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.
Yes, I think a lot of buddhists in the western sector see buddhism as so logical and a kind of intellectual religion that this notion of life after death is absurd. How can this be, you are dead... I personally consider it to be a fundamental part of the religion, but this is my opinion.
I think if the Buddha felt that thoughts, experiences, analysis were just "fabrications", he wouldn't have taught to question teachings, examine them, check them against experience, before accepting them. That makes no sense.
Yes, I think a lot of buddhists in the western sector see buddhism as so logical and a kind of intellectual religion that this notion of life after death is absurd. How can this be, you are dead... I personally consider it to be a fundamental part of the religion, but this is my opinion.
Well, the thing is, a lot of Westerners don't consider Buddhism to be a religion. They call it "philosophy" or "psychology". Once you introduce faith into it, as in the doctrine of karma and rebirth (as linked concepts), then suddenly: you have yourself a religion!
In Zen we say that Buddhism is not a dogma or philosophy. Buddhism is to point directly to your true nature. You can only wake up to your true nature by experience, not by reading your way there. Though reading helps, it must also be cast away before awakening. There really are no absolutes though, you'll always find an exception to the rule.
Reincarnation seems like it was tact onto Buddhism through old Hindu beliefs. Buddhism responded directly towards Hinduism and grew out of it. Don't quote me on this.
IMO: reincarnation is what it is. you cannot prove or disprove it.
focus on other things. life is short people. find your true nature.
it's the experience of no experience because there is no one to experience it. a radical subjectivity where all objects become you the subject.
so you're right. experiences can mess you up in the end as well. we all have those meditation experiences and we all try to recreate them.
all those past experiences have to be throw out as well. in zen there is this notion called beginners mind. there's a quote. in the beginners mind anything is possible. where as if you have your chalk board filled up, there is no space to learn. erase the chalk board.
always keep a beginners mind when you meditate, and though out your whole life. even satori (initial awakening) is an experience people cling to. which can cause you to never be fully enlightened.
let go of all clinging. be free. you already are free. be what you already are.
I like the comment that even without believing in rebirth, one can still practise Buddhism. All the comments just further confirm the point that rebirth cant be proven. If one chooses to believe in rebirth, its just a personal choice. No different from a Christian who chooses to believe in god almighty.
The mind churns up all kinds of fantasies, memories and emotional chit-chat. The point is not to follow and indulge in mental formations, but to let them go.
As far as speculation about past or future karma being the cause of whatever, the Buddha advised not to do that. He said conjecture about the results of karma would cause madness and vexation. See at the link :
"You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there,right there"
Often it appears that in the internet realm, some people who investigate Buddhism don't seem to want to hear about what the Buddha advised about practice.
BTW, there is nothing wrong with the creativity of the mind including mental formations. That will continue to death. Nonetheless, be present here and now. I like the Buddhas quotation posted by Dazzle. It was a mental formation leading her to post that. Now we can let it go. No big deal. :clap:
BTW, there is nothing wrong with the creativity of the mind including mental formations. That will continue to death. Nonetheless, be present here and now. I like the Buddhas quotation posted by Dazzle. It was a mental formation leading her to post that. Now we can let it go. No big deal. :clap:
Yes that is granted, and you cannot prove rebirth as a fact, it is a matter of opinion. But if one is a buddhist, and if one follows the dharma, then why should disregard rebirth if the buddha spoke of it. The dalai lama himself stated in one of his books that if you have doubts about any of the teachings of the dharma, then they will become a hindrance to your path.
"The real meaning of the word "birth" as the Buddha meant it is not the birth from a mother's womb, that's too physical. The birth that the Buddha was pointing to was spiritual, the birth of clinging to "I" and "mine".
In one day there can be hundreds of births; the amount depends on a person's capacity, but in each birth the "I" and "mine" arises, slowly fades, and gradually disappears and dies. Shortly, on contact with a sense-object, another arises. Each birth generates a reaction that carries over to the next. This is what is called the kamma of a previous life ripening in the present birth. It is then transmitted further. Every birth is like this. This is what kamma - fruit and the reception of kamma fruit is meant to refer to. Such an interpretation agrees with the Buddha's own words.
If we don't take it that way then we stray from the point. We must understand birth, kamma, and the fruits of kamma in this way. For example, there can be birth as the desirer of some pleasing object and then death followed by birth as a thief or robber, and then a further death followed by birth as the enjoyer of that object. In a short time there is birth as a prisoner in the dock and then, having been found guilty, birth as a convict in jail. These sorts of birth are many and muddled, many threads and strands tangled together. But if you look closely, you will understand that at any time one stops birth, then at that moment there is Nibbana which is not born, does not get old and sicken, and does not die. If there is still birth, still the feeling of "I" and "mine", it just goes on being the Wheel of Birth and Death, a continual chain of Dukkha."
Even the Dalai Lama said, "If you want to know your past lives, look at your current conditions."
I'm a huge fan of HHDL, but FYI, there's been a lot of debate on this site fairly recently about this idea that current life conditions, and conditions at birth are all due to past life karma. Some people feel it's very unfair to say that babies born to abusive parents, or born with crippling deformities, for ex., are to blame for their own conditions, due to their past life actions. It's a bit of a hot topic. I've come to suspend judgment on the question myself, even though I was taught that all current life conditions are the result of past life actions.
And what of a young eight year old girl I know: she scored perfect marks in English and math on recent standardized test; she was featured singing on a children's CD when she was six; her ballet mistress believes she will be a professional. If deformity and disease in a child indicates misbehavior in past life, am I therefore associating with some sort of enlightened being? I'll tell you, this b*tch , this completely self- absorbed (I know , she IS eight) perfectionist, accepts instruction only from those she believes to be expert ( she is mostly correct in her choices) and eschews dabblers and diletantes. She is quite discerning. Should she be offered up to a temple somewhere? Will temple officials soon seek her out? She loves to be worshipped! She believes it is her right. Would believers in reincarnation assert it is her birthright to be set apart in this life because of her skillful past life actions?
I, obviously, fall on the side of people, like you, see no practical purpose in this discussion.
P.S. In a heated discussion with this child last week, she hurt herself just as she said a hurtful and nasty thing. I said ," you see, instant karma got you." Two days later she banged her knee, looked at me and asked, " if there is karma, what was that for?" I suggested it was for something she did recently. She blew me off (I do not know much on the subject of karma: admittedly) and ignored me for the rest of our time together.
Everybody can believe whatever he/she wants, but please don't change the words of the Buddha. He clearly stated what he meant by birth and death so there would be no confusion. He is talking about the same kind of birth and death as we usually do. At least I see no other way to interpret the various translations of Dīgha-Nikāya 22:
What, now, is Birth? The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings, their being born, their conception and springing into existence, the manifestation of the Groups of Existence, the arising of sense activity: this is called birth.
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.
They weren't my words Sabre, they were the words of Ajahn Buddhadasa who was a highly respected and famous teacher and abbot in Thailand. (and a friend of the Dalai Lama)
What I don't understand is, if experience is ultimately a mental construct (and therefore, apparently not to be taken seriously, going by earlier discussion) , why would the Buddha say we should test the teachings against our own inquiry and experience? It makes no sense.
The actual experience in the moment is the actual experience. When we think about it, it becomes the past and becomes a mental construct.
So when we are looking, feeling, hearing, tasting that is pure experience. When we think about it we are far removed from it.
To be aware of something and think or something is different. There is something prior to thinking that after thinking. Without awareness we wouldn't know we were thinking, nor could we distinguish a thought from a feeling.
So when we practice mindfulness, we are watching.
We have an experience and we think about it. We cling to it and suffer. Cling to nothing and you are free.
It's the difference between tasting the apple, verses thinking about tasting the apple or thinking about how the apple you just ate tasted. Pure experience has no words. It just is what it is, neither good or bad. From this non-dual vantage point or rather a lack of a vantage point, there are no hierarchies. To have a difference is to compare and contrast. When you don't think about the past, you cannot compare and contrast whether the apple was better or worse than a previous apple eaten.
hope this clears things up.
tldr: experience is experience. thinking about the experience is thinking about it. there is a dichotomy. but you need to practice mindfulness to realize this.
And yet, that experience, which you say later becomes a mental construct, can further our understanding, as the BUddha taught. So it shouldn't be discounted just because later it becomes a mental construct. Experiences can be life-changing. That is not clinging.
yes but that experience also has to be put down. the past is the past. what is true yesterday might not be true today.
truth can only exist in the present moment because all there is is the present moment. we think in the present moment, we do not think tomorrow or yesterday. so truth is what is true right now, not tomorrow, or yesterday.
though we do gain insight and it does change our lives, we must even put aside those insights.
that is the meaning of emptiness of emptiness. people get caught up in the emptiness. even the emptiness must be seen as empty.
when we cross a river with a boat, we must leave the boat once we're on the other side. if we carry the boat it just becomes a burden.
so take the middle way. carry the boat (your insights) but don't attach to them. we gain knowledge from reading and experiencing but don't think of them as absolute. in the end they are just another mental construct. what's true is your moment to moment mindfulness of experience.
yes but that experience also has to be put down. the past is the past. what is true yesterday might not be true today.
truth can only exist in the present moment because all there is is the present moment. we think in the present moment, we do not think tomorrow or yesterday. so truth is what is true right now, not tomorrow, or yesterday.
though we do gain insight and it does change our lives, we must even put aside those insights.
This really doesn't seem to make sense in light of the Buddha teaching that we should trust our experiences as a way of evaluating teachings.
"If you believe in rebirth, isnt that the same as a Christian who believes in a god? There is no evidence for either one."
Well let me weigh in on this one.
The answer is no.
Christians believe that you have a permanent self or soul created at birth(or conception) that lives this one life and then is judged by god at the time of death. Your permanent self then spends eternity in either heaven or hell based on well you adhered to a set of rules.
Although there is some disagreement about what is rebirth, it sure is a lot different than the Christian beliefs.
First let go the delusion of a permanent self. It is just a belief that leads to attachment and suffering.
Then look and see. There is much evidence of rebirth. I am not talking of some story of someone remembering a past life.
Rebirth Consciousness occurs moment by moment. Karma influences this consciousness. This occurs without any fixed beginning or end.
yes but that experience also has to be put down. the past is the past. what is true yesterday might not be true today.
truth can only exist in the present moment because all there is is the present moment. we think in the present moment, we do not think tomorrow or yesterday. so truth is what is true right now, not tomorrow, or yesterday.
though we do gain insight and it does change our lives, we must even put aside those insights.
This really doesn't seem to make sense in light of the Buddha teaching that we should trust our experiences as a way of evaluating teachings.
it is what it is. whatever works for you as an individual. just be careful not to construct a dogma or philosophy around your experiences. and you're right experiences can evaluate teachings. my experience of suffering does make fact that suffering is real in the world. but don't attach to just that idea because there is also not suffering as well. we're not always suffering. so at times we're alright with life. if we hold onto that previous view that all life is suffering, then when a good thing arises it will just confuse the hell out of us. of course it is clinging which causes suffering but i hope you understand my point. don't cling to anything because it will cause suffering.
,"the past is the past. what is true yesterday might not be true today"
As I mentioned in an earlier post......... The Buddha said (MN 131):
"You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there."
This discussion has strayed off course, /again/, imo. This started out as a comment that the only way for many Westerners to accept rebirth as fact is if they happen to have experienced past life memories. That is a major view-changer for them. Otherwise, it's just theory or faith. So to dismiss this as irrelevant because it's in the past (?!), or because the memory of the past life memory experience is just a mental construct (??!) is neither here nor there. I don't see how these digressions about the nature of memory or experience relate at all to the OP's simple question. And thank you to Thailand Tom for trying to get the discussion back on-topic.
Everybody can believe whatever he/she wants, but please don't change the words of the Buddha. He clearly stated what he meant by birth and death so there would be no confusion. He is talking about the same kind of birth and death as we usually do.
At least I see no other way to interpret the various translations of Dīgha-Nikāya 22:
What, now, is Birth? The birth of beings belonging to this or that order of beings, their being born, their conception and springing into existence, the manifestation of the Groups of Existence, the arising of sense activity: this is called birth.
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.
Hi Sabre
I would suggest: (1) what you have quoted is merely a translation and (2) you are simply interpreting it to your understanding.
In India, the word 'jati' has the following meaning:
jati - (Hinduism) a Hindu caste or distinctive social group of which there are thousands throughout India; a special characteristic is often the exclusive occupation of its male members (such as barber or potter)
For example, the scholar Buddhaghosa in his Vissudhimagga has refuted your viewpoint. About the word 'birth':
Now this word jati has many meanings.
For in the passage 'he recollects one birth, two births, etc', it is becoming.
In the passage 'Visakha, there is a kind (jati) of ascetics called Niganthas (Jains)', it is monastic order.
In the passage 'birth is includes in two aggregates', it is whatever is formed.
In the passage 'his birth is due to the first consciousness in the mother's womb' (Vin.i,93), it is rebirth-linking.
In the passage 'as soon as he was born (sampatijata), the Bodhisattva' (M.iii,123) it is parturition [childbirth].
In the passage 'one who is not rejected and despised on the account of birth', it is clan.
In the passage 'sister, since i was born with noble birth', it is the Noble One's virtue.)
Please note, the term 'bhava' or 'becoming' is something mental. The suttas explicity include 'becoming' as an asava or mental fermentation/effluent. For example, MN 121 describes the experience of emptiness as 'free from the effluents of sensual desire, becoming & ignorance', where the mere sense bases & body remains.
So Buddhaghosa has said 'birth' can have the meaning of 'becoming'.
About the phrase 'various orders of beings', the Buddha said the following:
Men are farmers by their acts; And by their acts are craftsmen too. Men are merchants by their acts; And by their acts are servants too.
Men are robbers by their acts; And by their acts are soldiers too. Men are chaplains by their acts; And by their acts are rulers too.
So that is how the truly wise See action how it really is,
Seers in Dependent Origination Skilled in actions and results.
And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.
I would suggest the translation you have quoted, using terms such as "manifestation" and "arising" is possibly inaccurate.
The essense of 'birth' is 'acquisition' or 'appropriation'. Via attachment, the mind takes 'possession' of the five aggregates & the sense spheres (which include the objects of sense) to develop 'self-identity', that is, the 'jati' described above as 'social class', 'social position', etc.
For example, when a woman gives birth to a child, she, via attachment (upadana) becomes (bhava) a "mother". Both her self-identity & social role as a "mother" is her 'jati'.
Further, when the term 'manifesting' is used, this is the accumulation or building up of the five aggregates.
For example, when the mind is void or empty, the operation of the five aggregates is very basic basic. There is just body, feeling & consciousness aggregates functioning in a primal way and any necessary use of the perception & formations aggregates for communication, teaching dhamma, etc.
But when 'birth' happens, the aggregates are 'built up'. The mind builds up all sorts of mental formations and perceptions. Also, the physical body changes.
For example, each time a mother feels towards her children, all kinds of manisfestations are happening in her physical body due to her emotions. If her baby is young, the mother's breasts are lactating.
Or if our 'jati' is that of an athlete, there is both a strong identification towards & change in the physical body due to our karma.
The 'building up', 'manifesting' or 'proliferation' of the five aggregates, in 'birth', is described in the following suttas:
With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye.
"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.
REPEAT: His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow.
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.
But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.
"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter & demolish form and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.
"You should smash, scatter & demolish feeling and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.
"You should smash, scatter & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.
"You should smash, scatter & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.
"You should smash, scatter & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Nibbana."
So, as I began with, your reading of the suttas, subject to mere translation, is simply your own interpretation rather than what the Buddha may have possibly meant.
Everybody can believe whatever he/she wants, but please don't change the words of the Buddha. He clearly stated what he meant by birth and death so there would be no confusion. He is talking about the same kind of birth and death as we usually do.
Hi again Sabre
In my previous post, I quoted the reincarnation adherent Buddhaghosa, who refuted your opinion by admitting the word 'birth' has myriad meanings.
Buddhaghosa was Indian and understood Indian language & culture, unlike us.
Allow me to post more sutta quotes that possibly are not in accord with your view:
Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four?
Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation [due to kamma/action].
What is egg-born generation? There are beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation.
What is womb-born generation? There are beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.
What is moisture-born generation? There are beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation.
What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation.
These are the four kinds of generation.
NOTE: The term 'spontaneous' is 'opapatika', which means 'spontenously born'
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form... feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousnes to be the self.
That assumption is a fabrication.
So pana saṅkhāro kiṃnidāno kiṃsamudayo kiṃjātiko kiṃpabhavo?
Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth (kiṃjātiko), what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?
To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
NOTE: So here the Buddha has described a mental birth or jati.
'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said.
With reference to what was it said?
'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing.
Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
Furthermore, a sage at peace [going beyond all construing] is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born.
Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?
It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.
My response to the comments below; I think the Kalama Sutta (correct me if I am wrong) encourage us NOT to accept anything based on faith, authority, etc. Buddha's own words , I believe.
'Yes that is granted, and you cannot prove rebirth as a fact, it is a matter of opinion. But if one is a buddhist, and if one follows the dharma, then why should disregard rebirth if the buddha spoke of it. The dalai lama himself stated in one of his books that if you have doubts about any of the teachings of the dharma, then they will become a hindrance to your path.'
My response to the comments below; I think the Kalama Sutta (correct me if I am wrong) encourage us NOT to accept anything based on faith, authority, etc. Buddha's own words , I believe.
Right on, hermitwin. The problem we're having here is that people seem to be saying that doing what the Buddha suggests, i.e. involving our own analytical faculties, is meaningless, because our own analysis and experience are "mental fabrications". So apparently the Buddha was teaching nonsense, or contradicted himself, or ...somebody's propounding nonsense. I wonder who? :-/
How do christians justify a creator god? A popular one is the universe works like a watch. So, there must be a creator that invented this complex, intricate design that works so well. Many of the arguments I see here reflects the same 'logic'.
...our own analysis and experience are "mental fabrications". So apparently the Buddha was teaching nonsense, or contradicted himself, or ...somebody's propounding nonsense. I wonder who? :-/
CW
I can only suggest you read my posts, carefully.
As I posted, even the reincarnation adherent Buddhaghosa said the passage of when the Buddha experienced his "previous births" has the meaning of "becoming".
"Becoming" is an asava (mental effluent) and an anusaya (mental tendency).
The manner in which you interpet Dhamma is really based on your spiritual faculties (indriya).
You mind is allowed to choose to interpret the word 'birth' physically or materialistically and deny the mind is able to give birth to mental formations.
To end, the Buddha did not contradict himself. Please avoid this sinful train of thought. The Dhamma states the Buddha does not lie.
The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.
Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions.
So, as I began with, your reading of the suttas, subject to mere translation, is simply your own interpretation rather than what the Buddha may have possibly meant.
All the best
DD
It amazes me how hard you work to try to prove that there is no life after the death of the body. There are so many proofs to the contrary but you steam role over all of them to support this "physicalist" view of Buddhism which reveals no depth of perception into the nature of things nor the multi-dimensional nature of the universe. You really seem stuck in the 5 senses, the Buddha was not. There are ghosts, and you can see them, they are not mental formations, there are higher realms and lower realms, realms illumined not by fire, but by mind, and realms that are dark. There are so many variances within this cosmos, so many possibilities for experience, and more causes for your suffering than mere sense perceivable data.
How do christians justify a creator god? A popular one is the universe works like a watch. So, there must be a creator that invented this complex, intricate design that works so well. Many of the arguments I see here reflects the same 'logic'.
If we actually read the Book of Creation in the Bible, 'God' created the world via naming ('earth', 'water', 'animals', etc) & by judging ('good', 'bad', etc).
In Buddhism, this is called 'perception' & 'mental formations'.
The Book of Creation then describes when human beings know the perceptions of 'good' & 'evil', they will experience spiritual death, that is, suffering.
The Book of Creation is simply about the human mind & about how suffering is created in the world due to attachment to the knowledge of 'good & evil'.
The Book of Creation is simply a Hindu (Brahministic) teaching about 'non-duality'.
However, most Christians interpret the Book of Creation physically or materialistically, just as most Buddhists interpret the teachings of the Buddha physically or materialistically.
The Book of Creation is not the first book of the Bible. It is a later introduction. The Book of Creation is the The Book of Genesis or Origination.
It is merely a theistic description of the Buddha's Dependent Origination, which is about how ignorance, good & bad perceptions & cravings lead to human suffering.
That is all (imo).
If you wish to view religion differently, I recommend this essay for your study:
How do christians justify a creator god? A popular one is the universe works like a watch. So, there must be a creator that invented this complex, intricate design that works so well. Many of the arguments I see here reflects the same 'logic'.
It is us, within life time after life time of variant types of beings of conscious and unconscious intent that manifest this complexity, over and over again, cycle after cycle. There is not "one" being behind it all... we are the unconscious collective that keeps manifesting the elements into various ways of expression through our intentions, thoughts and actions.
Yes, "we" are that powerful, though not one of us is omnipotent.
i'm pretty sure buddhists don't believe in any type of birth, if they are really buddhists.
Birth is something that appears real, but without any real substance behind it... just like a wall seems still and solid but is hustling and bustling and even transparent on a sub-atomic level.
You really seem stuck in the 5 senses, the Buddha was not. There are ghosts, and you can see them, they are not mental formations, there are higher realms and lower realms, realms illumined not by fire, but by mind, and realms that are dark, there are so many variances within this cosmos, so many possibilities for experience, and more causes for your suffering than mere sense perceivable data.
The "realms" you take so literally can also be interpreted as mental states. Allow me to show you a course at a Tibetan Buddhist monastery, taken by a female lama who is a nun and spent 12 years in closed retreat.
The Six Realms of Experience
"Within the Buddhist teachings the six realms of existence are seen as six mind-states which are effectively six particular styles of imprisonment. As human beings we experience all these mind-states daily, although we may have a stronger tendency towards one than the others, depending on our habitual patterns.
The mind-states of mental confusion, fear, desire and anger are very familiar to everyone, as well as the pain caused both to oneself and others. During this course we will look at each of these six realms and styles of imprisonment as well as their remedies. Through meditation, compassion and mindfulness we learn how to transform these states into wisdom and skilful activity."
There are ghosts, and you can see them, they are not mental formations, there are higher realms and lower realms...
The realms the Buddha mentioned correlate to mental states or mental formations, for those who are inclined to regard reality in such a way.
The Buddha described: (1) the human realm (of morality, work, reflective behaviour, etc) (2) the godly realm (of political power, meditative bliss, sensual luxury, compassion, etc) (3) the animal realm (of instinctual unreflective behaviour, ignorance, etc) (4) the hell realm (of anger, hatred, depression, suffering, etc) (5) the hungry ghost realm (of craving, addiction, insatiability, etc)
We are free to choose the interpretation we wish.
The result is the same, in that, the view there is karma & results promotes morality or non-harming
All the best
Ok, yes, that is true, we have all of these through our human capacity and do not have to take birth into another dimension of experience to see the workings of any of these.
You really seem stuck in the 5 senses, the Buddha was not. There are ghosts, and you can see them, they are not mental formations, there are higher realms and lower realms, realms illumined not by fire, but by mind, and realms that are dark, there are so many variances within this cosmos, so many possibilities for experience, and more causes for your suffering than mere sense perceivable data.
The "realms" you take so literally can also be interpreted as mental states. Allow me to show you a course at a Tibetan Buddhist monastery taken by a female lama who spent 12 years in closed retreat.
The Six Realms of Experience
"Within the Buddhist teachings the six realms of existence are seen as six mind-states which are effectively six particular styles of imprisonment. As human beings we experience all these mind-states daily, although we may have a stronger tendency towards one than the others, depending on our habitual patterns.
The mind-states of mental confusion, fear, desire and anger are very familiar to everyone, as well as the pain caused both to oneself and others. During this course we will look at each of these six realms and styles of imprisonment as well as their remedies. Through meditation, compassion and mindfulness we learn how to transform these states into wisdom and skilful activity."
Oh, I don't take them literally, as the other existences which can be experienced directly through your own awakened capacity only exist as relative reality without inherent existence just as this realm does.
But yes... like I said above, these realms do manifest for us on this level of existence as well as on others.
Comments
Reincarnation seems like it was tact onto Buddhism through old Hindu beliefs. Buddhism responded directly towards Hinduism and grew out of it. Don't quote me on this.
IMO: reincarnation is what it is. you cannot prove or disprove it.
focus on other things. life is short people. find your true nature.
so you're right. experiences can mess you up in the end as well.
we all have those meditation experiences and we all try to recreate them.
all those past experiences have to be throw out as well.
in zen there is this notion called beginners mind. there's a quote. in the beginners mind anything is possible. where as if you have your chalk board filled up, there is no space to learn. erase the chalk board.
always keep a beginners mind when you meditate, and though out your whole life.
even satori (initial awakening) is an experience people cling to. which can cause you to never be fully enlightened.
let go of all clinging. be free. you already are free. be what you already are.
much love.
All the comments just further confirm the point that rebirth cant be proven.
If one chooses to believe in rebirth, its just a personal choice. No different from a Christian who chooses to believe in god almighty.
As far as speculation about past or future karma being the cause of whatever, the Buddha advised not to do that. He said conjecture about the results of karma would cause madness and vexation. See at the link :
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
He also said:
"You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past is left behind.
The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there,right there"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.131.than.html
Often it appears that in the internet realm, some people who investigate Buddhism don't seem to want to hear about what the Buddha advised about practice.
Its a mystery.
But then again, I'm not a Buddhist.
buddhism is the middle way. middle way of two extremes.
to believe everything is a hindrance.
to doubt everything is a hindrance.
to believe everything is good.
to doubt everything is good.
all these are right and wrong.
we see contradictions because we want to have a position on a matter.
have no position. stand nowhere. that is the middle way.
"The real meaning of the word "birth" as the Buddha meant it is not the birth from a mother's womb, that's too physical. The birth that the Buddha was pointing to was spiritual, the birth of clinging to "I" and "mine".
In one day there can be hundreds of births; the amount depends on a person's capacity, but in each birth the "I" and "mine" arises, slowly fades, and gradually disappears and dies. Shortly, on contact with a sense-object, another arises. Each birth generates a reaction that carries over to the next. This is what is called the kamma of a previous life ripening in the present birth. It is then transmitted further. Every birth is like this. This is what kamma - fruit and the reception of kamma fruit is meant to refer to. Such an interpretation agrees with the Buddha's own words.
If we don't take it that way then we stray from the point. We must understand birth, kamma, and the fruits of kamma in this way. For example, there can be birth as the desirer of some pleasing object and then death followed by birth as a thief or robber, and then a further death followed by birth as the enjoyer of that object. In a short time there is birth as a prisoner in the dock and then, having been found guilty, birth as a convict in jail. These sorts of birth are many and muddled, many threads and strands tangled together. But if you look closely, you will understand that at any time one stops birth, then at that moment there is Nibbana which is not born, does not get old and sicken, and does not die. If there is still birth, still the feeling of "I" and "mine", it just goes on being the Wheel of Birth and Death, a continual chain of Dukkha."
(Buddhadasa Bhikkhu - Heartwood from the Bo Tree)
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books/BhikkhuBuddhadasa_Heart_Wood_from_the_Bo_Tree.htm
Should she be offered up to a temple somewhere? Will temple officials soon seek her out? She loves to be worshipped! She believes it is her right. Would believers in reincarnation assert it is her birthright to be set apart in this life because of her skillful past life actions?
I, obviously, fall on the side of people, like you, see no practical purpose in this discussion.
P.S. In a heated discussion with this child last week, she hurt herself just as she said a hurtful and nasty thing. I said ," you see, instant karma got you." Two days later she banged her knee, looked at me and asked, " if there is karma, what was that for?" I suggested it was for something she did recently. She blew me off (I do not know much on the subject of karma: admittedly) and ignored me for the rest of our time together.
Everybody can believe whatever he/she wants, but please don't change the words of the Buddha. He clearly stated what he meant by birth and death so there would be no confusion. He is talking about the same kind of birth and death as we usually do. At least I see no other way to interpret the various translations of Dīgha-Nikāya 22:
What, now, is Birth? The birth of beings belonging to this or
that order of beings, their being born, their conception and
springing into existence, the manifestation of the Groups of
Existence, the arising of sense activity: this is called birth.
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.
Have a look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa
So when we are looking, feeling, hearing, tasting that is pure experience.
When we think about it we are far removed from it.
To be aware of something and think or something is different. There is something prior to thinking that after thinking. Without awareness we wouldn't know we were thinking, nor could we distinguish a thought from a feeling.
So when we practice mindfulness, we are watching.
We have an experience and we think about it. We cling to it and suffer. Cling to nothing and you are free.
hope this clears things up.
tldr: experience is experience. thinking about the experience is thinking about it. there is a dichotomy.
but you need to practice mindfulness to realize this.
truth can only exist in the present moment because all there is is the present moment. we think in the present moment, we do not think tomorrow or yesterday. so truth is what is true right now, not tomorrow, or yesterday.
though we do gain insight and it does change our lives, we must even put aside those insights.
that is the meaning of emptiness of emptiness. people get caught up in the emptiness. even the emptiness must be seen as empty.
be cynical of your cynicism.
if we carry the boat it just becomes a burden.
so take the middle way. carry the boat (your insights) but don't attach to them.
we gain knowledge from reading and experiencing but don't think of them as absolute.
in the end they are just another mental construct. what's true is your moment to moment mindfulness of experience.
There is no evidence for either one."
Well let me weigh in on this one.
The answer is no.
Christians believe that you have a permanent self or soul created at birth(or conception) that lives this one life and then is judged by god at the time of death. Your permanent self then spends eternity in either heaven or hell based on well you adhered to a set of rules.
Although there is some disagreement about what is rebirth, it sure is a lot different than the Christian beliefs.
First let go the delusion of a permanent self. It is just a belief that leads to attachment and suffering.
Then look and see. There is much evidence of rebirth. I am not talking of some story of someone remembering a past life.
Rebirth Consciousness occurs moment by moment. Karma influences this consciousness. This occurs without any fixed beginning or end.
,"the past is the past. what is true yesterday might not be true today"
As I mentioned in an earlier post.........
The Buddha said (MN 131):
"You shouldn't chase after the past
or place expectations on the future.
What is past is left behind.
The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present
you clearly see right there, right there."
.
How many times have there been discussions of anything on this BB that have gone completely off the rails?
So now we have one that has done both. I don't think that's new either.
I would suggest: (1) what you have quoted is merely a translation and (2) you are simply interpreting it to your understanding.
In India, the word 'jati' has the following meaning: For example, the scholar Buddhaghosa in his Vissudhimagga has refuted your viewpoint. About the word 'birth': Please note, the term 'bhava' or 'becoming' is something mental. The suttas explicity include 'becoming' as an asava or mental fermentation/effluent. For example, MN 121 describes the experience of emptiness as 'free from the effluents of sensual desire, becoming & ignorance', where the mere sense bases & body remains.
So Buddhaghosa has said 'birth' can have the meaning of 'becoming'.
About the phrase 'various orders of beings', the Buddha said the following: I would suggest the translation you have quoted, using terms such as "manifestation" and "arising" is possibly inaccurate.
The essense of 'birth' is 'acquisition' or 'appropriation'. Via attachment, the mind takes 'possession' of the five aggregates & the sense spheres (which include the objects of sense) to develop 'self-identity', that is, the 'jati' described above as 'social class', 'social position', etc.
For example, when a woman gives birth to a child, she, via attachment (upadana) becomes (bhava) a "mother". Both her self-identity & social role as a "mother" is her 'jati'.
Further, when the term 'manifesting' is used, this is the accumulation or building up of the five aggregates.
For example, when the mind is void or empty, the operation of the five aggregates is very basic basic. There is just body, feeling & consciousness aggregates functioning in a primal way and any necessary use of the perception & formations aggregates for communication, teaching dhamma, etc.
But when 'birth' happens, the aggregates are 'built up'. The mind builds up all sorts of mental formations and perceptions. Also, the physical body changes.
For example, each time a mother feels towards her children, all kinds of manisfestations are happening in her physical body due to her emotions. If her baby is young, the mother's breasts are lactating.
Or if our 'jati' is that of an athlete, there is both a strong identification towards & change in the physical body due to our karma.
The 'building up', 'manifesting' or 'proliferation' of the five aggregates, in 'birth', is described in the following suttas: So, as I began with, your reading of the suttas, subject to mere translation, is simply your own interpretation rather than what the Buddha may have possibly meant.
All the best
DD
In my previous post, I quoted the reincarnation adherent Buddhaghosa, who refuted your opinion by admitting the word 'birth' has myriad meanings.
Buddhaghosa was Indian and understood Indian language & culture, unlike us.
Allow me to post more sutta quotes that possibly are not in accord with your view: With metta
DD
'Yes that is granted, and you cannot prove rebirth as a fact, it is a matter of opinion. But if one is a buddhist, and if one follows the dharma, then why should disregard rebirth if the buddha spoke of it. The dalai lama himself stated in one of his books that if you have doubts about any of the teachings of the dharma, then they will become a hindrance to your path.'
If fact, the Kalama Sutta itself mentions the benefits of Dhamma for when one believes in rebirth and also for when one does not believe in rebirth.
Rebirth belief is not compulsory in Buddhism. It is a choice.
Many of the arguments I see here reflects the same 'logic'.
I can only suggest you read my posts, carefully.
As I posted, even the reincarnation adherent Buddhaghosa said the passage of when the Buddha experienced his "previous births" has the meaning of "becoming".
"Becoming" is an asava (mental effluent) and an anusaya (mental tendency).
The manner in which you interpet Dhamma is really based on your spiritual faculties (indriya).
You mind is allowed to choose to interpret the word 'birth' physically or materialistically and deny the mind is able to give birth to mental formations.
To end, the Buddha did not contradict himself. Please avoid this sinful train of thought. The Dhamma states the Buddha does not lie.
In Buddhism, this is called 'perception' & 'mental formations'.
The Book of Creation then describes when human beings know the perceptions of 'good' & 'evil', they will experience spiritual death, that is, suffering.
The Book of Creation is simply about the human mind & about how suffering is created in the world due to attachment to the knowledge of 'good & evil'.
The Book of Creation is simply a Hindu (Brahministic) teaching about 'non-duality'.
However, most Christians interpret the Book of Creation physically or materialistically, just as most Buddhists interpret the teachings of the Buddha physically or materialistically.
The Book of Creation is not the first book of the Bible. It is a later introduction. The Book of Creation is the The Book of Genesis or Origination.
It is merely a theistic description of the Buddha's Dependent Origination, which is about how ignorance, good & bad perceptions & cravings lead to human suffering.
That is all (imo).
If you wish to view religion differently, I recommend this essay for your study:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm
Yes, "we" are that powerful, though not one of us is omnipotent.
The Buddha described:
(1) the human realm (of morality, work, reflective behaviour, etc)
(2) the godly realm (of political power, meditative bliss, sensual luxury, compassion, etc)
(3) the animal realm (of instinctual unreflective behaviour, ignorance, etc)
(4) the hell realm (of anger, hatred, depression, suffering, etc)
(5) the hungry ghost realm (of craving, addiction, insatiability, etc)
We are free to choose the interpretation we wish.
The result is the same, in that, the view there is karma & results promotes morality or non-harming
All the best
The Six Realms of Experience
"Within the Buddhist teachings the six realms of existence are seen as six mind-states which are effectively six particular styles of imprisonment. As human beings we experience all these mind-states daily, although we may have a stronger tendency towards one than the others, depending on our habitual patterns.
The mind-states of mental confusion, fear, desire and anger are very familiar to everyone, as well as the pain caused both to oneself and others. During this course we will look at each of these six realms and styles of imprisonment as well as their remedies. Through meditation, compassion and mindfulness we learn how to transform these states into wisdom and skilful activity."
http://www.samyeling.org/index/samyeling-course-action?id=142&course_title=The+Six+Realms+of+Experience
Very true... "pranams"
Oh, I don't take them literally, as the other existences which can be experienced directly through your own awakened capacity only exist as relative reality without inherent existence just as this realm does.
But yes... like I said above, these realms do manifest for us on this level of existence as well as on others.