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.
Vajra's mind still does not realise it is merely experiencing mental formations.
Vajra's mind is still construeing 'self' from the mental formations it is experiencing.
Dhatu, you know that I largely agree with your views on the matter you're debating. But the personal and hostile nature of your rebuttals in this thread suggest that you are sustaining a 'self' out of this interaction, too.
Engaged in disputes in the midst of an assembly, — anxious, desiring praise — the one defeated is chagrined. Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening. he whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished, defeated, by those judging the issue: He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent — 'He beat me,' he mourns.
These disputes have arisen among contemplatives. In them are elation & dejection. Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes, for they have no other goal than the gaining of praise.
He who is praised there for expounding his doctrine in the midst of the assembly, laughs on that account & grows haughty, attaining his heart's desire. That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation, for he'll speak in pride & conceit. Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes. No purity is attained by them, say the skilled.
It's the attachment to the belief (one way or the other) which gets released through practice, not rebirth itself. Not sure what release of rebirth would look like. The irony is in the attachment to the beliefs reflected in an argument about Buddhist cosmology, when Buddhist practice (the core of the Buddha's teaching) would bring an end to that attachment. The purpose in pointing out the irony is to facilitate release of the attachment.
Yes true. But that argument is valid for any attachment to any object and not only belief/disbelief or neither about rebirth? Ne?
Hi There fivebells! How you doing?
I'm very confused by your choice to follow a dismissive rejection of my very participation in the discourse with a friendly gesture like this. What is your purpose?
First of all I was just teasing you a little bit with the first question. I mean who am I to speak like that? I obviously can not stay away either.:). Thought the self ridicule would be obvious?
Second of all if you really believe what you said about attachment then why cling to the notion that having a argument or even a row with someone also automatically means you dislike the person?
In that case what you are saying is that there are distinctions between Illusions. That some illusions are more worth than others. And that would be totally against the Anatta principal.
You are one of the sounder voices here. You do not twist arguments nor mock and your own arguments are clean, to the point and honest. I have also learned a lot from our earlier debate/s. As I did from Valtiel, Upekka, Guy C and others.
Still I had longer arguments with some of them than you and I can not say I dislike any of them. I like DD too. DD:s real good practise .
But no worries mate. From now on I'll just stay plain rude not to confuse ya.
Kindly Victor
EDIT: You werent pulling my leg were you? Because then I am really looking like a fool now!
If the mind does not let go of rebirth belief, it cannot be free of becoming nor take full refuge in the truth of impermanence.
You are actually saying that the belief in rebirth is a bigger illusion than all other illusions? I think you have some serious letting go to do old chum.
By the way how do you explain the description of the state Sakadagami for instance when the Aryan will be enlightend in this life or be reborn one more time in this world before liberation?
This thread is highly entertaining, lol ! Please allow a short intermission for me to quote Ajahn Sumedho (Theravada Forest Tradition abbot) from his book "Dont Take Your Life Personally"
"The word ‘rebirth’ doesn’t necessarily mean physical rebirth – being born again in the next life – it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don’t even notice them.
As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else. That means beginning again, choosing something that has the potential for fulfilment, for happiness, for entertainment, for being totally mesmerized and taken over – like those pop movies about sex and violence. Sexuality, physical violence, war and conflict excite the mind. You don’t have to concentrate on them; they just hold your attention. Not that there is anything wrong with that – I am not complaining about it or condemning it – but just talking about taking notice of how the mind becomes excited.
Much of life isn’t exciting, is it? It is just this moment, just nothing much. If we are not aware, the tendancy is to want to fill our lives with plans, possibilities, distractions, eating, drinking, television and many other things.
Peacefulness, calm, emptiness and stillness, we can’t stand, actually; they are just too hard to bear!"
Well, I believe in rebirth, but I have no problem with people who don't. So for the sake of adding to the cacaphony of opinions and suttric quotes (the more, the merrier? :vimp: ), I offer the following, from the Kalama Suttra, via Stephen Batchelor:
"Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
I recommend everybody (especially the skeptics) to watch the video below and read some of Ian Stevensons...
The Buddha's reported words hurt our eyes but not those of Ian Stevenson?
Possibly, the time for a little personal reflection on what taking refuge means for us.
:-/
I mean of course that it is totally useless to discuss such things with throwing suttas at another to make a point. This should be quite obvious. Else I could also start to defend the bible or for that sake, Harry Potter is the truth in exactly the same manner.
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!! "and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
Get the point?
And Ian Stevenson is scientific research, is something different than discussing rebirth like this. I'm not saying he's absolutely right, but he has some interesting points that could expand ones views by taking it out of the suttas. I also read anti religious books to keep me sharp and challenged.
Guess one will not know the truth until the implications of karma are clear through a sharp insight and clear meditation. (Except when you have actual past-life memories, of course.) Those kind of insights that change your life. Thinking anything is the truth before that point is just nonsense and not talking through experience. This goes for both views, rebirth or no-rebirth.
So I always say: Keep all views open. And that's the point I would like to get across.
"The irony is in the attachment to the beliefs reflected in an argument about Buddhist cosmology, when Buddhist practice (the core of the Buddha's teaching) would bring an end to that attachment."
That itself is a belief which is also ironic. Perhaps Victor holds a belief in rebirth but is not attached to it?
One thing I've learned from this forum is that one can find material in the suttras to support either side of a view. So I wonder sometimes what the point is of all this suttra-flinging and interpreting, not to mention the gratuitous hostility. :rolleyes: But it is educational, as a spectator sport.
"I mean of course that it is totally useless to discuss such things with throwing suttas at another to make a point. This should be quite obvious. Else I could also start to defend the bible or for that sake, Harry Potter is the truth in exactly the same manner.
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!! "and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
Get the point? "
Love this. You don't have a copywrite on it do you? Can I use this argument too later?
The question of rebirth does come up in practice due to our connections with the rest of the world. Mandalas upon mandalas. Just because something isn't 'the breath' doesn't mean it doesn't come up in practice. Any teacher must be able to address their students questions. Just saying "don't worry about it it doesn't matter" may be effective for some students, but then again it might NOT. If rebirth is or isn't true does influence practice. Knowing that the moon is not cheese also influences practice, right? Truth and enqiry are relevant.
Everything is superficial, and that's it's freedom.
So back to "terribly ironic."
Ah, thus is life. It's not that life is superficial, it's deep as in everything is not what it seems, but it's not unknowable, yet it's ungraspable. Terribly ironic!
Experience of rebirth is different than belief and letting go of the experience is far deeper than letting go of a blind belief without experience.
Five Bells
Vajra's mind still does not realise it is merely experiencing mental formations.
Vajra's mind is still construeing 'self' from the mental formations it is experiencing.
The Buddha taught a meditator that experiences their 'past abodes' merely experiences form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness.
So, what you said yesterday had no relative self involved? I find that you read into the teachings to the degree that protects your level of self experience. Your take also seems quite extreme and Nihilistic even. We read the same Suttas but get a different meaning from them, you think you are right and I feel that I am correct. Isn't that amazing? Two people can read the same thing and get something different from it. One person can even read the same thing at different times and get something different dependent upon the inner state of reference during the time of reading.
So, yesterday is merely a mental formation? Yesterdays actions by me is as relatively real of a stream of karmic occurrences leading to the seeming and relative me of today as are my past lives the relative causes for the circumstances that make up the me of this life.
There are more to sensations and consciousness than meets the 5 gross senses, as there are subtle senses that can pick up subtler levels of information.
Enlightenment to you must be complete non-existence?
You do not speak from experience, but mere interpretation of words. You would know directly that a past life experience is more like time travel than the regular sort of memory, so it cannot be classified under the same category as remembering something that happened yesterday while you sit here doing something today.
A past life experience is a complete immersion, a complete re-experiencing and not a conjuring of a mentally fabricated memory. Even though, once you've had the immersion experience of a previous life, it can trigger memories referencing that life, much like the ones you have of yourself yesterday except they are referencing a life previous to this one.
The Buddha taught that there was no abiding self referencing self, like in Hinduism. But, the Buddha did not deny that there is a relative self, otherwise, who is there to liberate? Nirvana is not non-existence, it is the blowing out of ignorance about the self and the nature of things. There is a self, it's just relative and not absolute in and of itself and upon investigation, one finds luminous emptiness, primordial purity, the experiential experience of the insight that is dependent origination.
There is awareness isn't there? There is just no solidity to thoughts within awareness. They arise and then go. Karma is how it looks. Wood burns completely and turns into smoke. Thats what we see. But karma isn't a force that governs things like God it is just an observation of what transformations occured. What appears is here. It came from nowhere and it is going nowhere.
There is awareness isn't there? There is just no solidity to thoughts within awareness. They arise and then go. Karma is how it looks. Wood burns completely and turns into smoke. Thats what we see. But karma isn't a force that governs things like God it is just an observation of what transformations occured. What appears is here. It came from nowhere and it is going nowhere.
Yes,
Or it came from everywhere and is going everywhere.
Awareness is also empty of inherent existence, but being aware of this is self liberating.
Yes, karma is merely the net of endless sentient beings energies and actions (not entirely different from each other).
In Dzogchen tradition the interdependent origination is considered illusory:
[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not (inherently) exist. What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice." - Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [sems, citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition." - From byang chub sems bsgom pa, by Mañjusrîmitra. Primordial experience. An Introduction to rDzogs-chen Meditation, pp. 60, 61
Dhatu, you know that I largely agree with your views on the matter you're debating. But the personal and hostile nature of your rebuttals in this thread suggest that you are sustaining a 'self' out of this interaction, too.
my mind's conscience is clear
but thank you for your concern
(12) presumption....
And what, monks, are the defilements of the mind? (1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (2) ill will is a defilement of the mind; (3) anger is a defilement of the mind; (4) hostility...(5) denigration...(6) domineering...(7) envy...(8) jealousy...(9) hypocrisy...(10) fraud...(11) obstinacy...(12) presumption...(13) conceit...(14) arrogance...(15) vanity...(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind
By the way how do you explain the description of the state Sakadagami for instance when the Aryan will be enlightend in this life or be reborn one more time in this world before liberation?
I have seen no evidence for this in the suttas. When the mundane teaching for putthujanas is given in the suttas about a stream-enterer's death, it appears exclusively, the stream-enterer does not return to this world but attains Nirvana in a heavenly world.
As for being reborn "seven more times" (not one more time), if have seen no evidence for this is the suttas. The sutta this is based on is called 'The Breakthrough'. It does not mention rebirth. It simply states "seven more times". Seven more what?
I think you have some serious letting go to do old chum.
Not at all. The Buddha was strongly concerned with maintaining the integrity of his Dhamma. The Buddha was not attached when discussing or debating Dhamma. Dhamma teachings are just words. Our mind should not be attached to words. For example:
“Sàti is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another?”
“Exactly so, bhante. As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sàti?”
“Bhante, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions.“
“You foolish fellow (mogha-purisa), to whom have you ever known me to teach dhamma in that way? You foolish fellow, have I not stated in many discourses that consciousness is dependently arisen, since without a condition consciousness does not come into being? But you, you foolish fellow, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.”
rebirth is as real to me as the cycle of day and night... and it has being described in sutras. that a buddhist thinks there is no rebirth is... weird.
Vajraheart said:
"I certainly "was" in a relative sense in previous lives and other realms, just as I was, in a relative sense existing yesterday as an effect of endless causes and conditions empty of inherent existence."
DD: "OK. So your mind has not only attained a supernormal state but you are also declaring supramundane enlightenment. Whoa!"
I don't see the connection between Vajras statement and your reaction DD
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.
This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime."
I have experience with this, which (even if personal) is a proof... the inmediate prior life was in deva namanarati.
rebirth is as real to me as the cycle of day and night... and it has being described in sutras. that a buddhist thinks there is no rebirth is... weird.
You perfectly described how I've been feeling about meeting these anti-reincarnation Buddhists, and I mean "anti" as if in their mind there was no space for the possibility that the Buddha did indeed teach this as a fact of life. I met my first one I think a bit more then a year ago... and I had to double take as I was pretty surprised that such an animal actually exists? I always thought to take refuge meant to automatically believe in the possibility of reincarnation and it's direct experiencing for the sake of insight and wisdom. I never knew there were those that interpreted in the way that DD does?
This is a quote from the famous Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa in "Anatta and Rebirth"
" Why bother talking about birth or no birth? Talk only about how dukkha arises and how dukkha is quenched. Just this is already enough.
For this reason the Buddha taught anatta. Once anatta is fully realized, there is no dukkha. When there is no atta, dukkha isn't born, anymore. Therefore, he taught the quenching of dukkha, that is, he taught this matter of not-self. The teaching of anatta is essential for the ending of dukkha.
Arguments and discussions about whether there is rebirth or not are quenched in the same way. Why bother talking about birth or no birth? Talk only about how dukkha arises and how dukkha is quenched. Just this is already enough. For this reason the Buddha taught anatta. Once anatta is fully realized, there is no dukkha. Arguments and discussions about whether there is rebirth or not are a waste of time." :om:
Dukka for any individual is not caused by conditions that begin in this life. To completely eradicate dukka at it's roots, one must delve into ones personal history and untie the knots and cut the roots of ones personally caused state of dukka. Our personal history does not begin with the birth from this life's mother. Illuminating the unconscious, making it conscious and aware, means knowing it's intricacies directly, not just on an intellectual level.
"When there is no atta, dukkha isn't born, anymore."
He must mean that realizing that there is no atta, that ends dukkha. Because if there is no atta then there is already no atta and there always was no atta.
This has already been discussed. For example, the reincarnation adherent, Achariya Buddhaghosa, even admitted the word 'birth' in this verse means 'becoming'.
But, the Buddha did not deny that there is a relative self, otherwise, who is there to liberate?
The reason we have these discussions is to iron out misunderstandings. The sentence above is the kind of 'jewel' of misunderstanding that is sought.
1. The Buddha taught the 'relative self' is merely a mental formation or fabrication.
2. The Buddha taught enlightened beings use words such as 'I' and 'mine' merely as conventional speech.
3. The Buddha taught the question "who is liberated" is unfitting. Why? It is the mind that is liberated rather than a 'self'. The Buddha taught the sole purpose of the spiritual life is the unshakeable freedom of mind. The suttas speak of 'the mind well liberated'.
Now, with Bodhicitta, I must dig up those Pali quotes, one by one.
:thumbsup:
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 one, some or each of the five aggregates to be 'the self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, 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.
Who, concentrated, leaves conceits behind, His heart and mind set fair and wholly freed, Heedful dwelling in the woods alone, Shall indeed escape the realm of death.
Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak conforming to such use
So then, bhikkhus, the holy life is led not for, gain, honour and fame, not for the endowment of virtues, not for the endowment of concentration, not for the endowment of knowledges and vision. Bhikkhus, it is for the unshakeable release of mind that is the essence and end of the holy life, .
"Who, O Lord, consumes the nutriment consciousness?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he consumes.' If I had said so, then the question 'Who consumes?' would be appropriate.
"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate.
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate.
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate.
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate.
But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?'
And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.
Dukka for any individual is not caused by conditions that begin in this life. To completely eradicate dukka at it's roots, one must delve into ones personal history and untie the knots and cut the roots of ones personally caused state of dukka. Our personal history does not begin with the birth from this life's mother. Illuminating the unconscious, making it conscious and aware, means knowing it's intricacies directly, not just on an intellectual level.
Your opinion maybe, but not mine ! Why is that? Because to me your reasoning is muddled and hey, you are not my teacher !
"I mean of course that it is totally useless to discuss such things with throwing suttas at another to make a point. This should be quite obvious. Else I could also start to defend the bible or for that sake, Harry Potter is the truth in exactly the same manner.
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!! "and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
"I mean of course that it is totally useless to discuss such things with throwing suttas at another to make a point. This should be quite obvious. Else I could also start to defend the bible or for that sake, Harry Potter is the truth in exactly the same manner.
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!! "and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
It is totally relevant. Just because scripture says something doesn't mean anything. What gives scripture authority?
Unless someone can show through their own discernment something then they don't really know it.
Quoting scriptures prevents people from having a discussion in there own words...
They just post
Rom.3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God Eccl.7:20 Not a just man on earth, that...sinneth not Isa.64:6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags Rom.3:10 There is none righteous, no not one Jam.2:10 Whoever shall offend in one point (of law), guilty of all 1Jn.1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves
"By that reasoning, why give lamas authority either."
Don't give lamas authority.. They didn't ask for it.
I'm interested in the here and now. Not in a big 20 line quotation.
If the Buddha said the sky was red in the Pali Canon what would you think? So why do you quote scripture as truth. Aside from that how is quoting scriptures a conducive format to a discussion about the here and now and the practice that one has realized. If someone cannot show what the scriptures say in their own words then they didn't learn anything from the scripture anyhow.
...if there is no atta then there is already no atta and there always was no atta.
Not necessarily. There is no real or big atta. But there is the fabricated or small atta. The thoughts "I", "me" and "mine", when believed, are atta. But these atta are merely thought fabrications.
But, the Buddha did not deny that there is a relative self, otherwise, who is there to liberate?
The reason we have these discussions is to iron out misunderstandings. The sentence above is the kind of 'jewel' of misunderstanding that is sought.
1. The Buddha taught the 'relative self' is merely a mental formation or fabrication.
2. The Buddha taught enlightened beings use words such as 'I' and 'mine' merely as conventional speech.
3. The Buddha taught the question "who is liberated" is unfitting. Why? It is the mind that is liberated rather than a 'self'. The Buddha taught the sole purpose of the spiritual life is the unshakeable freedom of mind. The suttas speak of 'the mind well liberated'.
Now, with Bodhicitta, I must dig up those Pali quotes, one by one.
:thumbsup:
You do have a tendency to read into things DD, this does lead to misunderstanding.
This ideation as spoken above is what manifests body after body, from the deeply hidden clinging to "I" and "mine" since beginningless time as the alayavijnana or storehouse consciousness or storehouse mind. It is the "I" maker, this deeply formless clinging. This is why it's important to unravel the "I" clinging even on the formless levels of mind. This is how one flips these conditions of contraction that have been since beginningless time into manifestation of expansion for endless time, even through the condition of a personal body, thus the 3 kaya teaching. This is why they say Samsara is beginningless, but Nirvana is endless. This is why the Bodhisattva path is deeper, subtler, and revealing of true liberation, instead of mere disappearance into an ideation of emptiness which manifests as a blissful meditative sleep that can last eons for an Arhat. This is why even an Arhat has to be woken up in order to travel the Bodhisattva path in order to be a Buddha of beneficial activity and influence. The Mahayana is a more expanded understanding of the Dharma and the Buddha started his teaching of the Mahayana while on Earth for those ready to hear and continued after death of the body, for those with the capacity to hear as such.
There is no inherent self, but there is a relative self, this is who knows that he or she is awake. The self does indeed relatively exist as relativity is all that exists, and is already liberated in an ultimate sense being empty of static selfhood. This liberated cognition of self then works for the benefit of beings, as liberated from all false notions and clinging to this self. This is why in Mahayana we have Sutras like the Mahaparinirvana sutra which talk about the liberated from self, self. The one that acts as a bridge over the ocean of Samsara for countless beings as a Buddha. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra is in no way ascribing to an inherent self existence that is unique and real from it's own side, it's merely talking about the self existence that has self liberated due to seeing very deeply and directly the empty but inter-dependent nature of itself.
What is liberated is the mind. There are no "beings" who are liberated. Only minds.
Warms regards
DD
We all know this in the Mahayana as we read the Prajnaparamita Sutra. Mind is what a being is, as it's the "I" maker and karmic body constructer through motivating the elements into such purses as our bodies. Mind though as well has no inherent essence, and is merely a relative arising.
We read the same Suttas and get a different understanding arising dependent upon inner experiential reference, how strange, eh?
When the Buddha say's that the aggregates are not the self, he is saying there is no ultimate self there. That doesn't mean that they are not the manifestation of inter-relative self clinging for a Samsarin.
For a Buddha, the causes of manifestation are flipped, from craving to compassion, though manifestation does not really happen for one such being, as any ideation of ultimacy or true reality ascribed to anything has been eradicated through insight into emptiness. Thus a Buddha has unbound cognition, free from all conditions of clinging to existence and non-existence.
1) the assumption that the scripture is truth when that is just an assumption 2) the weakening of dialogue and understanding when scripture is quoted rather than explaining something in your own words. Maybe its just me, but that is not how I learn.
"You've obviously forgotten about your massive sutra quote on the previous page, Jeffrey ! "
My criticism applies to myself too. I just can't get into these discussions where it is a battle of sutras. I don't learn anything. Its no different from people dueling with Bible verses.
This has already been discussed. For example, the reincarnation adherent, Achariya Buddhaghosa, even admitted the word 'birth' in this verse means 'becoming'.
:coffee:
at least quote it fully: "many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here."
now, many aeons of cosmic contraction and many aeons of cosmic expansion has more sense if talking of actual lives. talking of clans (families) also has much more sense if talking of actual lives.
I will like to have the actual Pali text, with knowledge of this language. But either way, it is clear that the text is talking of actual lives.
What I mean is that the sutra is stories of Buddha talking to someone else. I prefer you to talk to me. If I want to read sutras I would do it on my own.
The truth does not come from buddhas authority it comes from the minds ability to recognize truth. From direct experience. Therefore sutras are no more authoritative than your own reasoning provided it is clear and accurate.
I do not expect you to cater to me. I am just expressing my frustration.
This ideation as spoken above is what manifests body after body, from the deeply hidden clinging to "I" and "mine" since beginningless time as the alayavijnana or storehouse consciousness or storehouse mind. It is the "I" maker, this deeply formless clinging. This is why it's important to unravel the "I" clinging even on the formless levels of mind. This is how one flips these conditions of contraction that have been since beginningless time...
The Buddha did not teach about alayavijnana. The Buddha taught vinnana was mere sensory awareness. However, what alayavijnana is intended to represent is correct. The mind or citta has deep conditioning.
But to say this "I" making is beginningless is mere conjecture.
Comments
— Sn 4.8
Second of all if you really believe what you said about attachment then why cling to the notion that having a argument or even a row with someone also automatically means you dislike the person?
In that case what you are saying is that there are distinctions between Illusions. That some illusions are more worth than others. And that would be totally against the Anatta principal.
You are one of the sounder voices here. You do not twist arguments nor mock and your own arguments are clean, to the point and honest. I have also learned a lot from our earlier debate/s. As I did from Valtiel, Upekka, Guy C and others.
Still I had longer arguments with some of them than you and I can not say I dislike any of them. I like DD too. DD:s real good practise
But no worries mate. From now on I'll just stay plain rude not to confuse ya.
Kindly
Victor
EDIT: You werent pulling my leg were you? Because then I am really looking like a fool now!
"The word ‘rebirth’ doesn’t necessarily mean physical rebirth – being born again in the next life – it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don’t even notice them.
As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else. That means beginning again, choosing something that has the potential for fulfilment, for happiness, for entertainment, for being totally mesmerized and taken over – like those pop movies about sex and violence. Sexuality, physical violence, war and conflict excite the mind. You don’t have to concentrate on them; they just hold your attention. Not that there is anything wrong with that – I am not complaining about it or condemning it – but just talking about taking notice of how the mind becomes excited.
Much of life isn’t exciting, is it? It is just this moment, just nothing much. If we are not aware, the tendancy is to want to fill our lives with plans, possibilities, distractions, eating, drinking, television and many other things.
Peacefulness, calm, emptiness and stillness, we can’t stand, actually; they are just too hard to bear!"
"Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!!
"and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
Get the point?
And Ian Stevenson is scientific research, is something different than discussing rebirth like this. I'm not saying he's absolutely right, but he has some interesting points that could expand ones views by taking it out of the suttas. I also read anti religious books to keep me sharp and challenged.
Guess one will not know the truth until the implications of karma are clear through a sharp insight and clear meditation. (Except when you have actual past-life memories, of course.) Those kind of insights that change your life. Thinking anything is the truth before that point is just nonsense and not talking through experience. This goes for both views, rebirth or no-rebirth.
So I always say: Keep all views open. And that's the point I would like to get across.
Sabre :vimp:
That itself is a belief which is also ironic. Perhaps Victor holds a belief in rebirth but is not attached to it?
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!!
"and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
Get the point?
Love this. You don't have a copywrite on it do you? Can I use this argument too later?
The question of rebirth does come up in practice due to our connections with the rest of the world. Mandalas upon mandalas. Just because something isn't 'the breath' doesn't mean it doesn't come up in practice. Any teacher must be able to address their students questions. Just saying "don't worry about it it doesn't matter" may be effective for some students, but then again it might NOT. If rebirth is or isn't true does influence practice. Knowing that the moon is not cheese also influences practice, right? Truth and enqiry are relevant.
I don't think it is an actual quote of the book, so you can probably use it
But then spell it right, because I misspelled "wand", I see now.
:vimp:
So, yesterday is merely a mental formation? Yesterdays actions by me is as relatively real of a stream of karmic occurrences leading to the seeming and relative me of today as are my past lives the relative causes for the circumstances that make up the me of this life.
Enlightenment to you must be complete non-existence?
You do not speak from experience, but mere interpretation of words. You would know directly that a past life experience is more like time travel than the regular sort of memory, so it cannot be classified under the same category as remembering something that happened yesterday while you sit here doing something today.
A past life experience is a complete immersion, a complete re-experiencing and not a conjuring of a mentally fabricated memory. Even though, once you've had the immersion experience of a previous life, it can trigger memories referencing that life, much like the ones you have of yourself yesterday except they are referencing a life previous to this one.
Or it came from everywhere and is going everywhere.
Awareness is also empty of inherent existence, but being aware of this is self liberating.
Yes, karma is merely the net of endless sentient beings energies and actions (not entirely different from each other).
In Dzogchen tradition the interdependent origination is considered illusory:
[One says], "all these (configurations of events and meanings) come about and disappear according to dependent origination." But, like a burnt seed, since a nonexistent (result) does not come about from a nonexistent (cause), cause and effect do not (inherently) exist. What appears as a world of apparently external phenomena, is the play of energy of sentient beings. There is nothing external or separate from the individual. Everything that manifests in the individual's field of experience is a continuum. This is the Great Perfection that is discovered in the Dzogchen practice." - Chogyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
"Being obsessed with entities, one's experiencing itself [sems, citta], which discriminates each cause and effect, appears as if it were cause and condition." - From byang chub sems bsgom pa, by Mañjusrîmitra. Primordial experience. An Introduction to rDzogs-chen Meditation, pp. 60, 61
but thank you for your concern
(12) presumption....
And what, monks, are the defilements of the mind? (1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (2) ill will is a defilement of the mind; (3) anger is a defilement of the mind; (4) hostility...(5) denigration...(6) domineering...(7) envy...(8) jealousy...(9) hypocrisy...(10) fraud...(11) obstinacy...(12) presumption...(13) conceit...(14) arrogance...(15) vanity...(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html
As for being reborn "seven more times" (not one more time), if have seen no evidence for this is the suttas. The sutta this is based on is called 'The Breakthrough'. It does not mention rebirth. It simply states "seven more times". Seven more what?
Naturally, seven more fetters to breakthrough.
All the best
Dhamma. The Buddha was not attached when discussing or debating Dhamma. Dhamma teachings are just words. Our mind should not be attached to words. For example:
that a buddhist thinks there is no rebirth is... weird. me neither...
Samañaphala Sutra
(section) Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.
This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime."
I have experience with this, which (even if personal) is a proof... the inmediate prior life was in deva namanarati.
Wild!
" Why bother talking about birth or no birth? Talk only about how dukkha arises
and how dukkha is quenched. Just this is already enough.
For this reason the Buddha taught anatta. Once anatta is fully realized, there is no dukkha. When there is no atta, dukkha isn't born, anymore. Therefore, he taught the quenching of dukkha, that is, he taught this matter of not-self. The teaching of anatta is essential for the ending of dukkha.
Arguments and discussions about whether there is rebirth or not are quenched in the same way. Why bother talking about birth or no birth? Talk only about how dukkha arises and how dukkha is quenched. Just this is already enough. For this reason the Buddha taught anatta. Once anatta is fully realized, there is no dukkha.
Arguments and discussions about whether there is rebirth or not are a waste of time."
:om:
He must mean that realizing that there is no atta, that ends dukkha. Because if there is no atta then there is already no atta and there always was no atta.
:coffee:
1. The Buddha taught the 'relative self' is merely a mental formation or fabrication.
2. The Buddha taught enlightened beings use words such as 'I' and 'mine' merely as conventional speech.
3. The Buddha taught the question "who is liberated" is unfitting. Why? It is the mind that is liberated rather than a 'self'. The Buddha taught the sole purpose of the spiritual life is the unshakeable freedom of mind. The suttas speak of 'the mind well liberated'.
Now, with Bodhicitta, I must dig up those Pali quotes, one by one.
:thumbsup: The last quote is important for understanding. It points out "the who" is becoming.
I have repeatedly pointed to the mental fabricating or concocting proccess of "becoming" (bhava).
The "who" is a product of becoming.
What is liberated is the mind. There are no "beings" who are liberated. Only minds.
Warms regards
DD
"I mean of course that it is totally useless to discuss such things with throwing suttas at another to make a point. This should be quite obvious. Else I could also start to defend the bible or for that sake, Harry Potter is the truth in exactly the same manner.
LOOK IT IS QUOTED RIGHT HERE, REBIRTH EXISTS!!
"and so Harry used his magic want to turn him into a frog"
Get the point?
Why quote Sabre's irrelevant comments ? :eek2:
Unless someone can show through their own discernment something then they don't really know it.
Quoting scriptures prevents people from having a discussion in there own words...
They just post
Rom.3:23 For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God
Eccl.7:20 Not a just man on earth, that...sinneth not
Isa.64:6 All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags
Rom.3:10 There is none righteous, no not one
Jam.2:10 Whoever shall offend in one point (of law), guilty of all
1Jn.1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves
See there I am right it says it....
It removes us from our own experience.
It's quite astonishing that people in this thread aren't interested in what the Buddha actually said !
Anyway, time for me to leave rebirth la la land for now. Have a nice day.
Don't give lamas authority.. They didn't ask for it.
I'm interested in the here and now. Not in a big 20 line quotation.
If the Buddha said the sky was red in the Pali Canon what would you think? So why do you quote scripture as truth. Aside from that how is quoting scriptures a conducive format to a discussion about the here and now and the practice that one has realized. If someone cannot show what the scriptures say in their own words then they didn't learn anything from the scripture anyhow.
This ideation as spoken above is what manifests body after body, from the deeply hidden clinging to "I" and "mine" since beginningless time as the alayavijnana or storehouse consciousness or storehouse mind. It is the "I" maker, this deeply formless clinging. This is why it's important to unravel the "I" clinging even on the formless levels of mind. This is how one flips these conditions of contraction that have been since beginningless time into manifestation of expansion for endless time, even through the condition of a personal body, thus the 3 kaya teaching. This is why they say Samsara is beginningless, but Nirvana is endless. This is why the Bodhisattva path is deeper, subtler, and revealing of true liberation, instead of mere disappearance into an ideation of emptiness which manifests as a blissful meditative sleep that can last eons for an Arhat. This is why even an Arhat has to be woken up in order to travel the Bodhisattva path in order to be a Buddha of beneficial activity and influence. The Mahayana is a more expanded understanding of the Dharma and the Buddha started his teaching of the Mahayana while on Earth for those ready to hear and continued after death of the body, for those with the capacity to hear as such.
There is no inherent self, but there is a relative self, this is who knows that he or she is awake. The self does indeed relatively exist as relativity is all that exists, and is already liberated in an ultimate sense being empty of static selfhood. This liberated cognition of self then works for the benefit of beings, as liberated from all false notions and clinging to this self. This is why in Mahayana we have Sutras like the Mahaparinirvana sutra which talk about the liberated from self, self. The one that acts as a bridge over the ocean of Samsara for countless beings as a Buddha. The Mahaparinirvana Sutra is in no way ascribing to an inherent self existence that is unique and real from it's own side, it's merely talking about the self existence that has self liberated due to seeing very deeply and directly the empty but inter-dependent nature of itself.
"I'm interested in the here and now. Not in a big 20 line quotation"
You've obviously forgotten about your massive sutra quote on the previous page, Jeffrey !
Gotta go - bye !
Like the sutta that states attachment is suffering & craving is its cause.
Is this theory or experience?
:-/
We read the same Suttas and get a different understanding arising dependent upon inner experiential reference, how strange, eh?
When the Buddha say's that the aggregates are not the self, he is saying there is no ultimate self there. That doesn't mean that they are not the manifestation of inter-relative self clinging for a Samsarin.
For a Buddha, the causes of manifestation are flipped, from craving to compassion, though manifestation does not really happen for one such being, as any ideation of ultimacy or true reality ascribed to anything has been eradicated through insight into emptiness. Thus a Buddha has unbound cognition, free from all conditions of clinging to existence and non-existence.
My criticism is twofold
1) the assumption that the scripture is truth when that is just an assumption
2) the weakening of dialogue and understanding when scripture is quoted rather than explaining something in your own words. Maybe its just me, but that is not how I learn.
My criticism applies to myself too. I just can't get into these discussions where it is a battle of sutras. I don't learn anything. Its no different from people dueling with Bible verses.
"many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here."
now, many aeons of cosmic contraction and many aeons of cosmic expansion has more sense if talking of actual lives. talking of clans (families) also has much more sense if talking of actual lives.
I will like to have the actual Pali text, with knowledge of this language. But either way, it is clear that the text is talking of actual lives.
What I mean is that the sutra is stories of Buddha talking to someone else. I prefer you to talk to me. If I want to read sutras I would do it on my own.
The truth does not come from buddhas authority it comes from the minds ability to recognize truth. From direct experience. Therefore sutras are no more authoritative than your own reasoning provided it is clear and accurate.
I do not expect you to cater to me. I am just expressing my frustration.
But to say this "I" making is beginningless is mere conjecture.
:scratch:
However, the translators say here, "eon" means "one hundred years" or "a lifetime".
If the translators cannot be consistant then what do we ourselves know about Pali?