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.
After death
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm taking it that the Jataka Tales are just.... tales? Fiction? Parables?
-bf
"Once I die, and am reborn, will I have to completely start over with learning the things I already know? For example, I feel like I am headed in the right direction right now, but if I die soon, will I completely forget all that I have learned about Buddhism? I would hate to die, and then have to start the learning process all over again! Does anyone know what I mean?"
I've read about the mindstream that continues after we die. That the mindstream is where our karmic seeds are planted and they blossom in the next life. Here is what "Buddhist Answers", a link that Fede gave has to say:
"How does the mind go from one body to another?
When a person is dying, he begins to lose conscious control of his mental processes. There comes a time when his actions and habits locked away in his memories are released. In many instances, there arises in his mind a mental image. This image is totally involuntarily and is produced by his karma or past actions. Thus depending upon the nature of the particular karma that produces this image, the person may see dark shadowy figures, frightening images, or he may see his relatives or perhaps visions of scenic beauty. Quite often, he will cry out at these visions or remark about them to his visitors. Even though the physical body may be weak these thought units are very strong as death approaches. When the body finally breaks down at the point of death these energies are released as mental energy. As energy cannot be destroyed they have to re-establish themselves in a new body thus causing the phenomenon of rebirth.
Think of it being like radio waves which are not made up of words and music but energy at different frequencies, which are transmitted, travel instantaneously through space, are picked up by the receiver from where the radio produces them as words and music. It is the same with the mind. At death, mental energy travels through space, is picked up by the fertilized egg of the future mother, is reborn as a new being and manifests as a new personality.
Thus it is important that a dying person is comforted and reminded of his good deeds. He should not be made confused and visitors should not overtly grieve in his presence. Neither should unfamiliar ideas like a new religion be introduced to him. The Buddha advises that when one is fearful, he should recall to mind the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha."
So, is there such a thing as the mindstream and is it the only thing that connects "us" from one birth to the next? Is it the "mental energy" talked about above? And is it possible to "imprint" things on this mindstream like, for example, Dharma practice?
I'm so confused. If all this Dharma practice in this life isn't carried over to the next birth then how is it possible to get out of the cycle? What if "I'm" reborn with my karma from my past life but have no knowledge of the Dharma and therefore don't practice it?
But some people DO remember their past lives. How is that possible if there is nothing but karma linking the two lives?
Whilst constantly striving to follow the Eightfold path, I train myself to take each step more mindfully, more skillfully... and so I improve and accumulate good karma.
Whatever my previous existence, it brought me to here - today.
Imagine your neighbour asks you to watch her son for an hour or so. to make sure he behaves himself,a nd does his homework like a good boy, then goes out and plays nicely with his friends....
Only, she's still pregnant and he's not born yet....
It would be crazy!
So the best thing, to my mind is to not worry about what the future may hold....Do your best now, to be the person you know you already are.
Again, "rebirth" refers to the psychological phenomena that arises within the lifespan of the human body.
The rule of thumb is "if it does not and can not make sense, it's garbage."
The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.
I used to say that the gods only allow us to make plans for the pleasure of screwing them up!
An Indian gentleman once advise me that "The past is gone and we can't change it, so there is no point worrying about that. The future is not here yet and we can't know what it is going to bring, so there is no point worrying about that either. So all we have is the present and if we make that as perfect as we can, we do our best to ensure a trouble free future .... " He was a hypnotherapist and quite a sound philosopher! IMHO
Ummmm ..... very politely - why not?
OW!
The question (not your question) doesn't arise.
One of the things that Ive noticed in myself is that the more I think about the fact that Im going die, could be any time; that the intentional actions that I do now will effect my future life/lives; as Palzang said how precious the opportunity I have had to even hear the Dharma, find a teacher, and have the time to study and practice; and how nothing I do within cyclic existance is going to make me truly happy - the more I want to practice the Dharma and be nice and do good now.
Keith
:thumbsup:
To assert that rebirth [as taught by the Buddha] applies merely to phenomena that arises only within the lifespan of this present human life is untrue. Many people like to make this claim, the claim that rebirth was not taught in the literal sense [only metaphorically], but thousands of Suttas clearly show us otherwise. One can certainly make a pretty good case for a purely metaphorical teaching of rebirth until they run into the problem of lines such as these:
Now, if one were to say that the Buddha did not teach a literal "again becoming", how would they explain away the phrases "at death", "upon the dissolution of the body", and "reappears in a state..."? I wonder. You can try to say that birth applies to the arising of mental states and death applies to the ceasing of mental states, but when the Buddha specifically mention the break up of the body at death, you cannot logically assert that anymore. I am sure that people can come up with all kinds of explanations, but if you simply look at the words themselves, they clearly show a process that continues after the dissolution of the body at death. This process does not entail a soul, or any permanent essence whatsoever, but it still conveys a sense of continuing existence until avijja (ignorance) is completely destroyed.
One does not have to buy the teachings on rebirth, but one cannot say that the Buddha did not teach this. I personally have no problems with people being unable to believe that this is possible [it is a very difficult thing to believe without having certain experiences in meditation], but I do have a problem when people deny it as a part of the Buddha's dispensation. If it helps your pracitce to view rebirth only as a process occurring within this present life, then by all means use it to further your practice. However, please do not misrepresent what the Buddha himself taught.
Jason
P.S. Don't bother asking me how this process occurs without a self or soul. I do not know. I cannot answer your questions. I have tried to in the past, but I admit that I really have no direct knowledge of the exact wroking of kamma and rebirth. All I do know is that the Buddha advised his followers not to waste their time conjecturing about it as it will just cause uneccessary stress [as well as being an unskillful use of time which could be better used for meditation practice
If it does not and can not make sense it is worthless because it relates to the cessation of suffering in no way.
Buddha was misinterpreted. Obviously.
I teach suffering and the end to suffering.
-Buddha
It can't.
Read the excerpt from Bukkhu Bodhi again...
""The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.""
Yeah, that's it exactly, Keith. By George, I think he's got it! It's not really that important to figure out how rebirth works, imho. I trust the Buddha and my teachers when they say that it does, and just looking at the way the world works and how I keep bumping into people I know even though I've never met them in this life, it seems obvious to me that rebirth is quite real. But the real point is not to figure it all out but to practice the path taught by the Buddha and all authentic teachers so that you can learn how to attain permanent happiness for yourself and other sentient beings. That's the only important thing to actually get. Who really cares what the mechanics of it are?
Palzang
I strongly disaggree with you. You should've posted the whole essay. You missed a great deal of what the Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi said, especially:
You can attempt to convince the others on this site that the Buddha did not teach rebirth as it is clearly stated in the Suttas, but you will not convince me. I will simply choose to take the Blessed One's words over yours on this matter.
Jason
""However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.""
This is frustrating to read considering that (the bold part) was never suggested or alluded to in any way. If that was what you read it was your mistake.
edit: size adjustment in case the termitenator drops by.
This is a strawman. Stating what Buddha meant by "rebirth" is in no way "attempting to convince others that Buddha did not teach rebirth". What was posted was in response to another posters questions on the subject. There are some who appear to NOT want to remain ignorant on the subject. This is not meant to be a flame, but if you admit that you don't understand then how can you even know what you are disagreeing or agreeing with?
Edit: forgot a crucial "not"
Perhaps the mistake is actually yours.
Jason
It isn't.
Well, you can believe [and interpret] what you wish, and I will do the same. As I've said before, I will stick with the Blessed One's words [or the words attributed to him if that makes you any happier] over yours. I practice Buddhism, not beebuddhism. If you want to sound more intelligent by calling that a straw man, go right ahead. It makes no differnce to me what you call it. The Buddha taught rebirth. The doctrine of rebirth that he taught includes birth, ageing, sickness, death, rebirth, ageing, etc. And, this does not just include mental processes, but the body as well. Your only argument would have to be that all the Suttas are just fakes then. Please beebuddy. I concede that a few may be, but there is overwhelming evidnece that the vast majority are not. One scholarly reference I use for that assertion is Ajahn Sujato. If you are interested in learning more about him, I'm that sure you can dig something up. Anyway, like I said, try to convince someone else. I'm not biting.
Jason
Oh, by the way: I didn't mean to imply that you were saying the Buddha didn't teach rebirth at all. I meant to imply that you were saying the Buddha didn't teach literal rebirth [as in the context presented in the Suttas]. Sorry if I was unclear about that.
Jason
I always thought that was a nice explanation.
""And, this does not just include mental processes, but the body as well.""
My friend, you have no idea how ridiculous and at the same time very profound this statement is... Think "Night Of The Living Dead" for the ridiculous part.
""Your only argument would have to be that all the Suttas are just fakes then.""
No, that is just not sound logic. There are VERY few instances where the sutra's clearly and undeniably conflict with that which was posted by "beebuddy". The problem is is that it is very easy to interpret the sutra's meanings as reincarnation, which you and many many others have done. The fact and problem is that your interpretation (by your very admission) makes no sense.
And regarding the "strawman" comment, it was in response to you saying that I am trying to "convince others that Buddha didn't teach rebirth".
p.s. the whole "convince" thing implies personal gain. Wouldn't that be nice.
Ok, I admit that I'm a little irritable today [like I'm not everyday
Jason
In this passage the use of the word "body" is all that conflicts with that which has been posted. If the "realms" mentioned in the text are rightly interpreted as psychological qualities and the word "body" is dropped and seen to be a false addition to the text then the it makes perfect sense. That it no longer conflicts with common sense is all the evidence one needs for this view.
It is like this for almost every sutra ever read. The exception is a sutra where Budda supposedly speaks of the existence of disembodied spirits. That kind superstitousness obviously has nothing to do with the cessation of suffering and cannot be attributed to S.G. Buddha.
Think how much sense it makes when you imagine some of the things you did as a kid. Ever burned an ant with a magnifying glass and felt guilt pangs for it? It is the pscyhological quality called "hell".
Ever gotten in the habit of stealing? It's the psychological state of being that is associated with the "hungry ghost realm".
Even if you never did these things I'm sure you get the point.
edit: Font size for the termitenator. Good habits are hard to start.
Interesting... So you are saying that all of those references [to body and such] are just added? Even the Suttas that speak about past lives? If this is correct, why is that? Is it simply because you personally disagree with what they are saying? That doesn't seem to be a very reasonable arguement. Do you happen to have any other tangible forms of proof to offer us [independent of your own personal objections of course] that these are false additions? Also, why wouldn't the Buddha just simply have stated that he was speaking solely about mental states to avoid confusion? In other Suttas, when the Buddha did talk about mental states, he did so very specifically. This situation appears to be quite different, however. It just doesn't add up to me. I can see what you are trying to say, and I agree that people who cannot or do not believe in literal rebirth should at least see it in this way, but that does not change what the Suttas them self say, what meditation masters and monks of various traditions say, what researchers like Ian Stevenson say, etc.
Jason
P.S. I do not find the Suttas vexing and frustrating to read. I actually find them quite simple and straightforward.
Common sense can be overworked.
There's no doubt that what you say about the psychological "rebirth" is true, but there's nothing pertaining to "this body" or "that body" that is unique and ongoing. Thus, there is no way that you can find a difference between the rebirth of "process of self" moment-to-moment, within one lifetime, and rebirth of "process of self" between two different lifetimes connected by causality. "Self" arises out of conditioning, and an error of thinking, and this is not bound to one lifetime of one body.
You have not refuted the causal ("karmic") connection of one life to another.
Thanks for the effort, though. The larger font is easier on those of us who are somewhat "visually challenged."
I wonder if you are prepared, beebuddy, to follow your assertion to such extremes?
Keith
Quote:
I will try to be brief and simple.
You have a consciousness, gross consciousness and subtle consciousness. The gross part of the consciousness is built each time you enter in a rebirth. It is made of what we call usually the "Ego", with education values, social environment, etc... With it, you will feel identified with your "self" and establish your existence in duality with what you will consider as having its own existence, independant from you. On that basis, you will create karma.
Those karmic imprints are "stored" on your subtle consciousness. This "mind-stream" is what will come out of your dead form and will -according to your karma- move to the next form of existence. While the gross aspect of your consciousness will fade during the process of dying.
Is it more clear?
I always thought that was a nice explanation."
Yes! This is the same as what I have read elsewhere. And there's that "mindstream" again. I can really understand the whole thing in this way.
Thanks for posting this, Satori.
The reason I ask is that I completely agree with what you said (I think) and the quote you chose to use was about vexation etc...
Either there is complete agreeance or I have no clue what you are talking about.
"what meditation masters and monks of various traditions say,"
The peice from Bikkhu Bodhi or any other respectable scholar doesn't really challenge this view. It's not universally accepted because people have either bought into reincarnation or chosen to remain ignorant on the subject.
""I do not find the Suttas vexing and frustrating to read. I actually find them quite simple and straightforward.""
It's easy to read if you assume that rebirth is reincarnation. It's absolutely not reconcilable with the anaata-doctrine though.
Since the anaata-doctrine is obviously in direct conflict with reincarnation AND reincarnation has absolutely nothing to do with suffering or "the here and now" it's safe to say that Buddha never promoted the idea.
So no actual proof, just more opinion then? I would humbly beg to differ, however, and suggest that many, many people actually do challenge this view that you have, even the Buddha himself appearently [except that you will merely argue away all of his words that you don't like as falsifications]. Just to fill you in, rebirth is also an intergral part of Theravada Buddhism as well. Without it, the Buddha's teachings would have been simply considered annihilationism, but the Buddha rejects both this as well as eternalism. A quick example of this is given here, from the Ananda Sutta:
Here the Buddha is rejecting both theories of annihilationism and eternalism. What the Buddha isn't rejecting is the existence of phenomena, but simply that there is no self behind them. This does not contradict the doctrine of rebirth, kamma, or not-self. I find it quite easy to read, as well as to understand.
Jason
P.S. Are you suggesting that Ajahns in the Theravada tradition like Ajahn Brahmavamso, Ajahn Geoffrey, Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Lee Dhammadaro, Ajahn Fuang, Ajahn Suwat, Ajahn Khemasanto, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Chuen, and Ajahn Prasert are all simply ignorant of the truth of the Buddha's teachings because they teach rebirth? That's a mighty big assertion there.
What you posted very clearly contradicts reincarnation (not rebirth). Reincarnation is eternalism. Obviously. Saying that reincarnation is not eternalism because the cycle is ended upon enlightenment is annhiliationism. Obviously.
"Termite" posted in this in another thread, read it carefully...
"""Not-two and not-one" would be more like it. As soon as you try to make it "one" you're looking at it from outside (but who's counting?)""
p.s. Termite's post was in response to this... " However in common use non-dual implies singular or like I said not two but one."
It has everything to do with what we are talking about.
I am not speaking about "reincarnation". I never said I was. I am speaking specifically about the Buddha's docrtine of rebirth. You just do not want to look at the actaul evidence that I have presented to you for it. You simply want to sweep it under the rug of false additions, ignorant monastics, and stupid Westerners who can't understand what they read [with no proof of any besides maybe the last]. What are you trying to prove, and to whom? If you want to win some sort of pseudo-debate with me, just say so. I am not trying to prove your idea wrong, I am simply saying that in the Suttas and traditions themselves, that is not what is taught. Pure and simple. What you are saying disagrees with the majority of ordained and lay-practitioners in the Theravada tradition, the Mahayana tradition, and the Vajarayana tradition. If you personally decide to disbelieve the teachings on rebirth, and devise your own interpretation of them, that is fine. I do not really care. We are all free to practice as we wish. However, to say that everything taught in these Buddhist traditions today dealing with rebirth are false simply because it doesn't agree with your logical thinking mind is not a reasonable arguement at all. Give me some Suttas quotes, some monastic interpretations, and some scholarly reasearch, and then we'll talk about your claim.
Jason
Not vexing and frustrating at all. Words are often misleading at best, and "vexation" and "frustration" arise from their failure to be satisfying, not from their failure to be perfectly true.
Would you be so kind as to show us where the Buddha taught "rebirth" as part of the eightfold path?
It appears to this poor fool that the Buddha taught the cessation of the cycle of birth and rebirth, in whatever way we discover it.
Font Edit: Sorry Termitenator.:type:
The sutra you quoted is most definitly talking about reincarnation. You also said "how does this happen without a soul? I don't know?".
""You just do not want to look at the actaul evidence that I have presented to you for it.""
That is simply unfair, all the evidence presented by you was addressed in a soundly reasoned manner. The only thing being ignored is rhetoric.
We don't need scholarly credentials to have this discussion, we are perfectly capable and sound minded young men.:vimp: Just reread what was posted and stop presenting these strawmen forgodsake.
And please, why the questions about my motives? They were made perfectly clear more than once. "beebuddy" has no interest in converting you.
Why don't you talk to "Termite". Everything that can be said about this has already been said. Not tryin to blow you off or anything, I am happy to chat anytime.
Or is it that you just simple have no proof of your fanciful claim that the entire literal doctrine of rebirth that is taught today [which is ncluded in the Suttas themselves] was somehow covertly changed from the original unliteral doctrine by a rogue group of monastics who secretly infiltrated the Buddha's Sangha so that they could misled his faithful followers? It is interesting, but conspiracy theories in Buddhism? Isn't Rosewell enough for you?
Jason
termite,
I would be happy to. It is a part of Right View, which is the very first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path:
Jason
Again, the proof is in the pudding, and no matter how hard you try you will not convice me that you are not of sound enough mind to see the obvious.
"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you."
Jason
Look closer.
What does your quote say about noble right view, without fermentations? Hint - It's not this one: "There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." That's the one that results in the acquisitions [of becoming].
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning wheel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnaval balloon
Like a carousell that's turning
Running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on it's face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of it's own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone
Like a door that keeps revolving
In a half forgotten dream
Or the ripples from a pebble
Someone tosses in a stream......
I particularly thought these parts were interesting:
"The question of human destiny after death is probably one of the most critical questions we can raise. Nowadays it has become fashionable to dismiss this question as unimportant. But if we reflect on the extent to which our views influence our action we will see that it is quite essential to gain some understanding of the complete context in which our lives unfold. Moreover our views on the afterlife will determine what we regard as important in this present life."
"In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought - moment called the "death consciousness", which signals the complete end of the life. Then, following the death consciousness, there arises the first citta of the next life which springs up with the newly formed physical organism as its basis. The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body. The stream of consciousness is not a single entity, but a process, and the process continues. When the stream of cittas passes on to the next life it carries the storage of impressions along with it."
"The Buddha says there are three necessary conditions for conception. There has to be a union of the father and mother, the father to provide the sperm, the mother to provide the egg. Second, it must be the mother's proper season. If the mother isn't fertile, conception won't take place. Third, there must be a stream of consciousness of the deceased person, the flow of mind that is ready and prepared to take rebirth. This third factor he calls the 'gandhabba'. Unless all these conditions are met conception does not take place."
And here is an interesting scientific paper from the same site:
Reincarnation is Now a Scientifically Acceptable Phenomenon - by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena, University of Colombo