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.
Buddhism without Rebirth.- questions.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I read those suttas but many questions still remain.
For instance he says.
"Dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant."
From where or how did he deduce this? Is there a sutta?
How does “future births” translate into "emergence of the ego"? As he claims? Which sutta says that?
Then he says:
The “present life” is one process of dependent arising in the instant, whereas the “next life” is another process of dependent arising in the next instant. This is a more realistic way of understanding the law of dependent arising.
How come it is more realistic? According to who in which sutta?
When he says:
To people who embrace the concept of a continuing existence, however, “birth” comes from the mother’s womb and “death” is physical death. This is using everyday or children’s language and not what the Buddha taught.
Then is it ok to consider that birth comes from the mothers womb and that death is physical death if you do not believe in continuing exsistance?
On what does he found the following theories?
1. The Doctrine of Dependent Origination is the Perfect Truth
2. Birth is the total emergence of ego
Then this statement seem pretty strange:
If we use everyday language to explain dependent origination, there will be confusion and lack of understanding. For instance, the Buddha’s enlightenment under the Bodhi tree was the cessation of Ignorance. With the cessation of Ignorance came the cessation of Volitional Action, Consciousness, and Name-and-Form. Why then did the Buddha not die? When the Buddha attained enlightenment, it was the cessation of Ignorance. With the cessation of Ignorance came the cessation of Volitional Action. Why then did the Buddha not die under the Bodhi tree? It is because the language of dependent of origination is the Dhamma language. Therefore, Birth and Death do not mean the birth or death of the physical body.
Why would the Buddha die at all in this case? Since there still is nonvolitional action and the living body? What does he mean?
On what does he found the following theory?
In Dhamma language, the development of the ego and ego possessiveness, which is occurrence of Becoming and Birth, can happen many times in a day, hundreds of times in a month, thousands of times in a year.
To me it seems that the emergence of the ego (which is what is meant I think) happens a couple of times in a second... no?
Again which sutta supports his claim that:
The Pali suttas explain dependent arising as successive instants of occurrences due to interdependent conditions.
Do you know what sutta he is referring to in the following statement?
Dependent arising emerges from Clinging, and not from only thought and feeling. Therefore, it is not applicable to the fetus inside the womb. This is because Ignorance, Craving, and Clinging have not yet developed in the fetus. The Majjhima-nikaya
tells about the birth of the baby up to the point where dependent arising occurs. In the sutta, the Buddha explicitly describes how human life is formed.
If you preferr the first quoted sutta Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta then I have no problem with that either. That is my understanding of the DO or close. Still birth is birth and aging and death are aging and death. Why did you want to know?
/Victor
It was necessary to teach mundane teachings to people who already believed in certain things so that their pre-existing belief is not challenged in any way. The Buddha just used the pre-existing belief and retaught it in a way which encourages them to be better people. It's as simple as that. If you tell people who strongly believe in God that there is no God they would not listen to anything you say after that. Instead it is better to tell them "God would like you to be a good person". It is not lying, it is simply telling them that which makes their hearts rejoice and thus lead them to morality. I don't know how else to explain this
The questions you asked require explaining the entire essay to you, which is beyond the capacity of this thread really. You can read it, read the suttas and read other essays from him, see for yourself and understand. You either get it or you don't. Sadly, I cannot help you more than that.
Or maybe he just tought that when you are beyond novice level you aught to know about rebirth and its role in the Dhamma?
Besides how can the Buddha hold a conviction that is not beyond any doubt? If he was unsure of a thing then would he not say: I am not sure of this and at least refrain from teaching that thing?
Well I am sorry but that is exactly what a lie is in my book.
/Victor
I am very tempted to quote the Kalama sutta at you at this moment but I will not...:p.
Thank you for your time Deshy.
/Victor
It would be more skillful to say "and your God wants you to be moral" in my opinion.
It seems short sighted to call subjective relating a lie. When working with morality in the minds of people who are young (in either age or practice) it is critical to introduce them to dharma in a way that will not confuse them. For instance, making attributions of any kind are not explicitly true.
It might be more fruitful if you look at that essay on DO with the idea "What is being said?" rather than "How does this jerk prove himself?" Questions like: simply won't arise. This is something you can observe directly in the moment if you still your monkey-mind. The trueness of it doesn't matter, what matters is that the question is aggressive and closed... like a fist. Try :
"There isn't, but there is potential, then there is, then there isn't, but there is potential"
Can you slow your own solidified understanding of reality to see what is being said? Let go of suttas and beliefs for a moment if you can. Don't attack teachers, listen to what they are saying and digest, then I bet you'll see how your questions are really just weapons.
Good luck,
Matt
"I 'unno."
Yeah, brilliant.
I'll quote you in response: "I am very tempted to quote the Kalama sutta at you at this moment but I will not...:p."
That is not the meaning of the Kalama Sutta. Sorry. The Kalama Sutta is a sutta regarding morality and teaches to practice what is skillful and leads to well-being and abandon what is unskillful and leads to harm. Christians are totally convinced that there is a soul that abides in Heaven or Hell after death. Atheists are convinced that there is a self that is annihilated after death. You believe in rebirth. The Kalama Sutta does not teach that everything you're convinced is truth is truth.
Direct Knowledge isn't experiencing, say, a "past life memory" for yourself. Memories are flawed and imperfect. Within this life we fabricate "memories" from stories we heard when we were young, or from others accounts of events. This is not what Direct Knowledge/Insight refers to in Buddhism.
Might be wise to do so as a Buddhist.
"Whoever sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees Dependent Origination." [M.I.191]
What on earth are you talking about?
A primary teaching of the Buddha is anatta. DO is the highest teaching. You yourself said that ego arises constantly, in an instant.
According to common sense....
Which sutta states it takes place once over an entire lifetime, or over three lifetimes?
He is talking about birth/death within the context of DO (the 12 Nidanas). :crazy:
If you read beyond the heading...
Also refer to the quote above regarding DO/the Dhamma.
Are you saying that a buddha is a living body and nonvolitional action? =|
"There is still the living body" - what is nama-rupa..?
And how does it arise? Explain how ego emerges and how we can be free from this process.
=|
Forget the suttas and use common sense. Does a fetus crave and cling to things as I, self, and mine? How about a zygote?
Some might think that being even mildly deceived in the beginning of cultivation is more than a little bit confusing?
If it was me I would be furious at being condencended like that. It might even be enough for me to loose my trust in the teacher.
I am not saying there is no Ego in me. Because there is and sometimes during this thread there has been a lot of aggrevated ego in me. Because many replies on this thread have been condesending, arrogant and sometimes plain insulting.
But that is good. It gives me practise. And only on one occasion as I can remember have I failed to overcome that ego properly in this thread.
The question "How does this jerk prove himself" has in no way arisen. On the contrary I have refrained from critizising the mentioned essay (which would be very easy to do considering its state) because it seems to me an unfinnished text. Bikkhu Buddhadasa probably wrote it as a preliminary work before writing his book Practical Dependent Origination (I think his book is named)
The questions were put forth to ask if somebody has any clue to what is said not as critisism. This is because it seems the book itself must be ordered from Thailand by sending money in advance to a monestary there. Which I am reluctant to do.
Do not fret if I see something that I think is amiss I will say so explicitly in hopes of getting a better explanation. As I have done in this thread earlier.
I am trying to understand this essay for me. That is the reason for my questions. I have read this essay like five times. I have tried to read all the references that are given. To get any further I need more answers.
I am not trying to sway your opinion. You are entitled to it. But before I get these questions answered there is no way I can accept the meaning of this Essay. This is a forum for questions, contemplation I do not do here but home in privacy.
I am sorry if you feel my questions are like wepons. I am just trying to be to the point.
Kindly
/Victor
It seems that the wrong view of the words is "they are teaching, so teach to me truth." Rather, "they are teaching me to see truth with imperfect pointers" where words aren't objective rules to abide, rather signposts along a road that have to work within the constraints of subjective reality.
An idea like:
"Dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant."
Can be observed as you open your mind to what is presented here. If you picture a wave of energy operating in a sine/cosine curve for instance... your point of view is the top of the curve. The past is on one side, the future on the other. As you ride this wave, vibrations in the form of potential, come up and pass by. Because your view is instantaneous, this happens over and over again each second. As we observe the vibrations (from any of the sense organs) the self assigns meanings to those vibrations, creating the phenomena. The transition of vibration to phenomena occurs in an instant.
Now, is this true? Not explicitly... but accepting the general idea can help you see what is explicitly true, which is beyond conceptions... because those conceptions flare out behind the top of the sine wave as they come to exist. Its like having to point at air with stones. However, they are typically aimed at teaching you how to see it yourself, rather than teach you what it is.
To ask where in the sutta this is stated isn't needed... stop clinging to the words of anyone, including the Buddha, and try to look upon your reality detached in this way. Then, when you see it more closely, you can see exactly what they are pointing at (both Buddhadasa and Buddha)
With warmth,
Matt
Clearly you have not given this a very thorough read given how you've quoted just headings and asked questions which were answered directly below said headings, and apparently missed this at the very top of the page:
For this reason this version of the text can admittedly be a somewhat difficult read and unfortunately it's the best version available online. I believe the official translation and full version is available from Suan Mokkh.
This shorter essay by him explains it all clearly and simply: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_The_Danger_of_I.htm
Please answer my question then. How does the "ego self" arise. Please explain the process. Please explain the relevance of the anatta doctrine in Buddhadhamma.
What you are saying is that it is better to lie than to be regarded as foolish?
I would rather be regarded as foolish than lie.
For what reason exactly are you not quoting the kalama sutta at me?:cool:
Meaning you would rather I was convinced that what you are convinced about as truth is truth?;)
Yes I believe in rebirth in the same way that I believe the sun goes up in the east. Lets leave the kalama sutta out of it.
Why does that upset you? How does that have anything to do with you?
I am not talking about fabricated memories.
Funny you should say that because the tought has occured to me too.:D
I was wondering what on earth DD was talking about.
My question was:
"Dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant."
From where or how did he deduce this? Is there a sutta?
In his version of Dependent arising birth is "emeregence of the ego" and aging and death is the cessation of the same. Which means the all of the states of Dependent Co arising happens in an instant. Not so in my understanding of the DO.
In the way I understand the DO emerging of the Ego and end of the same is implicit in the other states of the DO like Contact, Feeling, Conciousness and Fabrications. I think that is normally what the buddha adresses as wrong view. "If someone should say Feeling is his self..." and so on. So in my understanding Ego does emerge from moment to moment even several times a second even but birth and death does not happen every moment because it refers to the start and end of this life. Anyway. It is rather one of the key points of interpreting the DO in one way or the other.
Thank you and my common sense tells me you have not really thought this through.
None that I know of. Why do you ask?
You do know that there is an alternative way of understanding the DO other than Buddhadasas? I could relate you to a number of texts otherwise...:D.
Oh you mean it is his personal opinion. I was hoping for some source. Alright.
Concept pertaining to form. Please persue this one I am dying to know.:)
Talking on the supermundane level Existence of Ego by itelf is denied. I believe it is implicit in the Nidanas. Already at Contact of Feeling there is Ego. There is no need to explicitly talk about emergence/death of the Ego as a nidana. The rest is the same.
No lets use scientific knowleadge and common sense.
Do you know that even one cell organizms (with the ability to move on their own accord) propell themselfs away from the enviromnet that is destructive to it and into the environment that is productive to it? Obviously it can be argued that the Nidanas seem to be present is such a case.
Why does the fertilized egg move down the fallopian tube and descend into the womb? Why does it attach itself to the wall of the womb? Because doing so is productive to it.
Why does the sperm wriggle its way into the fallopian tube? Because in the perspective of the sperm that volitional fabrication is productive to its purpose or will.
If I wanted to get methaphysical I would say that even the smallest particals exhibit volitional fabrications. Just not the same as us.
/Victor
Make of my intention what you will. I do not able to persuade you otherwise. When I asked for the source for why he calls the DO the perfect truth then I was hoping for some other explanation than that it is his personal opinion.
Great. Thanks.
Hopefully the last post will explain my view of the DO better. If something is unclear please ask.
The anatta doctrine in my opinion says that there is nothing in this samsara that has any objective value. The value of a thing is that which we subjectively give it.
It means that everything in samsara valued on the supramandane level is as valuble as anything else or that everything is as worthless as anything else.
In short there is no intrinsic value in anything other than what our illusory Cognition ascribes to it.
Why do you want to know. How do you view the anatta doctrine yourself?
EDIT:
If you wanted to know about how my perception of the anatta doctrine pertains to the understanding of self then that is base. (And given in full in the link you supplied)
It is false to say that there is a self. It is false to say there is no self. How the illusion of Ego is entertained is described in many suttas.
/Victor
EDIT:
Your opinion that I have critizised the Essay poorly is in it self a pointer that I have not critizised it.
I critizise things forcefully and with vigour.
The people you're talking to have a highly coherent theory of personal experience, based in the Buddha's teachings, expressed in a highly successful practice: the practice of meditation. Cosmology plays no part in this theory. If you want to bring cosmology into it, you have to give a good reason. Now, usually when people bring this up, it is because they are attached to some notion of a transmigration from life to life of some kind. If that's not the case, what is your interest in this?
a) Who cares whether the Buddha taught that or not? Is it relevant to the practice? The practice proceeds in our lives without a belief in rebirth, and the question never comes up for us. b) As you've seen in this thread, there is considerable philological and historical uncertainty about what the Buddha did and didn't teach.
Regarding the question of lying, it's worth thinking about this Please share your experience with us. It sounds very interesting.
So some guy wrote a book. Some other guy wrote a book. Maybe in heaven or hell or their next lives they're sorting it out in a steel cage death match. Meanwhile, we have to take responsibility for our own beliefs.
What I am saying is that even if it is a subjective reality, it can not be dismissed as false or of no significance. Is that not what the anatta doctrine says? Volitional actions change subjective reality not objective. Some volitional actions change subjective reality and obscure the objective. That is why pannca sila says "musavada veramani siccapadam...". Rebirth has been used in many suttas in different ways. " I was born there as the kings advisor" Gotama says. Then there is the story of the father that was reborn as a dog in the household. Denying Buddhas belief in rebirth would make the Buddha a deciver of some proportion. I can not see it any other way.
The question was trying to seek out an important difference in the way to perceive the Traditional DO with birth/aging death vs buddhadasas and how it is grounded.
I agree with you that the Ego emerges at least once every second. That is why Buddhadhasas statement of the frequency was a bit curious. Probably he means the same thing.
Yes I hear you on that.
I can not see a large difference in Buddhadhasas view of the DO and mine. Both are able to depict how the ego arises. The compelling idea with Buddhadasa is that he has divided the understanding into two "truths". The one containing rebirth aging and death and the one which is without these.
My understanding of the DO has both these "muddled" so to speak.
I note in passing that which is relevant to this thread. Buddhadhasa does not actually deny rebirth. He only says that his "Pure" DO does not contain birth, aging and death. Correct me please if I am wrong.
/Victor
There is too much thought invested here. If you get caught in the world of appearances, then you're being critical of your own reflection. If you can accept that the world of form does not have a central or concrete meaning that can be assigned to it, then the qualities that trouble you will become moot. I have yet to find a sutta where I could see any deception going on.
It could be easier proven that speaking is inherently lying because it is rooted in deceptive reality. This is why the understanding of subjective relating is so crucial. If there is a particular phrase that is troubling, bring it forward and we can look together at it. The thread has too many views back and forth for me to tell exactly what the lie is you're spinning around.
Even a 'second' is a subjective label that the ego projects in order to establish continuity.
The reason I see that rebirth is problematic is because its another one of the phenomena that the ego is creating, trying to establish a continuity that doesn't exist.
For instance, if I am sitting on the street watching my ego play handball, when it catches death, its need for continuity creates a vibrational response ... throwing birth. This is instantaneous, it happens of the same moment. When it catches birth, its natural vibrational response is to throw becoming. When it catches becoming, the reaction is clinging. When it catches clinging, the reaction is craving.
And on and on. Its because the self is attempting to comprehend, or create a continuity of experience. The more times this cycles through, the more rutted the automatic response. Now for me, sitting on the street watching this silly game, birth and death are ridiculous vibrations that the ego plays with. There is no actual continuity, the ball doesn't throw itself, nor does it have any of the actual qualities the ego assigns it. The ball is as empty as I am, observing the egoic game.
For me, then, which would be the view of "pure DO" (although it might be more appropriate to say ultimate or direct DO) there is no birth, no rebirth, no death, no becoming, no clinging etc... no cycle... no continuity... only the observation of formless, label-less vibration.
From here, the 8fp is a simple set of instructions we give to the ego in order to help it stop grasping for continuity, which solidifies itself, forcing the ball to be thrown with more force. As we talk to an ego that believes in death and birth, we say truthfully that there is rebirth, because there is. When we talk to someone who is working with their ego already, we say truthfully that there is no death and birth. Truth is another striving that the ego has to establish a reliability/continutiy of ideas... there is not truth or deception, there is only the game.
In saying this, I don't mean to reinvent the wheel, only trying to help show how rebirth is both true and untrue, depending on whether your view is pressed up against the ego (ie, solid-self ignorance contacting vibration) or detached from the ego (ie anatta penetrating, observing directly the cycle) From that space, there is no grasping to establish a continuity, so there is no cycle. This is why it is Tathagata.
What do you think?
With warmth,
Matt
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
"And what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.1 In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. And which are the five clinging-aggregates? The form clinging-aggregate, the feeling clinging-aggregate, the perception clinging-aggregate, the fabrication clinging-aggregate, & the consciousness clinging-aggregate.
Further down is an explanation of DO arising moment to moment. First there is arising of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, tactile and mental consciousness. Then comes feeling of like and dislike.
The aggregates are not the problem but clinging is. With the cessation of clinging there is dependent cessation and ending of stress.
From here comes the formulation of the 4 NT : stress, origin of stress, its cessation and the way to its cessation. Truly the core teaching.
Now if internally the eye is intact but externally forms do not come into range, nor is there a corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. If internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, but there is no corresponding engagement, then there is no appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness. But when internally the eye is intact and externally forms come into range, and there is a corresponding engagement, then there is the appearing of the corresponding type of consciousness.
"The form of what has thus come into being is gathered under the form clinging-aggregate. The feeling of what has thus come into being is gathered under the feeling clinging-aggregate. The perception of what has thus come into being is gathered under the perception clinging-aggregate. The fabrications of what has thus come into being are gathered under the fabrication clinging-aggregate. The consciousness of what has thus come into being is gathered under the consciousness clinging-aggregate. One discerns, 'This, it seems, is how there is the gathering, meeting, & convergence of these five clinging-aggregates. Now, the Blessed One has said, "Whoever sees dependent co-arising sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees dependent co-arising."4 And these things — the five clinging-aggregates — are dependently co-arisen.5 Any desire, embracing, grasping, & holding-on to these five clinging-aggregates is the origination of stress. Any subduing of desire & passion, any abandoning of desire & passion for these five clinging-aggregates is the cessation of stress.' 6 And even to this extent, friends, the monk has accomplished a great deal.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html
It is significant as a moral teaching not as an absolute truth.
That's the idea
Past dwellings.
Reference please?
There is no rule for the frequency. Point is birth of the ego happens so many times in one lifetime.
You believe in rebirth? Would you mind telling me what is reborn please?
That is all good and well but the question was for me and I have no problem with any of those things so If somebody askes me a question I will proclaim the heavens and hells in my answer if it suits me.:D
I have no interest in this. It was Deshy who brought up the question of transmigating self.
Fair enough. But this thread was on the other hand started to discuss that matter...
So what are you saying? That the Buddha did not teach rebirth?
Yes I had forgotten about that sutta. It is a good one. Which is it that you percieve to be the lie in this sutta?
It would not serve any purpose and is very personal. Neither is it anything that would convince anybody else but me about rebirth. So no thanks.
Kindly
Victor
Thanks.
Then I have aquestion. Why does the DO contain birth, aging and death in other suttas?
/Victor
I agree. That is my point.
These are some texts I found on ATI and elsewhere referring to rebirth. Now using rebirth in so many places to teach the dhamma then would it not be utterly confusing if some or other sutta suddenly stated that the Buddha did not believe in rebirth?
Or would it not be outright deception for the buddha not to hold the view of rebirth when saying the following?
"Do you remember this, Lord?" "I do, Pancasikha. At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward, and I taught those disciples the path to union with the Brahma-world
"at the breaking up of the body after death, rebirth in a realm of misery, in an unhappy state, in the nether world, in hell."
"Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths, Long was the weary path from birth to birth. When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause, The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth. "
"Take the case of another man. He is endowed with unwavering devotion to the Buddha... the Dhamma... the Sangha... he is joyous and swift in wisdom but has not gained release. Having destroyed the five lower fetters, he is reborn spontaneously where he will attain Nibbaana without returning from that world."
"And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence."
"Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously, the wise praise heedfulness in making merit. The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's called prudent, wise. "
"So long, bhikkhus, as my knowledge and seeing of these four true realities for the spiritually ennobled ones, as they really are in their three phases (each) and twelve modes (altogether) was not thoroughly purified in this way, then so long, in the world with its devas, māras and brahmās, in this population with its renunciants and brahmans, its devas and humans, I did not claim to be fully awakened to the unsurpassed perfect awakening. But when, bhikkhus, my knowledge and vision of these four true realities for the spiritually ennobled ones, as they really are in their three phases and twelve modes was thoroughly purified in this way, then, in the world with its devas, māras and brahmās, in this population with its renunciants and brahmans, its devas and humans, I claimed to be fully awakened to the unsurpassed perfect awakening. Indeed, knowledge and seeing arose in me: 'Unshakeable is the liberation of my mind; this is my last birth: now there is no more renewed existence.'"
"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span."
I still live in the subjective world. I have to use everyday words...
That is a good reason to find anything problematic. Again anatta. It seems irrational to lift rebirth as more problamatic above anything else if you are convinced of the anatta doctrine. Dont you agree?
That is almost my point Matt.
If we change the example like this then it becomes what I am trying to say.
On the one level Buddha is teaching that there is rebirth. That is one truth.
On the other (according to you) he does not express any view on rebirth (that is why there is no sutta that denies rebirth). That is the otherworldly truth.
The thing I feel many people are missing in this discussion is that both these are truths.
I feel people in the discussion cling to the second of these teachings and proclaim the first truth to be devoid of meaning and hence act like it is false. Which it is not.
Am I making any sense? Have I misunderstood?
/Victor
What are you saying please?
Its concerning Subha and Toddaya (his father). But I can not find an reference. Maybe you have better luck than me who knows the suttas.
I think he said dozen times a day or something. That made me wonder if I am understanding him correctly.
You have asked me this question so often that I begin to wonder if you at all read my replies.
Let me say it just one more time: I have no idea what is reborn.:)
Here are some references on the subject that might interest you. Read specially the last one.
Kutuhalasala Sutta
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna
"Who, O Lord, consumes the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes. If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be: 'For what is the nutriment consciousness (the condition)? And to that the correct reply is: 'The nutriment consciousness is a condition for the future arising of a renewed existence when that has come into being, there is (also) the sixfold sense-base; and conditioned by the sixfold sense-base is sense-impression.'"
/Kindly
Victor
The state of craving sustained is not a state that "something" (you don't even know what it is) waits to get reborn as another physical body after death of the current physical body. It is a mental state we all go through in this lifetime.
When self-identification arises in the mind as "I am so and so", that is one birth, one body. There are null periods between the arising of one ego and the other. It can be a second, a minute or even longer. Point is these periods between two births is a mind state which is applicable in one single lifetime.
Dependent origination is a truth and the Buddha said that whoever sees it will see his Dhamma. His rebirth teachings are not given in such conviction. Why would he? Why would someone who taught that the "five aggregates are not-self and nothing belonging to self" say that "so and so will be reborn after death in so and so realm"? He has not spoken the two in the same breath. There is a difference between the two types of teachings.
Wherever he taught rebirth was merely for morality in people to whome teaching not-self was fruitless and would lead to them staying away from Dhamma altogether. Instead of chasing them away from Buddha Dhamma altogether, he chose to reteach the rebirth belief that those people had in a way that would be for the betterment of those people in the long run.
People cling and they do not cling. What matters of course is the personal refinement, grinding your self to dust against the reflections you see and penetrate.
I've noticed a lot of people undervalue the importance of subjective relating. I also notice that there are certain passages where Buddha refers to himself as "I" which seems odd. Others he is Tathagata, seemingly devoid of an "I"
As people cling to the projections of finite or infinite, they argue about all sorts of stuff. Its like peeing into the wind... and not the good way
I was only meaning to contrast second with instant, which is closer to simultaneous arising, rather than a continuity. I wasn't grinding semantics.
As far as you making sense, I wonder if what you're experiencing is people who see the lack of value in pressing their faces into the grit so to speak. It makes sense why they stay rooted in the understanding that rebirth is either unprovable in this lifetime and therefore unimportant, or not objectively true when the view is dissociated from the ego, and therefore unimportant.
Either way, its academic and not all that useful... when there are more important matters in the here and now to work on. I hear your drive to form a continuity of ideas, but it won't really help you, and might just solidfy your understanding, rather than erode the clinging to it... which is why I've been saying 'who cares?' or 'look at why you're caring'
With warmth,
Matt
Birth, aging and death is a truth but by themselves they don't cause suffering. It is the false with self that is. Others death is not suffering. DO at a deeper level points to the true suffering and its cause.
DO exists at 2 levels. By not penetrating to the deeper level one cannot find liberation.
Hehe, yeah. Sometimes all hell breaks loose...
Referring DDhatu to a Mahayana sutra?
"You know you're a newbie when..."
DD and a flower? I'm looking forward to this !
.
Why do you believe it then?
He has said he has direct knowledge of it, proof enough for him, but he refuses to elaborate. And apparently it has nothing to do with past life memories, so I 'unno.
No. I'm saying precisely what aMatt said:
There are instances in the suttas where people came to the Buddha with a belief sadly similar to what I provided as an example. Telling them that they have misunderstood their own belief system and explaining it to them isn't a lie, anyway. :crazy:
No. I have not even stated my own personal beliefs on the afterlife here. I'm simply pointing out the logic lacking in your reasoning of what is and isn't truth, and your misrepresentation of the Kalama Sutta.
You brought the Kalama Sutta into it.
It doesn't upset me...?
You have been asked and refuse to explain. I will try again: what evidence/experience do you have that you feel supports literal rebirth? You say you have absolutely no idea what is reborn. Could you explain what rebirth even means to you?
But your attempt to reiterate his words weren't even close to what he actually said.
Again, where is the sutta that says it takes place over three lifetimes? How is it more logical to assume that than it is to read it as Buddhadasa does? You are aware that Buddhaghosa was a Brahman and stated himself that he didn't understand DO but hoped his attempts in dhamma work would allow him to be reborn with the gods until the Metteya came and could explain it to him properly? :crazy:
If you read what Buddhadasa says, and consider what aMatt has said, you could see it for yourself.
Firstly understand that it is a translation. Secondly, understand the meaning of "figure of speech." Thirdly, read the essay in its entirety and you'll understand that there is no fixed number. He has said: "At present, two kinds of teaching of the doctrine of dependent origination exist. One distorts the Buddha Dhamma, and it has existed for more than a thousand years. The other is in accord with the Buddha Dhamma, and it teaches awareness of Contacts at the sense bases to prevent Feeling from advancing to Craving."
Yeah, I'm more than aware, obviously. Your question was bizarre. You were suggesting that Buddhadasa was stating that the issue with interpreting birth/death literally here is only when people believe in literal rebirth. You inferred something illogical and irrelevant from his words and are once again getting away from the main point. Birth and death in the literal, physical sense are not the cause of dukkha regardless of afterlife beliefs. :crazy:
=|
It is not his personal opinion. Read:
"hence, it is called “maha-ariyasacca” [the Great Truth]."
"Anybody who is able to comprehend the doctrine of dependent origination has the capability to engage in his own cultivation and end his suffering." (I have provided reference already - DO -IS- Buddhadhamma).
Are you saying that's what nama-rupa means? What does that sentence even mean? :crazy:
You said, "but there would still be the living body." Not if there is cessation of nama-rupa, there ain't.
This is the most confusing and nonsensical paragraph I've ever seen.
"Contact of Feeling" - suggests you don't know what either term in Buddhism means. This makes absolutely no sense. It also suggests that a buddha does not experience even Contact as according to you, ego inherently arises with Contact. :crazy:
"There is no need to explicitly talk about emergence/death of the Ego as a nidana." - what does this mean? "As a nidana"? :crazy:
"The rest is the same." ? :crazy:
So you assert that a single cell organism has an ego and concept of "self"? :crazy:
Stand outside in a thunderstorm with an umbrella. The lightning will naturally be drawn to it. That doesn't mean it has a self-concept.
If something comes towards my eye, I blink automatically to protect my eye; that doesn't mean my eye has a self-concept.
Also I will try to focus this thread in my next post so some of your questions will be addressed there. Please have patience
Nothing that will make any sense to you.
I have not thought much about it really so I guess I can not.
Why would I know or care?
Why are you guys so caught up in numbers? I dropped the number thing several posts ago. Give it up and move on.
Did you read the headline?It said the Perfect truth.
Very interesting. I will answer this in my next post.
Concat or Feeling.
Seems plausible to me.
Really? If you feel that way then I guess you should ignore my methaphysical remarks.
[/quote]
Exactly how is this relevant? Do you feel the eye is a single cell organism or a subatomic particle?:smilec:
/Victor
Nope.
Then what relevance does it have to the Dhamma? You asked "5. When you claim that rebirth belief is not essential to core buddhism then what do you mean by core buddhism?" - what do YOU mean by core Buddhism? How is it essential?
You are asking for proof of our views from the suttas. So I ask for the same proof for your view?
Before I give it up and move on I suggest you read my response once again. It is a translation. It is later translated differently. Read the definition of the term and don't get so hung up on the word "perfect" which you've attached your own definition to.
Requires a brain. Dukkha is mental dis-ease, the turmoil and torment and dissatisfaction we create.
After posting in a single rebirth Thread 25+ times in less than 2 days just a couple weeks ago, I feel obligated to call you out on your hypocrisy.
Some people enjoy debate. If you do not, you're not forced to continue rebirthing yourself in this Thread and others and could always go parinibbana yourself. And no, parinibbana is absolutely not meant to be read as a certain expletive.
A couple of weeks is more than enough time to learn the futility of it. But this is my last post for sure, if I keep on going then you will definitely have valid grounds for calling me a hypocrit.
OK then :wavey:
So what you are saying is, basically, you have no idea what is reborn, you have no valid explanation how rebirth happens but you have some experiences of "past-life" which will make no sense to others.
Rebirth can also be referring to rebirth unto the constant pure nature.:)
Rebirth doesnt exist, whether or not it occurs falls into the relative truth, not the ultimate, therefore any rebirth that may occur, occurs based solely upon causes and conditions.
The bodhisattva vow doesnt really apply here either, you are trying to use it as a reference with people who do not consider it to be one. The question of the perspective of an enlightened being wont fit the bill.
I would like to make an attempt to focus this thread since I feel I spend too much time on irrelevant things.
My Intention in starting this thread was to examine the implications of Buddhism without rebirth. Deshy and Mundus it was not meant to affirm rebirth. So it would be nice if you two could focus on the subject please.
Here are some questions that daunt me still about this.
1. Is death exempt from anicca?
If there is no rebirth then is Death exempt from the anicca doctrine? If there would be not rebirth then where does death end? In my point of view Death ends in Birth.
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated.
This is what DN 22. says about Death:
And what is Death? The departing and vanishing of beings
out of this or that order of beings. their destruction, disappearance,
death, the completion of their life-period,
dissolution of the Groups of Existence, the discarding of the
body: this is called death.
2. Break up of the Body before Death
Both Mundus and DD are suggesting that the Nama-rupa or the Body (as you interpret it?) ends/breaks up between every emergence of the Ego? Am I rigth? At least DD expressed this view. You are saying that physical body breaks up and the rematerializes from moment to moment of conciousness? In any case is this not contradictorey to the following citation from SN. XII. 62.?
It would be better for the unlearned worldling to regard his
body, built up of the four elements, as his Self, rather than his
mind. For it is evident that the body may last for a year, for
two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, or even for a hundred
years and more; but that which is called thought, or
mind, or consciousness, arises continuously, during day and
night, as one thing, and passes away as another thing.
And commonsensically speaking is this not a bit of a streatch?
3. Did the Buddha not believe in rebirth?
I thought this would be an non-issue at first
And that you would all hold the position fivebells holds:
Fivebells said:
Who cares whether the Buddha taught that or not? Is it relevant to the practice? The practice proceeds in our lives without a belief in rebirth, and the question never comes up for us.
But then you guys kept trying to explain how the Buddha did teach rebirth without actually believing in it and still claiming (in different ways and I am not saying they are wrong just that I can not get them) that he was not deceiving people.
These are the some of the comments from those posts.
I am not saying the Buddha lied. He just took the existing belief of the people and retaught that in a way that they practice morality. That doesn't necessarily mean he had a strong conviction about rebirth beyond any doubt. If so then he would be teaching rebirth as an absolute reality rather than taking a more flexible approach to his rebirth teachings depending on his audience.
How about this one
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.040.than.html
"Monks, the taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span."
Or this one
"And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Bhikkhus, it is through not realizing, through not penetrating the Four Noble Truths that this long course of birth and death has been passed through and undergone by me as well as by you. What are these four? They are the noble truth of suffering; the noble truth of the origin of suffering; the noble truth of the cessation of suffering; and the noble truth of the way to the cessation of suffering. But now, bhikkhus, that these have been realized and penetrated, cut off is the craving for existence, destroyed is that which leads to renewed becoming, and there is no fresh becoming."
From here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
In fact most of the suttas I quoted for Matt are such where Monks are present and taught something that has to do with rebirth. What is your view on this?
These comments are not directly connected the question but emerged during discussion.
I think they are important to the understanding of the anatta doctrine.
It makes sense why they stay rooted in the understanding that rebirth is either unprovable in this lifetime and therefore unimportant, or not objectively true when the view is dissociated from the ego, and therefore unimportant.
Or this
conventional or literal truth -- was the buddha a dear? obviously this is conventional truth. with ignorance and the aggregates correctly comprehended, what difference does it make on the literal level?
Correct me if I am wrong but I feel that you are mixing unicorns and apples here. Just because a thing is not true in the lokauttara way does not mean that it is untrue in the worldly way. That is why the Buddha speaks about two Truths! You can not mix these views and get an coherent system.
See this example. We all agree that in the objective sense there is no ego as we percieve it? But that does not mean that we do not percieve an ego here and now! Try knocking yourself with an hammer and see for yourselves.
Just because an apple and an mango objectivley has the same value does not mean that we can call an apple a mango subjectively.
Here is a citation from MN. 22
And with such unwise considerations, he adopts one or other
of the six views, and it becomes his conviction and firm belief:
‘I have a Self’, or: ‘I have no Self’, or: ‘With the Self I perceive
the Self’, or: ‘With that which is no Self, I perceive the Self’; or:
‘With the Self I perceive that which is no Self’. Or, he adopts
the following view: ‘This my Self, which can think and feel,
and which, now here, now there, experiences the fruit of good
and evil deeds: this my Self is permanent, stable, eternal, not
subject to change, and will thus eternally remain the same’.
If there really existed the Self, there would also exist some-
thing which belonged to the Self. As, however, in truth
and reality neither the Self, nor anything belonging to the
Self, can be found, is it not therefore really an utter fools’
doctrine to say: ‘This is the world, this am I; after death I
shall be permanent, persisting, and eternal’?
The sutta is saying that both the views ‘I have a Self’, or: ‘I have no Self’ are incorrect. I think you are arguing from the point that there is no self in the worldly sense. When you do that then suddenly you can mix apples and unicorns...
If you had argued that there was no self from the objective standpoint then I would have agreed.
What do you say?
/Victor
:eek:
Death of what exactly? I'm sorry but you need to identify what it is that dies (and thus what you believe is reborn) in order for anyone to address this question.
Does the question "Is birth exempt from anicca" make much sense? Neither does your own question.
Birth is just a concept, what we call the process of falling out of a twat. :skepticalBefore that, what were we? There's just constant change. After death, the physical body remains, decomposes, and changes as well.
Speaking of which - where is the life inside the womb addressed in the literal rebirth interpretation of DO? You say, that even a single-celled organism has a self-concept and thus experiences dukkha, yet apparently dukkha only begins with physical birth?
Of course, there is physical death. Generally, the DN are not the most reliable suttas especially in terms of supramundane teachings. MN 141 states:
MN 26 states that even gold is subject to death (and birth, and aging, etc.). In other words, death is anicca. In this sutta he teaches that clinging to that which is subject to death/anicca as self brings about dukkha.
Nama-rupa does not solely refer to the body and this is not an interpretation, it is outright stated in the suttas.
Err, no. Another common translation is "dissolution." When you stop and pay attention, you see that the physical body is also constantly changing. Not necessarily in blatant outwardly appearances. Your body now is not the same body as five minutes ago in various ways. This has nothing to do with de- and re-materializing. :skeptical
The issue is that rebirth means so many things. Some people hold the belief, like yourself, and don't even have a clue what it means to you. For some people it means the ego and can be seen constantly. For others it means a self after death. For others it refers to both the physical and mental, during life as well as after death.
Some feel he did not believe in any form of rebirth himself because his primary teachings such as DO do not mention it, they mention only birth, and the idea that something is reborn contradicts the anatta doctrine. So for some it's even more just a semantics issue - but it's an important one.
Once again, many people take these to be mental-states. And in fact there are suttas which support this view in which the Buddha refers to being "here-and-now reborn in such-and-such a realm" through tainted Contact.
What...? Who's doing that...?
There is a perceived self, a worldly self, a self-concept, an ego - call it what you will. But it's just an illusion, a concept. In reality, it's just aggregates we cling to as self. What does this have to do with rebirth?