the laws and properties consistent with rebirth. "
S9: Mat, even Buddha said things beyond these.
M: I disagree:) I think all of Dharma is contained in the 4NT, from the Three marks to our rich experiences. You cannot see dependent origination without seeing the whole emerging/arising dharmic system. You cannot understand suffering and its cessation without understating the Buddhist mind, morality and metaphysics.
S9: They were just an outline for his later details.
M: Ok, so here is a big question for you/us: what is not in the 4NT that he explained later? I am not talking about "guides to practice" but actual dhramic principles.
S9: I would say that his friends in Deer Park where probably like so many of us today, all over the place in our understanding. But, when they depicted themselves for history, they added a little shine to the story. ; ^ )
M: I dont call adding inhuman volumes of doctrine, including doctrine that seems completely absent and maybe even contradictory "a little shine". In other religions we call it "revisionism"!:)
S9: Complex is what the mind does. Deep is outside of the mind, far more fundamental. We are not traveling to the edge of the universe and trying to understand the full extent of our mistake.
M: I don't really get your disctions or metaphores here.
S9: “The peace beyond all understanding.”
M: That is just words that removes these concepts from understaning. I just don't believe that. Why cant I just say to you "You can only understand when you have stopped understaing." It sounds deep but to me its bunkum.
S9: This is all mind stuff.
M: Its all either mind, world or majic, and the first two, dharma shows us, are interconnected at all levels.
Much metta:)
Mat
PS I much prefer your way of quoting/chatting
But dependent origination describes a cycle of birth and death.
P
P: i think but when i think it goes *plum* , and *plum**plum**plum*, it's just stuff.
S9: I think that the ‘stream of consciousness piece,' which you have shared with us here, is QUITE astute. Thank you.
: ^ )
At some point along the path, we will all reach this point; this impasse, which is a very good point, I might add. You are beginning to see through, even beyond the imaginations or concepts of your mind, and subtract your trust from all of her fantasies and empty promises.
: ^ )
I won’t pretend that this is an easy place to be, and...
Nothing I can say will make it any easier.
Because, if you can no longer trust your own mind, then why would you be satisfied with anything I could say to you? (It's so 2nd handed compared to personal experience.)
This feeling of 'the ground falling out from beneath your feet,' is exactly why the mind pretends and creates explanations and world views constantly…these worlds that it can make sense of, and that seem more safe, and reliable than simply "not knowing."
But as Zen might say, "Isn't it the empty cup that is finally capable of being filled?"
OR:
"If you are too full of what you think you know...where exactly is receptivity?"
Try to look behind the mind at you’re very Awareness (AKA your Buddha Nature), which is Unaffected by 'all of the mind’s playing around.' Where have you ever been that it wasn't right there with you?
As Lin Chi says, "Who is this fellow coming in, and going out, of my eyes?" "LOOK/LOOK!"
Look for the 'Unchanging One' that is not temporary, or impermanent. This is a great opportunity.
Find your "Original Face," which is previous to the mind, was never born, and will never die, and yet is Constantly Present right Here and Now.
After a while, you will be truly surprised how obvious it is, always has been. (I was!) But, you and I didn't know what we were looking right at our whole life. Right there in front of our face!
The masters have been shouting it from every roof top, in a loud voice, for centuries, and we could not here them. ; ^ )
Happy trails,
S9
When the body no longer breathes, what happens?
We don't know for certain.
Why do we have the practice of p'howa, the transfer of consciousness at death? If consciousness doesn't continue why do we have this Buddhist meditation practice?
I think there are two types of answer to that question:
Nothing Happens:The brain gets starved of oxygen and energy and no longer is able to function and thus all memories, perceptions, thoughts and experiences cease then there is nonthingness?
Or
Something happens that has never been observed, cannot be explained, seems contradictory to science, impermiance and emptiness and and implies a world that logically cannot be distinguished no different from any other imaginary world of magic, heaven, ghosts, rebirth etc?
Maybe it is our very illusionary egos like to cling to the idea that there is more than this life?
It is true that the phowa practice opens the skull.
Why have holy communion if there is no holy? We all believe and practice things that may not have wise reasons behind them:)
That birth and death is the birth and death of the ego. Did you at least read the link I posted?
Please refer to me a sutta where the Buddha explains conciousness as existing independently without the six sense bases please? I don't mind learning something new.
We have the Buddhist meditation pratice to eliminate suffering due to delution
If you have no first hand knowledge of this practice why condemn it?
On a positive note: The incidences where the Buddha was going to teach the Dhamma to a dieing man seems peculiar if there is no continuation after death. Why would he bother? The guy was dieing after all
Ok. Then we don't have much to share with one another. I am not a scholar of scripture. My teachings come from oral, symbolic and mind to mind transmission.
How did you find this out?
From listening to the teachings I've received, (from my teachers*), from contemplating the teachings and meditating.
*in the lineage of Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche
So this means consciousness is in reality the soul? And also consciousness passing on goes against the major concept of impermanence?
The teachings on the bardo thodol and the bardo are completely consistent with the buddha's teachings on impermanence and emptiness.
This is not a hindu transmigration of the soul we're talking about.
It may be complete folly on my part to discuss this topic at all.
Not quite. You seemed to be suggesting that belief in rebirth is no different to belief in a christian afterlife. I was pointing out that it is different.
If I had misunderstood you, I apologise.
Nios.
Tony,
I really do understand your trouble here. It is very commonplace for us all. All I can share with you is the following, for whatever it is worth.
Then we can then understand both the profundity and simplicity of re-birth.
I would love to hear from my wonderful brothers and sisters in dhamma if they agree with me, or if I am missing some important understanding. Many blessings to you all.
I condem nothing and doubt everything, as the buddha says. people are asking simple questions here and the answer " from practice" may satisfy you but that doesnt mean it will satisfy everyone:)
Incidentally, I have much first hand knowledge of practice:)
The Buddha has never said consciousness is transferred or transmigrated from one body to the other. If he has, I would like to see a sutta reference. Consciousness is only explained by the Buddha as arising based on the six sense bases. But "teachers" who came later have claimed to say something the Buddha didn't say in any of the original pali suttas.
Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View
Chachakka Sutta: The Six Sextets
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
I think sky, if I can try to explain "from the other side":)
Many Buddhists, many on this forum, rebirth is in all relevant senses the same as reincarnation, hevaen or wandering as a ghost for eternity.
It isnt so much the details and terminology but the entire foundation that there is something after this life that people are questioning.
We humans have been seduced by this idea for far longer than the time of the Buddha, yet there remains simply no reason to believe it, other than that others tell us too, its engrained in our culture and it is a very comforting idea to believe.
It is pointless trying to convince anyone of any of these mystical ideas using reason and reference to other's opinions (eg, the suttras, the news, school...) because people who don't believe in such things do so for reasons.
If you meet anyone who says "there is no heaven, of this I am certain" then you can bet they are not saying that out of idle provocation but because that is a very hard-line position. Most people enjoy the comfort of agnosticism:)
These hard-core nonbelivers have to admit that they can never be sure but they are fine with the fact that it is much much much more likley that these short fragile lives of ours are flukes of nature, like galaxies and love, than that they are part of some bigger, more important, schema, like Samsara or Heaven.
I think this is a point often overlooked and I imagine if it becomes understood on this forum we will be much less likely to argue and get all dukka:)
There is nothing wrong with faith in the mystical but as Buddhists we have to admit there is something wrong in thinking something is not as it is.
Much metta,
Mat
It may be complete folly on my part to discuss this topic at all.[/QUOTE]
Nios.
It seems as MatSalted and Deshy point out the that later people tried to link the concept of rebirth with what Buddha taught. As someone from a Christian background it reminds me of how the early church tried to link the concept of a single God with Jesus being God incarnate. Mashing greek ideas to Jewish ones.
Yes, me too:) There seems to be no place to pin an answer as to "what gets reborn" if you accept annica and anataman:)
Yes:) Why should Buddhism be differnt from any religin when it comes to its ability to be influenced by other forces:)
Mat
Correct, but with a caveat. There was nothing separate to begin with, aside from those vehicles of ego operation which creates the experience of separateness.
What some like MatSalted appear to be suggesting the way I read him, is that none of the products of our ego are substantive or permanent enough to transmigrate into some new being.
Of course I would absolutely agree with him there. This is why the answer to the question "what happens to 'me' after I die" (referring to conscious mind operation) is the same answer to the question "what happens to my other five senses, like smell, taste, etc. after I die." The answer to that is...they were always impermanent, localized phenomenon.
The Digha Nikaya corresponds closely to the Dharmagupta Dirgha Agama, so the Digha is presumably mostly older material. However, there are four suttas in the Pali that aren't found in the Chinese. I don't know which four they are. If DN 28 is one of them, then it is probably more recent than the rest of the Nikaya. If it DN 28 has a corresponding sutra in the Chinese, then it is probably old, but the reference to vinnana-sota could still be a later interpolation.
Where did you see the claim that vinnana-sota is a later development?
The ego is illusion.
The ego is the very realisation of mental events in the moment.
The illusionary ego projected into imaginary situations. (The imaginary past, future, the thoughts of others or thoughts of self.)
It is the perspective of arising of experience.
Nothing more.
There is nothing to be reborn.
There is no thinker, only thoughts.
Mind is empty.
All is interconnected.
There is no thing to be reborn.