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.
Question about Rebirth
I'm sure there are no shortage of these on the forum 
LOL
So, energy is neither created nor destroyed, that's basic physics and it holds true within the context of a Buddhist outlook as well.
However, I have a theoretical question: If all beings were to attain Nirvana, would there then be no further life in existence, as no new energy would be created?
Namaste
LOLSo, energy is neither created nor destroyed, that's basic physics and it holds true within the context of a Buddhist outlook as well.
However, I have a theoretical question: If all beings were to attain Nirvana, would there then be no further life in existence, as no new energy would be created?
Namaste
0
Comments
At least, that is what I have been taught.
If others know different, pray jump in.
But Rain - it's really not as cut and dried as all that.
Some practising Buddhists accept the premise of re-birth. Some of re-birth AND reincarnation. others don't.
What you are seeking is an answer to a speculative question, and one that it's probably futile to spend too much energy worrying about.
Are you enlightened?
No?
Then why does it matter?
Are you enlightened?
Yes?
then you tell us.....
And you're right. There is no shortage of threads on re-birth.
It might pay you and save everyone the tedium of repetition, if actually, you searched and had a look through the archives first.
I'll be perfectly honest with you.
Some of us are getting a little.... tired..... of the topic.;)
Gotcha
Forgetting the "energy" for a moment, I think you are asking, something like: would samsara stop if all beings became enlightened?
I think the answer is "Maybe."
That's that sorted.
Now can we sweep the yard, and plant the onions?
But I appreciate most of what you've said.
Thank you.
Namaste~
I'm neither insulting nor condescending. Trust me, if I wanted to be (which I don't) I'd make a far more thorough job of it.
I'm attempting humour.
I'm sorry, it's obviously not to your taste, and I apologise for that.
But sometimes, it's as important to be able to laugh at ourselves and not take ourselves too seriously.
Life is already short.
Why spend it so seriously all the time?
I like the contrast here, you say "ask more serious and important questions" and "why so serious" in the same post.
I think its good to be serious some of the time, but even with questions of rebirth and so forth, no need to collapse into "its pointless to ponder this." If it were pointless, it wouldn't be present.
"If all beings were to attain Nirvana, would there then be no further life in existence, as no new energy would be created?"
The answer I see is this:
The energy that animates life is not created by suffering, rather, as the energy becomes more complex (such as memory and reflection) it becomes rutted into habituated patterns. These patterns are what creates the suffering, and though it can sometimes be said that 'life is suffering', it would be even more appropriate in modern language to say that 'life has suffering.'
If suffering then ceases for all sentient beings, the way that life would look would be unrecognizable to an unenlightened mind. The type of environmental system that would arise would be as difficult to describe as the kind of experience one has while enlightened... collapsing it into conceptual representations would be impossible.
With warmth,
Matt
No.... I haven't.....
How did you figure that one out?
I have never said that it's pointless to ponder re-birth. it is one of the Buddha's teachings. I asked whether the question above, namely,
....would classify as an imponderable, and Rain replied: which I took to be an affirmative. So explain to me how I am incorrect in saying that further conjecture on that matter, is pointless?
If you as well believe it is an imponderable, your time in this thread is done is it not [rhetorical question]? Question answered, from your point of view. Thank you kindly for your input
However, I am still open to other people's answers if they wish to chime in, such as Matt. I am also more than fine with the thread slipping away to the depths of the forum. Whichever happens naturally without a constant discussion of what we all don't agree with each other on :P
Namaste
This (the bolding) is what I was pointing at, and I was kidding! Don't you see how you're saying "lets ponder more important things" and "Don't be too serious, laugh at yourself" in the same post?
Anyway, it wasn't a big deal, I just love wordplay, and in the context you were offering I thought it might strike you as funny.
Why ponder? Because the pondering was already there, and a lot of ponderings lead to an expanded awareness of impermanence if they are redirected rather than suppressed. I have yet to find a seed that is without purpose. We just have to stop clinging to our conception of what is important to see how all of it is.
With warmth,
Matt
"More important' still doesn't mean 'serious'...I guess it's looking at tackling things with a light heart, as opposed to 'lightheartedly'....
(That was subtle....didja see what I did there....?;))
Yes, and there's the problem.
The Buddha foresaw that people would want to ponder.
And that's why he tried to warn against it. Yet in all these thousands of years, people still don't listen.
It's all very simple. But because it's so simple, people refuse to believe it's simple, and actually strive in every way they can, with great Effort, to make sure that actually, it's all extremely complicated. You wouldn't understand, because we don't understand....so it must be complicated. Right?
Really?
You truly believe that all this pondering leads to an expanded awareness of impermanence? Redirected? How?
In what direction?
Why look any further than the Four Noble Truths?
All you need to know of Impermanence is taught right there.
I'm not clinging to 'our conception'. I'm clinging to the Buddha's. And if he says it's all pointless, that's good enough for me. Because I've witnessed an awful lot of discussions like these, on many different boards. And to date, none of them has actually led to anyone being any the wiser.
At all.
They've all learnt more about each other's method of discussion, than the Thread topic.
And eventually, they've all fizzled out inconclusively, because.... guess what?
There is no conclusion. Other than the one under their nose all the time.
Certainly. I assumed the joke fell flat after the first response, but I feel I understand your words.
Buddha said that we must take in the Dhamma with discernment. After taking in the Dhamma with discernment, we come to see and agree on it through pondering.
Inward. If the four noble truths were enough for everyone, then there wouldn't be questions such as these. Why move into "the four noble truths should be enough for everyone" when they are simply not. Buddha said more than that in his lifetime, and he spoke rightly.
Little moves. I think it folly to say that no discussion has had an impact. With slow and gentle hands we have the ability to open up to the questions being asked, answer them skillfully (or a degree somewhere between skillfully and unskillfully) and then trust that the right minds and hearts are receiving the words we offer. The rest of that is your conclusiveness, which is another kind of clinging. Better not to cling even to the four noble truths.
With warmth,
Matt
This question (or similar) was asked from the Buddha by someone. Unfortunately I do not remember the sutta (I hope someone will point to it) but the Buddha's answer was "does not apply". He said that because there is a fundamental issue in the question which is that you seem to identify the existence of a self.
What do you call "energy" here btw? The consciousness? a self?
The Buddha taught that the five aggregates are empty of self and Nibbana is breaking through the delusion of self and seeing the five aggregates as natural phenomena void of self or anything belonging to self. Once you realize that "future existence or non-existence" will not apply.
Like? :scratch:
Otherwise the suttas would be very short, no?
All the words he used sum up to dukkha, cause of dukkha, eradicating dukkha and the path to eradicate dukkha. Don't you think?
I only think as last resort
I understand where you're coming from, saying that most of his message relays back to the four noble truths. This seems to me to have happened because the four noble truths were not enough to penetrate all minds, that as people approach the truth they see, there had to be different skillful relating... ie, lots more words.
I still haven't found anything that does not relay back to the four noble truths but I don't mind being corrected :coffee: As I see it, the Buddha taught about suffering and the cessation of suffeirng.
I'm not talking about the Dhamma. I'm talking about that which is unconjecturable, and which if pondered upon will lead to vexation and madness.
And the Dhamma starts, emanates and centres upon the Four Noble truths.
Completely.
Without Question.
Without exception.
These questions are not generated nor asked by the Buddha. They are asked by people who don't understand the Buddha's fundamental focus, or believe it could be so simple....
Explain to me how they are not.
Ask me any question about the Buddha's teachings that cannot be answered by the basic tenet of the Four Noble truths.
Yes, sure.
but it all surrounded the four Noble truths.
...we have the ability to open up to the questions being asked, answer them skillfully (or a degree somewhere between skillfully and unskillfully) and then trust that the right minds and hearts are receiving the words we offer.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but more often than not, these clever, subtle and extremely articulate answers simply hold within them, the essence of the Four Noble Truths. or if they don't they're still an enigma, Aren't they?
So then, where's your point?
I do not cling to the Four Noble Truths, but I hold them in my heart and mind as the only answer I'll ever need.
When the time comes, I will release them.
it seems to me that you'd prefer to hold your endless discourses of encyclopaedia-like machinations.
That's a heavy load to carry, voluntarily.
I just need four little things.....;)
I like to travel light.
It is, after all, the determination to refuse to carry useless baggage, that keeps my progress steady.
Observing all manner of discussions of this kind, I am reminded of the donkey working the gigantic mill-stone......
it grinds exceeding small, but the donkey really gets nowhere.....
Getting a little aggressive?
For me, the burden is light. The reason to know that which is outside the fold is to relate to the worlds of those who travel in circles without knowing. I do not spend time meticulously pouring over concepts and words, rather as they arise, look at them directly, commune with them directly and let them go. I am fascinated with the billions of subjective universes and how people relate to them, and watch with a smile as people work skillfully and unskillfully with what they see.
I just try to be open enough that when someone asks a question, I am available to do more than say "Your thoughts do not matter. Think other thoughts."
I agree that much of what Buddha says is about the Noble Truths. I do not say all because I do not know all of the words he spoke. I also notice how Buddha applies skillful means, which to me is relating to the questions at hand as directly and compassionately as possible. He taught different things to different people.
With warmth,
Matt
Neither. Energy is in it's own right. Why must it be linked to consciousness or self? Energy is energy. When you move your arm, it takes energy. What is it? Calories? Calories are the fuel, but the actual energy that occurs once a calorie is "used" exists separately from that.
I suppose I'm thinking of things very scientifically.
On a side note, for those arguing something in this thread that is not directly related to the topic (and arguing about pondering imponderables is a separate topic), could you please take it elsewhere? People seem very desperately attached to making a point around here... perhaps it's time to let it go.
It's like being on a Christian forum all over again.. I think I made a mistake in coming here. At least I've learned that the grass is not always greener.
It is interesting, no? I think the discussion as to why answering your question with something other than "don't worry about it" seemed to be worth exploring and pertinent directly to the question. I do admit sometimes I consider the journey more than the OP.
Good luck here and elsewhere,
Matt
well, I don't remember some of the scientific stuff I studied in school but I do remember the part that "energy is neither created nor destroyed"
Anyway I asked that question because you said
"If all beings were to attain Nirvana, would there then be no further life in existence, as no new energy would be created"
My question is,
- are beings some kind of an energy form?
- If so what?
- How does this energy from destroy when someone attends Nibbana ? (you seem to think that after Nibbana "new energy" is not created right?)
You make a good point, actually. I am making an assumption that when someone attains nibbana, there is no new energy created.
I think that's because I can't imagine energy in the form of a lifeform without consciousness, not that they are one in the same but that they are somehow inter-linked. So your point actually exposes a part of my thinking I hadn't really considered. Perhaps they are simply not as eternally linked as I once though.
But without delving too deep into the definition of consciousness or self here, all I mean is.. if our bodies were out walking around with no "consciousness" within to recognize the world around them, what would that be? Not "humanity" any longer..
What is life (a body) without life (consciousness)... am I making any sense here?
[again, I don't want to side-track into an over-definition of consciousness here, I'm just trying to use the word to make a point I hope is graspable]
For the record, I resign myself to understanding there is most likely no solid answer to my question. Who among us knows anything about rebirth? To be honest, the only reason I even believe in rebirth is because I fear death. The only reason I contemplate these things is because I fear death. I cling to an inexplicable desire to understand what happens next. I'm not naive.. I've just got a long way to go, and whilst getting there, I suppose I'm just curious about other people's input.
I'm sorry if this question has been "overdone"
How can a person walk and talk without a consciousness? Nibbana is not losing your consciousness. The Buddha spent so many years teaching Dhamma after his enlightenment. Nibbana is also not a guarantee that when you die you are dead for good. The Buddha never said such a thing, did he? In fact the Buddha never explained what happens when your physical body breaks at death.
The Buddha said that Nibbana is the ultimate cooling of all defilement. All defilement has one core or a nucleus, which is "self-identity". Self-identity is the ultimate delusion from which all kinds of fears/desires (fears of death, desire for continued existence) come from.
Nibbana is identifying that the five aggregates we are made up of are empty of self and just natural phenomena. Duhhka doesn't arise in an enlightened being's mind. Questions such as "who am I, what am I? where will I go? Where did I come from? What will happen to me?" will not apply to an enlightened being because the base of all such has inquiry has been eradicated. That is the ultimate happiness and peace which is achievable here and now
I think I see the answer. I waste my time trying to define that which cannot be defined, answer that which cannot be answered. I will never be able to make my questions clear, and even if I could? Who would answer them? Who has all the answers?
Thank you for your time, I'm sorry if it was any waste at all. You've all been very helpful
I guess.
From AN:
I believe according to Buddhism teaching, all things are impermanent. Is Nirvana also a state of impermanence? If not, what state is it?
I noticed that you stated that the mind transcends death but presumably it does so without a physical body i.e. the brain. Does this mental state of Nirvana has a spatialtemporal location? In other words, does it exist within space and time?
I think it's a mental state. The mental state free from all defilement. How this state would continue without a physical body?
The Buddha said the question "where would an enlightened being go after death" does not apply. Where would a flame go when the causes of the flame is removed? The question does not apply because there is nothing there to go anywhere in the first place. Just the five aggregates creating the delusion of self.