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.
Many Buddhists, many on this forum, rebirth is in all relevant senses the same as reincarnation, hevaen or wandering as a ghost for eternity.
Matt, this is only remotely true for Vajrayana, and even then your words about their teaching on reincarnation come across as rather reductionist.
Take care not to wrestle with straw men like this. There are several statements made throughout your post here, where you make generalized assumptions about what others are claiming, and then you tear down those very same assumptions that you yourself conjured. It might behoove you to go back through this post carefully and notice just how many times you are arguing with yourself, because it is quite a lot.
The question "What is reborn?" comes up in almost every 'debate' concerning literal rebirth. Walpola Rahula, in his book "What the Buddha Taught" answers this question as follows:
Now, another question arises: If there is no permanent, unchanging entity or substance like Self or Soul (atta/atman), what is that can re-exist or be born after death? First, let us consider what this life is, and how it continues now. What we call life is the combination of the Five Aggregates, a combination of physical and mental energies. These are constantly changing; they do not remain the same for two consecutive moments. Every moment they they are born and they die. When the Aggregates arise, decay and die, every moment we are born, decay and die. Thus, even now during this life, every moment we are born and we die, but we continue. If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body? When this physical body is no more capable of functioning , energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life.
As there is no permanent, unchanging substance, nothing passes from one moment to the next. So quite obviously, nothing permanent or unchanging can pass or transmigrate from one life to the next. It is a series that continues unbroken, but changes every moment. The series is, really speaking, nothing but movement. It is like a flame that burns through the night: it is not the same flame nor is it another. A child grows up to be a man of sixty. Certainly the man of sixty is not the same as the child of sixty years ago, nor is he another person. Similarly, a man dies here and reborn elsewhere is neither the same person, nor another. It is the continuity of the same series. The difference between death and birth is only a thought-moment: the last thought-moment of this life conditions the first thought-moment in the so-called next life, which in fact, is the continuity of the same series. During the life itself, too, one thought-moment conditions the next thought-moment. So. From the Buddhist point of view, the question of life after death is not a great mystery, and a Buddhist is never worried about this problem. As long as there is this 'thirst' to be and become, the cycle of continuity (samsara) goes on. It can stop only when its driving force, this 'thirst', is cut off through wisdom which sees Reality, Truth, Nibbana.
I post this not as "proof" that literal rebirth is a reality of sorts; but to show that the belief or confidence in literal rebirth does not necessarily mean that there must be a permanent, unchanging Self or Soul or Ego or Consciousness for continued existence.
The question "What is reborn?" comes up in almost every 'debate' concerning literal rebirth. Walpola Rahula, in his book "What the Buddha Taught" answers this question as follows:
Enjoy!
Thanks for the post:) WTBT was the book more than any other that god me into Buddhism, I have read it many times, and know the above passage well:)
The trouble is that such attempts explinaintions come from the position that the Buddha:
A: Belived in Rebirth
B: Taught Rebirth
I think it is entirely consistent with Dharma that A and B are not the case and that theory is one I more and more become compelled to believe.
I am not at all asking you or anyone to believe what I believe but rather to understanding that there are questions which arise when one steps away from the attitude "Of course the Buddha believed in rebirth."
When we are in this more pure starting point we can ask questions like:
Is there any sense in which any aspect of mind exists after death?
If there is, what is that sense?
How does it connect with one's experience of now?
How does it connect to the world outside of mind?
I respect your views regarding literal rebirth. My post was intended for those who insist that there can be no continued existence after death solely for the reason that there does not exist a permanent, unchanging Self or Soul or Ego or Consciousness.
I respect your views regarding literal rebirth. My post was intended for those who insist that there can be no continued existence after death solely for the reason that there does not exist a permanent, unchanging Self or Soul or Ego or Consciousness.
A line is made up of consecutive points. Those points are designated by coordinates but the points themselves are of zero length width and depth.
Each point is an example of not-self. The identity to the point is merely a mental label (x=1, y=2) and it only has reference relative to an origin of the system.
In terms of the universe there is NO ORIGIN. Even the coordinates are only relative statements. The coordinates of one mentally labeled point relative to another mentally labeled point.
But then don't we see a line? Even though at no point is there a self (point) still we see a line.
Similarly even though a being at no point is a self still we experience a lifespan.
I think the root of your problem is that you believe that mind in buddhism refers to an organic life form. That is only sems. It is not rigpa. In zen terms it is little mind and not big mind. I am not sure if this distinction is made in this way (clear to me at least) in the Pali Canon so you might want to look for it there. Or else broaden your reading.
RE: 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.
S9: Won’t you admit that a good deal of what you think you know is 2nd hand knowledge, like science or even the sutras? You have no personal experience of death, do you?
I have known many people who had a near death experience, and often these are people, which the machines have declared to be dead for a number of minutes (no, not enough so that brain damage would explain it)
; ^ )
Many of these people describe being aware beyond the body and have memories similar to those who have witness a jhana outside of thought...profound peace. Now I won’t go so far as to declare this proves rebirth because I don’t believe that it does. But it certainly points to an Awareness that is neither imprisoned within the body or its brain, wouldn’t you say?
M: Let is remain clear of the distinction between mundane and mystical.
S9: Many people declare mystical to mean anything they themselves have not witnessed, Yet…
And:
Then these same people go on to believe that there is a Paris in France, even though they themselves have not personally witnessed this to be true.
This, my e-friend, comes right back to picking and choosing what you WILL believe, simply because it fits your personal paradigm. Next they declare their own personal ideas to be rational, in order to give them more weight.
: ^ (.
I consider Mysticism to mean personally witnessing what is beyond the mind…Personal being the ‘operative’ word.
RE: 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.
S9: If you change the 8 fold path into instructions about ethics and how to live, how could I not see it as a practical list about material life?
M: 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.
S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
; ^ )
I am not trying to misrepresent you if I have not been made to understand your points…that would take intension to do so.
We agree that the Buddha taught no-self. There is nothing to be re-born. However, because all things are impermanent and interconnected, there is also no separation either. Going outside of my Theravada emphasis for a second, consider the Zen koan "show me your original face before your mother and father were born."
This koan has always been a very beautiful and creative way to teach re-birth. You claim that the Buddha did not "believe" in re-birth, and I think the wrong words are being used, because of course he did not "believe in re-birth."
The Buddha taught about those things he experienced directly and came to realize through his awakening. One of the very first things he taught his followers was to quit grasping onto beliefs.
The identity to the point is merely a mental label (x=1, y=2) and it only has reference relative to an origin of the system.
I am afraid not, a line is logical points, all lines are at least logical lines:)
EG:
ABCDE
B is between A and C there for it is not between C and E.
ad maybe infinitum? I don't know.
In terms of the universe there is NO ORIGIN.
That may be true, or not, but that isn't the question or domain at hand. We are talking about rebirth, ie, systems connected to this little part of the universe closely.
Even the coordinates are only relative statements.
I dont think so, same point as above. We can pic out any point logically by the application of idenity, differnce, structure etc.
The coordinates of one mentally labeled point relative to another mentally labeled point.
Please think very hard about this: there is a difference between the coordinate and the label of the coordinate.
If you dont see that I fear we face very differnt ways:)
But then don't we see a line?
That depends. I can easily imagine lines that nobody can ever see. I can imagine a universe made of lines, or just a line, without ever any sentience:)
But the point is not pertient to this, I think. Again the differnce between being seen and simply being:)
Even though at no point is there a self (point) still we see a line.
Similarly even though a being at no point is a self still we experience a lifespan.
I don't believe you can legitimately use "Similarly" like that. You are proposing a radically different universe to what evidence suggests and so you cannot just Create an abstract example and then equate that as to being similar enough to this immense philosophical question as to be a solution.
I think the root of your problem is that you believe that mind in buddhism refers to an organic life form.
I think the root of your problem is that you believe that Buddha certainly taught rebirth. I am glad we can talk about our problems.
In zen terms it is little mind and not big mind. I am not sure if this distinction is made in this way (clear to me at least) in the Pali Canon so you might want to look for it there. Or else broaden your reading.
If it cant be explained to me but a living human in plane text, then I certainly wont be interested reading more about it:) Equally for ware-wolves and homeopathy.
S9: Won’t you admit that a good deal of what you think you know is 2nd hand knowledge, like science or even the sutras?
M: As said, I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this:)
Many of these people describe being aware beyond the body and have memories similar to those who have witness a jhana outside of thought...profound peace. Now I won’t go so far as to declare this proves rebirth because I don’t believe that it does. But it certainly points to an Awareness that is neither imprisoned within the body or its brain, wouldn’t you say?
NDE accounts are very mysterious and for sure cant be explained. I think we should be extra skeptcial about them:) I am not prepared to speculate on them as evidence.
S9: If you change the 8 fold path into instructions about ethics and how to live, how could I not see it as a practical list about material life?
I am fine with the eightfold path as they are with their interrelated moral, mental and philosophical directions and the spiritual dimension that emmerges from that:)
S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
M: As above:) Spiritual is like love, it is the most abstract of the phemomenon we are subject to, apart from perhaps emptiness:)
Love isnt mystical to me, n are my spiritual experinces:)
Tibetan buddhism is plainly explained. It is very logical. Read some nagarjuna..
The origin I spoke of is not God. I meant the point x=0, y=0; in math that is called the origin. x=1, y=2 only has a meaning relative to the origin. In actual MIND there is no origin. There is no point of reference. That is why the ultimate nature of the mind is neither changing or unchanging. In order to have change you need a reference point to measure that change against. But there is no reference point which is meaningful in and of itself.
Mat I think it would be useful for you to think of the mystical elements of buddhism as a 'map'. You cannot test these elements in and of themselves. For example if my map says that there is a cafe 5 blocks from mainstreet you can not hold up the map and say "I can't the taste the coffee on the map". Its a map and not the actual direct experience. This is why there is not double blind data proving mystical things.
If you find the mystical teachings of buddhism not relevant to your experience then don't worry about them. But you needn't be upset that there is a map. That would be like your in London and your upset that the map of France does not correspond to your experience.
I know a guy who's a dharma name given by the lama that means "he who doesn't mistake the map for reality"
In order to have change you need a reference point to measure that change against. But there is no reference point which is meaningful in and of itself.
Meaning comes out of the points it is not in the points,
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this
S9: You put forth that you understand the Dharma completely, and expect that I should just take this as a fact.
And yet:
It seems to me that you keep what you DO believe the Dharma to be, in any real detail, very vague, by holding your cards very close to your chest, and only refer to it in a very off-handed manner.
You might say that you believe in, and understand the 8 Fold Path, and contend that you build upon that understanding. But you never seem to say what the 8 Fold Path says to you in any real detail, or what you actually build upon it. You only keep saying that it is TRUE, and that YOU know that truth, assuming frequently that I and others do not.
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles, from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this.
S9: We mustn’t pretend that we can take ourself out of the equation, when you look directly at the Dharma, and that it will not be colored by your personal opinions. No one can do this. If we think that we can, we are only fooling ourselves.
We cannot be that pure of our ego stories, until you are 100% Enlightened. Just saying that we can, would simply betray our personal pride, and a lack of insight into the human condition. : ^ (
M: I am fine with the eightfold path as they are with their interrelated moral, mental and philosophical directions and the spiritual dimension that immerges from that.
S9: The 8 Fold Path is extremely basic. Most of what immerges from it are connotations and extrapolations. This is exactly where the fun begins, because everyone sees their own interpretation, connotation, and extrapolation. The many Buddhist traditions, and conversations on this forum, will attest to that fact.
Even the many sutras seem to contradict each other. Yet, most everyone here believes in his heart of hearts, that what he is seeing is the correct interpretation. So no one can legitimately claim that they are the one, which the 8 Fold Path backs up, and keep a straight face, now can they? ; ^ )
RE: S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
M: As above Spiritual is like love, it is the most abstract of the phenomenon we are subject to, apart from perhaps emptiness Love isn’t mystical to me, nor are my spiritual experiences.
S9: Once again, I don’t believe that you have answered my question, or that your answer is so altogether vague that it feels that way to me.
By your own admission you find the spiritual abstract. So what are these spiritual experiences that you are having that are not?
When sharing with someone, that person that you are sharing with needs to feel that they have received something from you. If this doesn’t take place, than nothing is actually happening.
There exists within the Buddhist scriptures adequate subject matter to both support and reject the notion of rebirth. My personal favorite discourse is the following (which I summarize to a shorter version, but a link to the full Sutta is at the bottom):
I refer to it as the parable of the poison arrow
The Buddha was sitting in the park when his disciple Malunkyaputta approached him. Malunkyaputta had recently retired from the world and he was concerned that so many things remained unexplained by the Buddha. Was the world eternal or not eternal? Was the soul different from the body? Did the enlightened exist after death or not? He thought, 'If the Buddha does not explain these things to me, I will give up this training and return to worldly life'.
Thus, he approached the Buddha with this question, who replied:
“Suppose, Maunkyaputa, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was long bow or crossbow; whether the arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.
All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: “I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether an awakened one ceases to exist after death or not,” that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not, Malunkyaputta, there is still birth, old age, death, grief, suffering, sorrow and despair - and these can be destroyed in this life! I have not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are not conducive to tranquility and Nirvana. What I have explained is suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful, leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge."
Thus spoke the Buddha, and with joy Malunkyaputta applauded his words.
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this
S9: You put forth that you understand the Dharma completely
M: If Dharma is the mundane system of universal truth that I think it is then I understand it, I believe. As I am sure do most Buddhists who understand the 4NT.
If by "complete" you mean every aspect, point and connection within the dharmic system then no, I dont think my understanding is complete. Equally for practice, there is much I dont know.
An Analogy For You
I understand the Solar system. How it works, how it is ordered, what it is, how it effects us etc etc I can explain it to others, use it in my thoughts and so on. I am by no means an astronomer and even if I was I wouldn't expect to know everything about it.
This is how I see it with Dharma. I do not know it all, I never ever claim I am an expert, but I do know what it is.
I am not here to explain to you how good I am at Dharma:)
In this essay "What is Dharma?" I explain my take on dharma.
In other essays on the same site, and the videos, I explain it in other ways.
If you think I have made a mistake then I will be glad to have that pointed out.
S9:It seems to me that you keep what you DO believe the Dharma to be, in any real detail, very vague, by holding your cards very close to your chest, and only refer to it in a very off-handed manner.
M: I spent weeks trying to explain my take on dharma here, pointing to essays etc etc and nobody really listens, or reads etc, so now as a virgin buddhist I am cutting down on that. It is all on www.salted.net and is very specific. If you have questions about my writings on dharma I am happy to answer them.
S9:You only keep saying that it is TRUE, and that YOU know that truth, assuming frequently that I and others do not.
M: LOL Your a bugger for misrespresting S9! You make out I claim I have the answers and you don't when repeatedly, eg in this thread and many others I make it very clear: I think Dharma is mundane, I think I understand it and I think so does anyone else who understands the 4NT (and all that entails).
S9: The 8 Fold Path is extremely basic.
M: I dont know if I agree there. I guess depends what you mean. It is simple to explain but hard to practice and understand.
S9: This is exactly where the fun begins, because everyone sees their own interpretation, connotation, and extrapolation.
M: Yes, it is a path of practice and we must find our own. But I dont think like you do that there is some secret sauce that only 20th level buddhists can taste:)
S9:Even the many sutras seem to contradict each other.
M: Yep, don't they just.
S9:Yet, most everyone here believes in his heart of hearts, that what he is seeing is the correct interpretation.
M: Thats great for them. I have higher criterion for acceptance, I think the buddha did too:) "When you know directly" is different to "when you know in your heart," to me, at least.
s9: By your own admission you find the spiritual abstract. So what are these spiritual experiences that you are having that are not?
M: I dont think you understand my point, please explain what you think it is, re the above point.
S9:When sharing with someone, that person that you are sharing with needs to feel that they have received something from you. If this doesn’t take place, than nothing is actually happening.
M: I am not here as a teacher or a scholar!:) I am not here to tell anyone about dharma. I am here to dicuss it with those who wish to discuss it.
If I could teach one thing it would be for Buddhists to try to disprove their beliefs, because only then can they be sure of them.
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?
Don’t you think that part of the problem here is that so many Buddhists seem to see the idea of death ‘AS’ the poison arrow that they want to pull out?
And:
A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
S: I do have faith in the teachings I've received and for me this isn't about intellect.
S9: What is it than, emotional? I know you may say, “practice”…but than how do we see within this practice…emotionally? Or perhaps you will say pure faith and trust...but again, is that emotional?
I wonder if you can see how often your own words seem to contradict each other? For instance, if all we Buddhist understand the 4 Noble Truths/8 Fold Path, because it is so mundane and simple, than why would it take you weeks to explain it to us…or why would you even try?
It seems obvious to me that you feel you know or understand something, which others do not.
That is understandable, because everyone feels this way to some extent or they wouldn’t even open their mouths on a forum.
Threads where everyone ‘just agrees,’ die a very quick death. : ^ (
I don’t believe that anyone here can, in all honesty, claim that they are not teaching something, or pushing some perspective. Every chat here is a form of teaching, is it not?
M: If by "complete" you mean every aspect, point and connection within the dharmic system then no, I don’t think my understanding is complete. Equally for practice, there is much I don’t know.
S9: Exactly, and “this is where the rubber hits the road,” is it not?
My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task. : ^ )
I wonder if you can see how often your own words seem to contradict each other?
The great thing about contradictions is that they either do or dont, there is no "seems" about it.
Point the contradtcion out, which will be easy to do, it just takes two statements of mine, you have many to choose from:)
It seems obvious to me that you feel you know or understand something, which others do not.
Do you read what I say? I said this to you at 9.09 this m,orning and will say it again:
M: If Dharma is the mundane system of universal truth that I think it is then I understand it, I believe. As I am sure do most Buddhists who understand the 4NT.
I think exactly the opposite of what you say I think, dont you see that? I think Dharma is easy to understand, and most of us here clearly do. Those that understand the 4NT (Including of course the three marks, DO, 8fold path.....)
I don’t believe that anyone here can, in all honesty, claim that they are not teaching something, or pushing some perspective. Every chat here is a form of teaching, is it not?
Not to me, as a philosopher no:) if I could teach anything to Buddhists it would be simply to doubt more:)
S9:My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task. : ^ )
I comeplteley diagree, that attitude stinks of the priests hidden away in the back of the temple. I outright reject it, in Buddhism or any other doctrine.
Even the buddha is said to have said that he has nothing hidden, yet you think he does and cant tell me what?
This site is about making dharma more accessible yet it seems the majority ehre want to make it less so?
S: I do have faith in the teachings I've received and for me this isn't about intellect.
S9: What is it than, emotional? I know you may say, “practice”…but than how do we see within this practice…emotionally? Or perhaps you will say pure faith and trust...but again, is that emotional?
Friendly Regards,
S9
By faith I mean confidence. I have confidence in Buddhist teachings and meditation from experience. I see benefits to my own mind and heart and those of others.
Is having emotion antithetical to meditation? How about having a body?
Love is emotion, is it not? Why bother practicing at all if it doesn't lead to the development of positive qualities.
S9: Ah confidence, a much better explanation, IMO. It shows that at least some of what you believe is based upon your personal experience. : ^ )
S: I have confidence in Buddhist teachings and meditation from experience. I see benefits to my own mind and heart and those of others.
S9: I would have to say, if it works for you, and improves your lot in life, than it is right for you in a more practical sense, if not a universal sense.
S: Is having emotion antithetical to meditation? How about having a body?
S9: There are many types of meditation. Some of these become so ratified that they leave everything behind.
Although, I consider Mindfulness to be a form of meditation, and that doesn’t disallow anything at all. Acceptance is its keyword.
S: Love is emotion, is it not?
S9: There are very many things or states that are called love. Many of these are quite different from each other. Are you familiar with the word agape? Some say agape is the highest form of love.
I must admit that love remains quite a mystery to me, not the more sentimental love people claim to understand. But, I doubt even this is actually understood.
In Islam, Love is one of the names of God.
I have been studying love, close at hand, for most of my life and am as yet unable to unravel its mysteries, and yet I do know this. I would be unable to live without it.
Metta is certainly a wonderful addition to our Buddhist compassion.
S: Why bother practicing at all if it doesn't lead to the development of positive qualities.
S9: To tell you the truth, I have no choice. My path is no longer something I do. It is who I am.
But attributes are not MY highest goal. I am a Buddhist Mystic. My goal is to go beyond ALL attributes.
M: The great thing about contradictions is that they either do or don’t, there is no "seems" about it.
S9: “Seems” is my polite way of saying that it is possible that either I don’t understand you (AKA you are not making yourself understood), or that we are simply talking by each other. Everything is not black and white.
: ^ )
M: Point the contraction out, which will be easy to do, it just takes two statements of mine, you have many to choose from.
S9: How about the fact that you say that you don’t teach and at the same time put forth a way to see things a la mat? Are you going to hide behind saying that this is just a suggestion…like that isn’t teaching?
Like I say, I have nothing against teaching, whatsoever. But, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
: ^ )
M: If Dharma is the mundane system of universal truth that I think it is then I understand it, I believe.
S9: Of course if everything is as you say it is, than you understand it. “That’s the rub.” Everyone thinks this.
; ^ )
Here is the problem, “the worm in the apple, no one seems to agree. You can’t just declare yourself the winner, hands down.
; ^ )
M: As I am sure do most Buddhists who understand the 4NT.
S9: Perhaps, but not Mat’s 4NT’s.
M: I think exactly the opposite of what you say I think. Don’t you see that?
S9: Obviously not.
: ^ (
Do you think I just came here to torture you?
: ^ (
What fun would that be?
S: I think Dharma is easy to understand, and most of us here clearly do. Those that understand the 4NT (Including of course the three marks, DO, 8fold path.....)
S9: Can you spell redundant? Just saying it over and over won’t make it right.
S: Not to me, as a philosopher no if I could teach anything to Buddhists it would be simply to doubt more.
S9: I wonder if you can see that you are TEACHING people to doubt, as you do.
Philosophers teach all of the time. Otherwise they would just write their ideas on a piece of paper too straighten out their own thinking, and then either toss it in the waste, or tuck it away in a draw for later.
RE: S9: My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task.
: ^ )
M: I completely disagree, that attitude stinks of the priests hidden away in the back of the temple. I outright reject it, in Buddhism or any other doctrine.
S9: Please explain this statement. I have no idea why you might say this.
: ^ )
M: Even the Buddha is said to have said that he has nothing hidden, yet you think he does and cant tell me what?
S9: How could I think that if we are all 100% Enlightened right now. Besides where would anything hide if Awareness IS omnipresent, and you and I and every sentient being IS Awareness or Buddha Nature.
S9: How about the fact that you say that you don’t teach and at the same time put forth a way to see things a la mat?
M: Even if that is true, which it isnt, it wouldn't be a contrdiction.
The only "way" I put forth is to treat Dharma with the same criteria as we should treat all systems of belief, reason, knowledge, science...
You flatter me, but this is not "a la mat" this is just the critical method that people use daily in every form of life all over the world. i am not sure why you are so scared of that.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
I feel the same about dharma and majic;)
S9: Of course if everything is as you say it is, than you understand it. “That’s the rub.” Everyone thinks this.
M: No, some seem to think that everything is the way somone else thinks:)
Do you belive that "Doubt everything be your own light" is a buddhist phrase?
Please answer this:)
S9: Perhaps, but not Mat’s 4NT’s.
M: then how do they differ? Come on, you make these bold claims about my beleifs and yet never back them up.
What are you scared of?
Do you think I just came here to torture you?
in Truth no. I think that you are cornered by your mystcial stance, you read what i say and it clearly riles you to react (which is not my intention) but when you try to show me wrong you cant because your methodolgy isnt that of reason.
Just let it go:) Note that I dont come after your mystical views, I am always just defending against your majic spells:)
S9: I wonder if you can see that you are TEACHING people to doubt, as you do.
M: I dont see that, but I dont see it as a bad thing where that the case.
re M: I completely disagree, that attitude stinks of the priests hidden away in the back of the temple. I outright reject it, in Buddhism or any other doctrine.
S9: Please explain this statement. I have no idea why you might say this.
I think dharma is accessable simply, you think it isnt. This is the attitude of those who wish to hide the secrets to any religion within the clergy etc. thats what I meant:)
Don’t you think that part of the problem here is that so many Buddhists seem to see the idea of death ‘AS’ the poison arrow that they want to pull out?
And:
A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
Friendly Regards,
S9
In the context of the discourse I just relayed to you, then the idea of death as the poison arrow makes no sense. What the parable expresses to me is an irrelevancy of asking such questions on life and death, or rebirth or reincarnation, etc. In the case of being struck by a poison arrow, would not the only legitimate concern be to pull the arrow out? One would not fret over such questions such as what clan the man who fired the arrow was in, what that one's name was, what type of bow the man used, what type of arrow was fired, for those answers are not only futile, but irrelevant. In applying this parable to one's life, the Buddha suggests that answers to questions such as that which we are discussing should not be sought after, because they are not to be found. Would you rather die having been preoccupied in search for questions that will remain unanswered? Or would you rather die living life to it's fullest?
Please clarify your second point; I'm not sure I understand it. ("their" as reflexive to Buddhists? Or "their" as reflexive to who? or what?)
A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
Hummm...someone has been reading my posts... ehehehehe If that's the case I would say ALL of my suffering and ALL of my craving comes from that :P
Please clarify your second point; I'm not sure I understand it. ("their" as reflexive to Buddhists? Or "their" as reflexive to who? or what?)
I don't know what he means for sure but I said something like 'my problems come from my fear of death' on some other thread. Maybe he is referring to that. x-D
Sukhita wrote an explanation taken from a Tibetan teacher, which I'll quote here, as this kind of explantion is not unknown to me:
If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like Self or Soul, why can't we understand that those forces themselves can continue without without a Self or Soul behind them after the non-functioning of the body? When this physical body is no more capable of functioning , energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life.
...So what continue are some impersonal "energies"? That is, in year 2010 the energies form a sort of a "knot" known as Shadowleaver but in 2100 there'll be another "knot" that will be referred to as, say, Lightgiver that is a direct consequence of Shadowleaver? I find this position problematic-- in fact, to me this is an exercise in sophistry.
For what exactly is the commonality between Shadowleaver and Lightgiver? What makes us say that the latter is an "incarnation" of the former? Why don't we also call Watersplasher or Fireextinguisher "incarnations" of Shadowleaver?
For us to say that Lightgiver is Shadowleaver reborn, there must be some psychological entity that persits between Shadowleaver's demise and Lightgiver's birth. Calling it "soul", "essense", "impulse" or "cause-effect" doesn't make any difference-- the point is that there's a thingy that uniquely identifies Shadowleaver that gets passed on to Lightgiver. If there isn't such a thingy, than there's no reason for Shadowleaver to worry about Lightgiver more than about any other living being. There's nothing special to Shadowleaver regarding Lightgiver.
And that thingy (referred to by the quote above as "energy"), is the big problem. Science hasn't found one shred of evidence for its existence. In fact, every year, neuroscietists trace more and more aspects of us to certain areas of our brains. Every year, the likelihood of some sort of incorporeal psycho-essence existing, is shrinking. In the absence of that essence, talk of rebirth becomes a fun but completely useless intellectual exercise.
Science hasn’t found what makes life, (Is it essence or the Buddha Nature?), and in no way can they duplicate it.
They have only found what parts of the brain, much like a radio, conveys information to this body. Obviously the brain is just a receiver of some kind, much like a radio, where it is receiving it from is not yet discovered.
Science hasn’t found what makes life, (Is it essence or the Buddha Nature?), and in no way can they duplicate it.
They have only found what parts of the brain, much like a radio, conveys information to this body. Obviously the brain is just a receiver of some kind, much like a radio, where it is receiving it from is not yet discovered.
Warm Regards,
S9
Subjectivity,
I'm afraid there's nothing obvious about the brain being a receiver. From the pop magazines on science that I read it looks like it also may be the transmitter.
But of course I wouldn't say that there's no soul/essence/etc because science says so. It's quite possible that science doesn't know, much like it didn't know about electricity a few centuries years ago.
However, there's no reason to believe in something for which there's no evidence (or personal experience) and that was my original premise-- just say that we don't know whether or not there is rebirth and keep going.
N: I would say ALL of my suffering and ALL of my craving comes from that :P
S9: Maybe its good luck, when you can narrow yourself down to one big enemy. Than at least you can go right after solving this one big problem without feeling divided? There is probably both strength and direction in that.
I think many people feel like they are being hit on many sides by their fears, and that the fears just keep multiplying as they grow older and get sick, or even start to lose their friends, and family to death before themselves.
Some of these various fears, of course, like you say, are really just Death with his many faces creeping up behind us. : ^ (
Science hasn’t found what makes life, (Is it essence or the Buddha Nature?), and in no way can they duplicate it.
Its very very close and there is no scientific reason why we wont have synthetic life this half centurty.
They have only found what parts of the brain, much like a radio, conveys information to this body.
That is just plane inaccurate:) Go google it...
Obviously the brain is just a receiver of some kind, much like a radio, where it is receiving it from is not yet discovered.
again, that's just not backed up by science. Its wrong. if you want to believe it, fine, but dont pass it off as "obvious" fact and expect not to be picked up:)
just say that we don't know whether or not there is rebirth and keep going.
Peace!
Yep. That is the dignified position here. To try to argue that there is rebirth is folly. i wish people would see this here:( It would save so much tension.
These egos of ours, they may be illusions but they still augment the confusions.
Science understands energy as a relationship between other things that can be measured.
For example in a gravitational field potential energy is a relationship between the mass of the object and the distance between the center of masses of the object and the source of the gravitational field.
Energy has no essence but rather is defined in a relationship between measured things.
Rebirth is not clear to me too as much as energy is. I don't assume something is false because it appears irrelevant. If I did it would be hard to go to a foreign country because I would just think they were driving on the wrong side of the road and didn't know how to talk. What if everyone kept saying "your pants are unzipped" to me in german and I thought it was just meaningless. Then all the sudden I see what they are talking about and have a laugh haha!
Interestingly the heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the more precicely you measure certain properties the more ambiguous other properties. I think energy and time are pairs.. position and momentum are pairs.
J: In the case of being struck by a poison arrow, would not the only legitimate concern be to pull the arrow out?
S9: Quite so. But perhaps some people feel that if they could understand death, than there wouldn’t be anything to be afraid of. In this way, they DO hope to pull out the arrow. That arrow being the fear of death.
The unfortunate part of this may very well arrive in the form of our abundant imaginations, pretty much taking over, and serving up a comfortable story in order to soothe us.
Certainly you may call this a mere distraction, and I couldn’t blame you for that. But, everyone is not ready to face their own fears, head on.
J: Buddha suggests that answers to questions such as that which we are discussing should not be sought after, because they are not to be found.
S9: No doubt this is true. But just maybe, people don’t know this until they first try, and without much success, to finally give up trying.
We don't always give up everything easily. Sometimes we learn the hard way through miserable experience.
J: Would you rather die having been preoccupied in search for questions that will remain unanswered? Or would you rather die living life to it's fullest?
S9: What is living life to the fullest if you are riddled with fear? Can we just mimic wisdom, and be satisfied by this?
J: Please clarify your second point; I'm not sure I understand it. ("their" as reflexive to Buddhists? Or "their" as reflexive to who? or what?)
RE: S9: A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
S9: “Their:” speaks of the persons who find some comfort in the idea of reincarnation, because it represents some form of continuance, rather than ‘the end of the line,’ as they know it. This fear of the unknown can be quite compelling.
I quite agree. Energy is not essence. It is at least not similar in characteristics to my own personal essence, which I have had the priviledge to witness.
I can’t say that I really understand energy, to me it seems like it lives somewhere between material and process, an animating factor.
Although the scientists define energy, we are yet to actually understand it in its fullness. So often, science fools itself into thinking that it knows something simply by naming it, or marginally defining it.
There are two major ways to be hard headed, one is to think we already know something completely, (a know it all), and the other has to be refusing to look any further, (Narrow minded)…but there are probably many, many more.
I wouldn’t want to under-estimate the capacity of the human mind to be blind. ; ^ )
Science is one of the major religions in this century. People who love science often attribute great powers to it, much like those who love their God praise His powers.
Often people, who self style themselves as the holders of reason, are very attracted to science because the methods of science seem to plod along and make audacious claims to understanding, much as their thinking does.
J: In the case of being struck by a poison arrow, would not the only legitimate concern be to pull the arrow out?
S9: Quite so. But perhaps some people feel that if they could understand death, than there wouldn’t be anything to be afraid of. In this way, they DO hope to pull out the arrow. That arrow being the fear of death.
S9
I agree with your point that some people tend to view that poison arrow as "fear of death", but in the parable the Buddha refer basically says you will die no matter what, and that is the only surety you will ever find. What you make of it is up to you, I was just posting that Sutta as a reference that the Buddha claimed these types of questions are irrelevant.
J: Buddha suggests that answers to questions such as that which we are discussing should not be sought after, because they are not to be found.
S9: No doubt this is true. But just maybe, people don’t know this until they first try, and without much success, to finally give up trying.
We don't always give up everything easily. Sometimes we learn the hard way through miserable experience.
S9
Indeed many embark on this quest for knowledge and end up empty and are miserable in the process. I have been through this myself, and it was when I first read this Sutta that I came to the conclusion that "It doesn't matter." Taking into account the misery one experiences in searching for that knowledge, the Buddha too went through that process and he is telling you that it is easier to simply not worry about those questions, but instead immerse yourself in this world and penetrate this reality in all of its phenomenon rather than search for some other hidden meaning that is invisible or non-existent.
J: Would you rather die having been preoccupied in search for questions that will remain unanswered? Or would you rather die living life to it's fullest?
S9: What is living life to the fullest if you are riddled with fear? Can we just mimic wisdom, and be satisfied by this?
S9
My first post with the Sutta was intended for those struggling with questions such as whether one should believe in rebirth or not. I went through the same process and in my particular case, when I read this Sutta the answers to those questions that induce such fear became irrelevant to me. I am just simply sharing my insight.
Yep. That is the dignified position here. To try to argue that there is rebirth is folly. i wish people would see this here:( It would save so much tension.
These egos of ours, they may be illusions but they still augment the confusions.
Indeed yet at the same time I DO wonder what his holiness the dalai lama or even my teacher would say about rebirth. Thats interesting! Rebirth is so important to me that I haven't asked my teacher about it once. I think that is because I am schizophrenic and I have a good deal of mental pain yet do not want to kill myself. Rebirth is too long for me to wait! I ask my teacher about how to get through the month haha.
Indeed yet at the same time I DO wonder what his holiness the dalai lama or even my teacher would say about rebirth. Thats interesting! Rebirth is so important to me that I haven't asked my teacher about it once. I think that is because I am schizophrenic and I have a good deal of mental pain yet do not want to kill myself. Rebirth is too long for me to wait! I ask my teacher about how to get through the month haha.
Am I interpreting this wrong? For me, it seems you are in misery about the question of rebirth, which I recommend you not worry about because you will die no matter what the answer is. As for the Dalai Lama, he is a firm believe in Geluk Tibetan tradition, so yes he does believe in rebirth; one obvious reason he would believe in rebirth is because he's the 14th reincarnation of the first dalai lama.
No jkapp I stated that I had never asked my teacher a question about rebirth. My questions revolve around overcoming my suffering! She has written a book about dying in which her advice is to be simple. Do what works for you. What works for her (in her life) is to relax into the connections to other beings. Her heart connections. For someone else the simplest thing might be relax into the arms of the buddha. Or let it be. Whatever works.
Sorry to alarm you. I am doing A ok at the moment.
Jeffrey, I was not alarmed. What I say is an invitation for you to try out something. Is not seeking that answer to rebirth a part of your suffering? If you are not seeking the answer for you have already found it then pay no attention to my message. But, on the other hand, if you are in a quarrel with rebirth and its authenticity, then I suggest the following words of the Buddha within Kalama Sutta:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
Whether you believe in rebirth or not is irrelevant to being a Buddhist. Be who you are and walk that path which your own wisdom points towards.
Yep. That is the dignified position here. To try to argue that there is rebirth is folly. i wish people would see this here:( It would save so much tension.
These egos of ours, they may be illusions but they still augment the confusions.
respect,
mat
Actually, that people believe in rebirth (or any other such "supernatural" thing) doesn't bother me, as long as their relationship with me is not somehow governed by that belief. I say, whatever helps you get through the day is good (actually, someone else said that )
But at any rate, the subject of post-mortem existence is a rather fascinating one. It's good to discuss such things.
Comments
Matt, this is only remotely true for Vajrayana, and even then your words about their teaching on reincarnation come across as rather reductionist.
Take care not to wrestle with straw men like this. There are several statements made throughout your post here, where you make generalized assumptions about what others are claiming, and then you tear down those very same assumptions that you yourself conjured. It might behoove you to go back through this post carefully and notice just how many times you are arguing with yourself, because it is quite a lot.
Then obviously we agree on that, which was the very point being offered.
Then we agree that there is no rebirth?:)
(Ed: Not that it matters but i am curious)
Enjoy!
Thanks for the post:) WTBT was the book more than any other that god me into Buddhism, I have read it many times, and know the above passage well:)
The trouble is that such attempts explinaintions come from the position that the Buddha:
A: Belived in Rebirth
B: Taught Rebirth
I think it is entirely consistent with Dharma that A and B are not the case and that theory is one I more and more become compelled to believe.
I am not at all asking you or anyone to believe what I believe but rather to understanding that there are questions which arise when one steps away from the attitude "Of course the Buddha believed in rebirth."
When we are in this more pure starting point we can ask questions like:
Is there any sense in which any aspect of mind exists after death?
If there is, what is that sense?
How does it connect with one's experience of now?
How does it connect to the world outside of mind?
etc
Mat
I respect your views regarding literal rebirth. My post was intended for those who insist that there can be no continued existence after death solely for the reason that there does not exist a permanent, unchanging Self or Soul or Ego or Consciousness.
Kind regards,
Sukhita
Ahh my bad:) All clear here:)
A line is made up of consecutive points. Those points are designated by coordinates but the points themselves are of zero length width and depth.
Each point is an example of not-self. The identity to the point is merely a mental label (x=1, y=2) and it only has reference relative to an origin of the system.
In terms of the universe there is NO ORIGIN. Even the coordinates are only relative statements. The coordinates of one mentally labeled point relative to another mentally labeled point.
But then don't we see a line? Even though at no point is there a self (point) still we see a line.
Similarly even though a being at no point is a self still we experience a lifespan.
I think the root of your problem is that you believe that mind in buddhism refers to an organic life form. That is only sems. It is not rigpa. In zen terms it is little mind and not big mind. I am not sure if this distinction is made in this way (clear to me at least) in the Pali Canon so you might want to look for it there. Or else broaden your reading.
RE: 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.
S9: Won’t you admit that a good deal of what you think you know is 2nd hand knowledge, like science or even the sutras? You have no personal experience of death, do you?
I have known many people who had a near death experience, and often these are people, which the machines have declared to be dead for a number of minutes (no, not enough so that brain damage would explain it)
; ^ )
Many of these people describe being aware beyond the body and have memories similar to those who have witness a jhana outside of thought...profound peace. Now I won’t go so far as to declare this proves rebirth because I don’t believe that it does. But it certainly points to an Awareness that is neither imprisoned within the body or its brain, wouldn’t you say?
M: Let is remain clear of the distinction between mundane and mystical.
S9: Many people declare mystical to mean anything they themselves have not witnessed, Yet…
And:
Then these same people go on to believe that there is a Paris in France, even though they themselves have not personally witnessed this to be true.
This, my e-friend, comes right back to picking and choosing what you WILL believe, simply because it fits your personal paradigm. Next they declare their own personal ideas to be rational, in order to give them more weight.
: ^ (.
I consider Mysticism to mean personally witnessing what is beyond the mind…Personal being the ‘operative’ word.
RE: 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.
S9: If you change the 8 fold path into instructions about ethics and how to live, how could I not see it as a practical list about material life?
M: 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.
S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
; ^ )
I am not trying to misrepresent you if I have not been made to understand your points…that would take intension to do so.
Respectfully,
S9
We agree that the Buddha taught no-self. There is nothing to be re-born. However, because all things are impermanent and interconnected, there is also no separation either. Going outside of my Theravada emphasis for a second, consider the Zen koan "show me your original face before your mother and father were born."
This koan has always been a very beautiful and creative way to teach re-birth. You claim that the Buddha did not "believe" in re-birth, and I think the wrong words are being used, because of course he did not "believe in re-birth."
The Buddha taught about those things he experienced directly and came to realize through his awakening. One of the very first things he taught his followers was to quit grasping onto beliefs.
I really wish you would read the stuff I pointed you to weeks ago on salted.net, espcially the game universe thought experiments.
Yes, and connected points, and interconnected points and logical points and conceptual points and, if we like, spatial, temporal, musical, abstract...
FYI: http://salted.net/?s=game+universes
I am afraid not, a line is logical points, all lines are at least logical lines:)
EG:
ABCDE
B is between A and C there for it is not between C and E.
ad maybe infinitum? I don't know.
That may be true, or not, but that isn't the question or domain at hand. We are talking about rebirth, ie, systems connected to this little part of the universe closely.
I dont think so, same point as above. We can pic out any point logically by the application of idenity, differnce, structure etc.
Please think very hard about this: there is a difference between the coordinate and the label of the coordinate.
If you dont see that I fear we face very differnt ways:)
That depends. I can easily imagine lines that nobody can ever see. I can imagine a universe made of lines, or just a line, without ever any sentience:)
But the point is not pertient to this, I think. Again the differnce between being seen and simply being:)
I don't believe you can legitimately use "Similarly" like that. You are proposing a radically different universe to what evidence suggests and so you cannot just Create an abstract example and then equate that as to being similar enough to this immense philosophical question as to be a solution.
I think the root of your problem is that you believe that Buddha certainly taught rebirth. I am glad we can talk about our problems.
If it cant be explained to me but a living human in plane text, then I certainly wont be interested reading more about it:) Equally for ware-wolves and homeopathy.
M: As said, I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this:)
NDE accounts are very mysterious and for sure cant be explained. I think we should be extra skeptcial about them:) I am not prepared to speculate on them as evidence.
S9: If you change the 8 fold path into instructions about ethics and how to live, how could I not see it as a practical list about material life?
I am fine with the eightfold path as they are with their interrelated moral, mental and philosophical directions and the spiritual dimension that emmerges from that:)
S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
M: As above:) Spiritual is like love, it is the most abstract of the phemomenon we are subject to, apart from perhaps emptiness:)
Love isnt mystical to me, n are my spiritual experinces:)
Peace:)
Mat
The origin I spoke of is not God. I meant the point x=0, y=0; in math that is called the origin. x=1, y=2 only has a meaning relative to the origin. In actual MIND there is no origin. There is no point of reference. That is why the ultimate nature of the mind is neither changing or unchanging. In order to have change you need a reference point to measure that change against. But there is no reference point which is meaningful in and of itself.
Mat I think it would be useful for you to think of the mystical elements of buddhism as a 'map'. You cannot test these elements in and of themselves. For example if my map says that there is a cafe 5 blocks from mainstreet you can not hold up the map and say "I can't the taste the coffee on the map". Its a map and not the actual direct experience. This is why there is not double blind data proving mystical things.
If you find the mystical teachings of buddhism not relevant to your experience then don't worry about them. But you needn't be upset that there is a map. That would be like your in London and your upset that the map of France does not correspond to your experience.
I know a guy who's a dharma name given by the lama that means "he who doesn't mistake the map for reality"
Meaning comes out of the points it is not in the points,
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this
S9: You put forth that you understand the Dharma completely, and expect that I should just take this as a fact.
And yet:
It seems to me that you keep what you DO believe the Dharma to be, in any real detail, very vague, by holding your cards very close to your chest, and only refer to it in a very off-handed manner.
You might say that you believe in, and understand the 8 Fold Path, and contend that you build upon that understanding. But you never seem to say what the 8 Fold Path says to you in any real detail, or what you actually build upon it. You only keep saying that it is TRUE, and that YOU know that truth, assuming frequently that I and others do not.
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles, from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this.
S9: We mustn’t pretend that we can take ourself out of the equation, when you look directly at the Dharma, and that it will not be colored by your personal opinions. No one can do this. If we think that we can, we are only fooling ourselves.
We cannot be that pure of our ego stories, until you are 100% Enlightened. Just saying that we can, would simply betray our personal pride, and a lack of insight into the human condition. : ^ (
M: I am fine with the eightfold path as they are with their interrelated moral, mental and philosophical directions and the spiritual dimension that immerges from that.
S9: The 8 Fold Path is extremely basic. Most of what immerges from it are connotations and extrapolations. This is exactly where the fun begins, because everyone sees their own interpretation, connotation, and extrapolation. The many Buddhist traditions, and conversations on this forum, will attest to that fact.
Even the many sutras seem to contradict each other. Yet, most everyone here believes in his heart of hearts, that what he is seeing is the correct interpretation. So no one can legitimately claim that they are the one, which the 8 Fold Path backs up, and keep a straight face, now can they? ; ^ )
RE: S9: Please acquaint me with the difference between the practical and the spiritual in your way of seeing it.
M: As above Spiritual is like love, it is the most abstract of the phenomenon we are subject to, apart from perhaps emptiness Love isn’t mystical to me, nor are my spiritual experiences.
S9: Once again, I don’t believe that you have answered my question, or that your answer is so altogether vague that it feels that way to me.
By your own admission you find the spiritual abstract. So what are these spiritual experiences that you are having that are not?
When sharing with someone, that person that you are sharing with needs to feel that they have received something from you. If this doesn’t take place, than nothing is actually happening.
Peace my e-friend,
S9
I refer to it as the parable of the poison arrow
The Buddha was sitting in the park when his disciple Malunkyaputta approached him. Malunkyaputta had recently retired from the world and he was concerned that so many things remained unexplained by the Buddha. Was the world eternal or not eternal? Was the soul different from the body? Did the enlightened exist after death or not? He thought, 'If the Buddha does not explain these things to me, I will give up this training and return to worldly life'.
Thus, he approached the Buddha with this question, who replied:
“Suppose, Maunkyaputa, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was long bow or crossbow; whether the arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.
All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: “I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether an awakened one ceases to exist after death or not,” that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not, Malunkyaputta, there is still birth, old age, death, grief, suffering, sorrow and despair - and these can be destroyed in this life! I have not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are not conducive to tranquility and Nirvana. What I have explained is suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful, leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge."
Thus spoke the Buddha, and with joy Malunkyaputta applauded his words.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
I have really enjoyed your responses (for whatever that might be worth)!
M: I am happy to start with Dharma from first principles. from nothing, and building it up. I think all Buddhists should try this
S9: You put forth that you understand the Dharma completely
M: If Dharma is the mundane system of universal truth that I think it is then I understand it, I believe. As I am sure do most Buddhists who understand the 4NT.
If by "complete" you mean every aspect, point and connection within the dharmic system then no, I dont think my understanding is complete. Equally for practice, there is much I dont know.
An Analogy For You
I understand the Solar system. How it works, how it is ordered, what it is, how it effects us etc etc I can explain it to others, use it in my thoughts and so on. I am by no means an astronomer and even if I was I wouldn't expect to know everything about it.
This is how I see it with Dharma. I do not know it all, I never ever claim I am an expert, but I do know what it is.
I am not here to explain to you how good I am at Dharma:)
In this essay "What is Dharma?" I explain my take on dharma.
In other essays on the same site, and the videos, I explain it in other ways.
If you think I have made a mistake then I will be glad to have that pointed out.
S9:It seems to me that you keep what you DO believe the Dharma to be, in any real detail, very vague, by holding your cards very close to your chest, and only refer to it in a very off-handed manner.
M: I spent weeks trying to explain my take on dharma here, pointing to essays etc etc and nobody really listens, or reads etc, so now as a virgin buddhist I am cutting down on that. It is all on www.salted.net and is very specific. If you have questions about my writings on dharma I am happy to answer them.
S9:You only keep saying that it is TRUE, and that YOU know that truth, assuming frequently that I and others do not.
M: LOL Your a bugger for misrespresting S9! You make out I claim I have the answers and you don't when repeatedly, eg in this thread and many others I make it very clear: I think Dharma is mundane, I think I understand it and I think so does anyone else who understands the 4NT (and all that entails).
S9: The 8 Fold Path is extremely basic.
M: I dont know if I agree there. I guess depends what you mean. It is simple to explain but hard to practice and understand.
S9: This is exactly where the fun begins, because everyone sees their own interpretation, connotation, and extrapolation.
M: Yes, it is a path of practice and we must find our own. But I dont think like you do that there is some secret sauce that only 20th level buddhists can taste:)
S9:Even the many sutras seem to contradict each other.
M: Yep, don't they just.
S9:Yet, most everyone here believes in his heart of hearts, that what he is seeing is the correct interpretation.
M: Thats great for them. I have higher criterion for acceptance, I think the buddha did too:) "When you know directly" is different to "when you know in your heart," to me, at least.
s9: By your own admission you find the spiritual abstract. So what are these spiritual experiences that you are having that are not?
M: I dont think you understand my point, please explain what you think it is, re the above point.
S9:When sharing with someone, that person that you are sharing with needs to feel that they have received something from you. If this doesn’t take place, than nothing is actually happening.
M: I am not here as a teacher or a scholar!:) I am not here to tell anyone about dharma. I am here to dicuss it with those who wish to discuss it.
If I could teach one thing it would be for Buddhists to try to disprove their beliefs, because only then can they be sure of them.
Salome:)
Mat
Hi Ren, Thanks for the info.
I found the info here http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:4vZiWyHPJSkJ:www.reachinformation.com/define/anatta.aspx+vi%C3%B1%C3%B1ana+sotam&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk and it looks like it is taken from this book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iaRWtgXjplQC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=Post-Classical+Developments+in+the+Concepts+of+Karma+and+Rebirth+in+Theravada+Buddhism&source=bl&ots=1kTaUhMqhO&sig=E4OALkmMvlgmmw-UOS-Jas3s508&hl=en&ei=30urS47-DoyOjAeo7bC3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Post-Classical%20Developments%20in%20the%20Concepts%20of%20Karma%20and%20Rebirth%20in%20Theravada%20Buddhism&f=false
Nios.
Thank you.
I do have faith in the teachings I've received and for me this isn't about intellect.
Don’t you think that part of the problem here is that so many Buddhists seem to see the idea of death ‘AS’ the poison arrow that they want to pull out?
And:
A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
Friendly Regards,
S9
S: I do have faith in the teachings I've received and for me this isn't about intellect.
S9: What is it than, emotional? I know you may say, “practice”…but than how do we see within this practice…emotionally? Or perhaps you will say pure faith and trust...but again, is that emotional?
Friendly Regards,
S9
I agree. Perhaps this feeds the clinging to the idea of rebirth?
Mat
I wonder if you can see how often your own words seem to contradict each other? For instance, if all we Buddhist understand the 4 Noble Truths/8 Fold Path, because it is so mundane and simple, than why would it take you weeks to explain it to us…or why would you even try?
It seems obvious to me that you feel you know or understand something, which others do not.
That is understandable, because everyone feels this way to some extent or they wouldn’t even open their mouths on a forum.
Threads where everyone ‘just agrees,’ die a very quick death. : ^ (
I don’t believe that anyone here can, in all honesty, claim that they are not teaching something, or pushing some perspective. Every chat here is a form of teaching, is it not?
M: If by "complete" you mean every aspect, point and connection within the dharmic system then no, I don’t think my understanding is complete. Equally for practice, there is much I don’t know.
S9: Exactly, and “this is where the rubber hits the road,” is it not?
My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task. : ^ )
Peace back at ya,
S9
The great thing about contradictions is that they either do or dont, there is no "seems" about it.
Point the contradtcion out, which will be easy to do, it just takes two statements of mine, you have many to choose from:)
Do you read what I say? I said this to you at 9.09 this m,orning and will say it again:
I think exactly the opposite of what you say I think, dont you see that? I think Dharma is easy to understand, and most of us here clearly do. Those that understand the 4NT (Including of course the three marks, DO, 8fold path.....)
Not to me, as a philosopher no:) if I could teach anything to Buddhists it would be simply to doubt more:)
S9:My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task. : ^ )
I comeplteley diagree, that attitude stinks of the priests hidden away in the back of the temple. I outright reject it, in Buddhism or any other doctrine.
Even the buddha is said to have said that he has nothing hidden, yet you think he does and cant tell me what?
This site is about making dharma more accessible yet it seems the majority ehre want to make it less so?
meh, it buffudles me!
With respect,
Mat
Is having emotion antithetical to meditation? How about having a body?
Love is emotion, is it not? Why bother practicing at all if it doesn't lead to the development of positive qualities.
S: By faith I mean confidence.
S9: Ah confidence, a much better explanation, IMO. It shows that at least some of what you believe is based upon your personal experience. : ^ )
S: I have confidence in Buddhist teachings and meditation from experience. I see benefits to my own mind and heart and those of others.
S9: I would have to say, if it works for you, and improves your lot in life, than it is right for you in a more practical sense, if not a universal sense.
S: Is having emotion antithetical to meditation? How about having a body?
S9: There are many types of meditation. Some of these become so ratified that they leave everything behind.
Although, I consider Mindfulness to be a form of meditation, and that doesn’t disallow anything at all. Acceptance is its keyword.
S: Love is emotion, is it not?
S9: There are very many things or states that are called love. Many of these are quite different from each other. Are you familiar with the word agape? Some say agape is the highest form of love.
I must admit that love remains quite a mystery to me, not the more sentimental love people claim to understand. But, I doubt even this is actually understood.
In Islam, Love is one of the names of God.
I have been studying love, close at hand, for most of my life and am as yet unable to unravel its mysteries, and yet I do know this. I would be unable to live without it.
Metta is certainly a wonderful addition to our Buddhist compassion.
S: Why bother practicing at all if it doesn't lead to the development of positive qualities.
S9: To tell you the truth, I have no choice. My path is no longer something I do. It is who I am.
But attributes are not MY highest goal. I am a Buddhist Mystic. My goal is to go beyond ALL attributes.
Friendly Regards,
S9
M: The great thing about contradictions is that they either do or don’t, there is no "seems" about it.
S9: “Seems” is my polite way of saying that it is possible that either I don’t understand you (AKA you are not making yourself understood), or that we are simply talking by each other. Everything is not black and white.
: ^ )
M: Point the contraction out, which will be easy to do, it just takes two statements of mine, you have many to choose from.
S9: How about the fact that you say that you don’t teach and at the same time put forth a way to see things a la mat? Are you going to hide behind saying that this is just a suggestion…like that isn’t teaching?
Like I say, I have nothing against teaching, whatsoever. But, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
: ^ )
M: If Dharma is the mundane system of universal truth that I think it is then I understand it, I believe.
S9: Of course if everything is as you say it is, than you understand it. “That’s the rub.” Everyone thinks this.
; ^ )
Here is the problem, “the worm in the apple, no one seems to agree. You can’t just declare yourself the winner, hands down.
; ^ )
M: As I am sure do most Buddhists who understand the 4NT.
S9: Perhaps, but not Mat’s 4NT’s.
M: I think exactly the opposite of what you say I think. Don’t you see that?
S9: Obviously not.
: ^ (
Do you think I just came here to torture you?
: ^ (
What fun would that be?
S: I think Dharma is easy to understand, and most of us here clearly do. Those that understand the 4NT (Including of course the three marks, DO, 8fold path.....)
S9: Can you spell redundant? Just saying it over and over won’t make it right.
S: Not to me, as a philosopher no if I could teach anything to Buddhists it would be simply to doubt more.
S9: I wonder if you can see that you are TEACHING people to doubt, as you do.
Philosophers teach all of the time. Otherwise they would just write their ideas on a piece of paper too straighten out their own thinking, and then either toss it in the waste, or tuck it away in a draw for later.
RE: S9: My very point from the very beginning was that the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path were just an outline, and that application was the real task.
: ^ )
M: I completely disagree, that attitude stinks of the priests hidden away in the back of the temple. I outright reject it, in Buddhism or any other doctrine.
S9: Please explain this statement. I have no idea why you might say this.
: ^ )
M: Even the Buddha is said to have said that he has nothing hidden, yet you think he does and cant tell me what?
S9: How could I think that if we are all 100% Enlightened right now. Besides where would anything hide if Awareness IS omnipresent, and you and I and every sentient being IS Awareness or Buddha Nature.
Friendly Regards,
S9
In the context of the discourse I just relayed to you, then the idea of death as the poison arrow makes no sense. What the parable expresses to me is an irrelevancy of asking such questions on life and death, or rebirth or reincarnation, etc. In the case of being struck by a poison arrow, would not the only legitimate concern be to pull the arrow out? One would not fret over such questions such as what clan the man who fired the arrow was in, what that one's name was, what type of bow the man used, what type of arrow was fired, for those answers are not only futile, but irrelevant. In applying this parable to one's life, the Buddha suggests that answers to questions such as that which we are discussing should not be sought after, because they are not to be found. Would you rather die having been preoccupied in search for questions that will remain unanswered? Or would you rather die living life to it's fullest?
Please clarify your second point; I'm not sure I understand it. ("their" as reflexive to Buddhists? Or "their" as reflexive to who? or what?)
Hummm...someone has been reading my posts... ehehehehe If that's the case I would say ALL of my suffering and ALL of my craving comes from that :P
I don't know what he means for sure but I said something like 'my problems come from my fear of death' on some other thread. Maybe he is referring to that. x-D
Sukhita wrote an explanation taken from a Tibetan teacher, which I'll quote here, as this kind of explantion is not unknown to me:
...So what continue are some impersonal "energies"? That is, in year 2010 the energies form a sort of a "knot" known as Shadowleaver but in 2100 there'll be another "knot" that will be referred to as, say, Lightgiver that is a direct consequence of Shadowleaver? I find this position problematic-- in fact, to me this is an exercise in sophistry.
For what exactly is the commonality between Shadowleaver and Lightgiver? What makes us say that the latter is an "incarnation" of the former? Why don't we also call Watersplasher or Fireextinguisher "incarnations" of Shadowleaver?
For us to say that Lightgiver is Shadowleaver reborn, there must be some psychological entity that persits between Shadowleaver's demise and Lightgiver's birth. Calling it "soul", "essense", "impulse" or "cause-effect" doesn't make any difference-- the point is that there's a thingy that uniquely identifies Shadowleaver that gets passed on to Lightgiver. If there isn't such a thingy, than there's no reason for Shadowleaver to worry about Lightgiver more than about any other living being. There's nothing special to Shadowleaver regarding Lightgiver.
And that thingy (referred to by the quote above as "energy"), is the big problem. Science hasn't found one shred of evidence for its existence. In fact, every year, neuroscietists trace more and more aspects of us to certain areas of our brains. Every year, the likelihood of some sort of incorporeal psycho-essence existing, is shrinking. In the absence of that essence, talk of rebirth becomes a fun but completely useless intellectual exercise.
Science hasn’t found what makes life, (Is it essence or the Buddha Nature?), and in no way can they duplicate it.
They have only found what parts of the brain, much like a radio, conveys information to this body. Obviously the brain is just a receiver of some kind, much like a radio, where it is receiving it from is not yet discovered.
Warm Regards,
S9
Subjectivity,
I'm afraid there's nothing obvious about the brain being a receiver. From the pop magazines on science that I read it looks like it also may be the transmitter.
But of course I wouldn't say that there's no soul/essence/etc because science says so. It's quite possible that science doesn't know, much like it didn't know about electricity a few centuries years ago.
However, there's no reason to believe in something for which there's no evidence (or personal experience) and that was my original premise-- just say that we don't know whether or not there is rebirth and keep going.
Peace!
N: I would say ALL of my suffering and ALL of my craving comes from that :P
S9: Maybe its good luck, when you can narrow yourself down to one big enemy. Than at least you can go right after solving this one big problem without feeling divided? There is probably both strength and direction in that.
I think many people feel like they are being hit on many sides by their fears, and that the fears just keep multiplying as they grow older and get sick, or even start to lose their friends, and family to death before themselves.
Some of these various fears, of course, like you say, are really just Death with his many faces creeping up behind us. : ^ (
Warm Regards,
S9
Its very very close and there is no scientific reason why we wont have synthetic life this half centurty.
That is just plane inaccurate:) Go google it...
again, that's just not backed up by science. Its wrong. if you want to believe it, fine, but dont pass it off as "obvious" fact and expect not to be picked up:)
Mat
Warm Regards,
S9[/QUOTE]
Yep. That is the dignified position here. To try to argue that there is rebirth is folly. i wish people would see this here:( It would save so much tension.
These egos of ours, they may be illusions but they still augment the confusions.
respect,
mat
For example in a gravitational field potential energy is a relationship between the mass of the object and the distance between the center of masses of the object and the source of the gravitational field.
Energy has no essence but rather is defined in a relationship between measured things.
Rebirth is not clear to me too as much as energy is. I don't assume something is false because it appears irrelevant. If I did it would be hard to go to a foreign country because I would just think they were driving on the wrong side of the road and didn't know how to talk. What if everyone kept saying "your pants are unzipped" to me in german and I thought it was just meaningless. Then all the sudden I see what they are talking about and have a laugh haha!
Interestingly the heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the more precicely you measure certain properties the more ambiguous other properties. I think energy and time are pairs.. position and momentum are pairs.
J: In the case of being struck by a poison arrow, would not the only legitimate concern be to pull the arrow out?
S9: Quite so. But perhaps some people feel that if they could understand death, than there wouldn’t be anything to be afraid of. In this way, they DO hope to pull out the arrow. That arrow being the fear of death.
The unfortunate part of this may very well arrive in the form of our abundant imaginations, pretty much taking over, and serving up a comfortable story in order to soothe us.
Certainly you may call this a mere distraction, and I couldn’t blame you for that. But, everyone is not ready to face their own fears, head on.
J: Buddha suggests that answers to questions such as that which we are discussing should not be sought after, because they are not to be found.
S9: No doubt this is true. But just maybe, people don’t know this until they first try, and without much success, to finally give up trying.
We don't always give up everything easily. Sometimes we learn the hard way through miserable experience.
J: Would you rather die having been preoccupied in search for questions that will remain unanswered? Or would you rather die living life to it's fullest?
S9: What is living life to the fullest if you are riddled with fear? Can we just mimic wisdom, and be satisfied by this?
J: Please clarify your second point; I'm not sure I understand it. ("their" as reflexive to Buddhists? Or "their" as reflexive to who? or what?)
RE: S9: A big part of their suffering comes directly from the FEAR of Death.
S9: “Their:” speaks of the persons who find some comfort in the idea of reincarnation, because it represents some form of continuance, rather than ‘the end of the line,’ as they know it. This fear of the unknown can be quite compelling.
Respectfully,
S9
I quite agree. Energy is not essence. It is at least not similar in characteristics to my own personal essence, which I have had the priviledge to witness.
I can’t say that I really understand energy, to me it seems like it lives somewhere between material and process, an animating factor.
Although the scientists define energy, we are yet to actually understand it in its fullness. So often, science fools itself into thinking that it knows something simply by naming it, or marginally defining it.
There are two major ways to be hard headed, one is to think we already know something completely, (a know it all), and the other has to be refusing to look any further, (Narrow minded)…but there are probably many, many more.
I wouldn’t want to under-estimate the capacity of the human mind to be blind. ; ^ )
Warm Regards,
S9
Science is one of the major religions in this century. People who love science often attribute great powers to it, much like those who love their God praise His powers.
Often people, who self style themselves as the holders of reason, are very attracted to science because the methods of science seem to plod along and make audacious claims to understanding, much as their thinking does.
Don’t believe everything you hear. ; ^ )
Smiles,
S9
I agree with your point that some people tend to view that poison arrow as "fear of death", but in the parable the Buddha refer basically says you will die no matter what, and that is the only surety you will ever find. What you make of it is up to you, I was just posting that Sutta as a reference that the Buddha claimed these types of questions are irrelevant.
Indeed many embark on this quest for knowledge and end up empty and are miserable in the process. I have been through this myself, and it was when I first read this Sutta that I came to the conclusion that "It doesn't matter." Taking into account the misery one experiences in searching for that knowledge, the Buddha too went through that process and he is telling you that it is easier to simply not worry about those questions, but instead immerse yourself in this world and penetrate this reality in all of its phenomenon rather than search for some other hidden meaning that is invisible or non-existent.
My first post with the Sutta was intended for those struggling with questions such as whether one should believe in rebirth or not. I went through the same process and in my particular case, when I read this Sutta the answers to those questions that induce such fear became irrelevant to me. I am just simply sharing my insight.
Indeed yet at the same time I DO wonder what his holiness the dalai lama or even my teacher would say about rebirth. Thats interesting! Rebirth is so important to me that I haven't asked my teacher about it once. I think that is because I am schizophrenic and I have a good deal of mental pain yet do not want to kill myself. Rebirth is too long for me to wait! I ask my teacher about how to get through the month haha.
Am I interpreting this wrong? For me, it seems you are in misery about the question of rebirth, which I recommend you not worry about because you will die no matter what the answer is. As for the Dalai Lama, he is a firm believe in Geluk Tibetan tradition, so yes he does believe in rebirth; one obvious reason he would believe in rebirth is because he's the 14th reincarnation of the first dalai lama.
Sorry to alarm you. I am doing A ok at the moment.
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
Whether you believe in rebirth or not is irrelevant to being a Buddhist. Be who you are and walk that path which your own wisdom points towards.
Actually, that people believe in rebirth (or any other such "supernatural" thing) doesn't bother me, as long as their relationship with me is not somehow governed by that belief. I say, whatever helps you get through the day is good (actually, someone else said that
But at any rate, the subject of post-mortem existence is a rather fascinating one. It's good to discuss such things.