Debunking the myth of "moment-to-moment" rebirth

DairyLama

This idea has become quite fashionable but is there anything in the suttas or sutras which directly supports it? And does it really help when we're practising, I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?

P

fivebells

Insight meditation is concerned solely with personal experience. Samsara arises from, includes and feeds the experience of an enduring personal self, and the experience of rebirth arises in the context of this self-experience. The characteristics imputed to the constructed self become inappropriate as circumstances shift, and the self has to change. This is experienced as death of the self. An new self with new characteristics is conceived, and continuity with the old self is assumed. This is the experience which rebirth points to.

Can't help you with the scriptural question.

Simonthepilgrim

As Fivebells says. Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction. Spending many hours searching the vast ocean of the sutras in order to find a minnow of quotation is a wonderful way of wasting time.

Cinorjer

This idea has become quite fashionable but is there anything in the suttas or sutras which directly supports it? And does it really help when we're practising, I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?

P

Not fashionable, so much as embraced by Buddhists who seek to make sense of how noself and reincarnation can coexist as beliefs when one negates the other. You're talking about the Cycle of Consciousness, which arises from the skandhas as discussed in the sutras, combined with the doctrine of dependent origination, also buried in the sutras. Therefore, we reason, rebirth exists but in the Buddhist sense, is a process of change that happens constantly.

The problem I see above is that you are wrong, when you say there is nothing to be reborn. Noself does not mean nothing. Noself means there is no independent, eternal, unchanging self. Something is sitting and reading these words, after all. You exist in some way. Something is being renewed (I like that term better than reborn) moment by moment. What is that something? Pull up a Zen cushion and find out.

I can't speak for any other school of Buddhism and their teachings, but Zen was born when someone asked, "If there is no eternal, independent self, then what am I? What is being reborn?"

Vajraheart

This idea has become quite fashionable but is there anything in the suttas or sutras which directly supports it? And does it really help when we're practising, I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?

P

Um, dependent origination, without beginning or end? Just cause, being an effect as a cause for a future effect on so many levels simultaneously then to the next infinite simultaneousness? Um... intuition?

seeker242

This idea has become quite fashionable but is there anything in the suttas or sutras which directly supports it? And does it really help when we're practising, I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?

P

Craving and aversion (which creates suffering) is reborn. To say that there is nothing to be reborn is not correct imo. Sitting there just breathing and everything is fine and perfect. Then the next minute something pops up and everything is no longer fine and perfect, it a disaster! What happened? What changed? Your crap just got reborn. That's how I see it.

pegembara

If you see clearly no self (anatta), you wouldn't need this teaching whose purpose is to break the delusion of this thing called me, mine & myself.

Vajraheart

This idea has become quite fashionable but is there anything in the suttas or sutras which directly supports it? And does it really help when we're practising, I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?

P

Craving and aversion (which creates suffering) is reborn. To say that there is nothing to be reborn is not correct imo. Sitting there just breathing and everything is fine and perfect. Then the next minute something pops up and everything is no longer fine and perfect, it a disaster! What happened? What changed? Your crap just got reborn. That's how I see it.

Word! Thank goodness it's empty... or no malleability could be possible!!

Victorious

If you see clearly no self (anatta), you wouldn't need this teaching whose purpose is to break the delusion of this thing called me, mine & myself.

I agree. Hit yourself on the toe with a hammer really hard and then come back here and tell this forum "I" do not exist.

Once again the Supramundane and Mundane understanding of the Self has been mixed up. If you do that virtually any false conclusion regarding the self can be reached.


For Heavens sake! The view THERE IS NO SELF IS WRONG VIEW!!! Porpoise Man, prettypleasewithsugerontop tell me this thread is a joke?

fivebells

Porpoise raised a reasonable question. I have certainly mistakenly applied the same reasoning to postmortem rebirth.

Dakini

Isn't consciousness reborn moment-to-moment?

SherabDorje

"

Isn't consciousness reborn moment-to-moment?

Strictly speaking, I would take issue with the notion of "consciousness being reborn moment-to-moment", or anything, for that matter, being reborn moment-to-moment. The skandhas which make up consciousness are in a constant state of change or flux, like a river. The nature of consciousness changes from moment to moment, but I know of no reason to believe that consciousnesses is reborn moment-to-moment. As Buckminster Fuller said, "I seem to be a verb". It's a process.

upekka

Isn't consciousness reborn moment-to-moment?

if there is a form or feeling or perception or thought for the consciousness to be attached then there is a birth in the next moment

Victorious

is consciousness serial or parallell?

DhammaDhatu

For Heavens sake! The view THERE IS NO SELF IS WRONG VIEW!!! Porpoise Man, prettypleasewithsugerontop tell me this thread is a joke?

Sounds like the rebellion is in full swing, like in Libya.

The Buddha said the entire world is EMPTY, empty of what?

Empty of 'self' and anything pertaining to 'self'.

The Dhamma of the Buddha is 'self' exists in at least two ways:

(1) as a product of ignorance

(2) as a mental formation an enlightened being uses for the purpose of communication.

THERE IS NO REAL SELF ANY WHERE. The only 'self' is a fantasy or hallucination.

Vive la révolution!

DhammaDhatu

Isn't consciousness reborn moment-to-moment?

Hi D

My answer to your question is "no".

For something to be "reborn", it must be the same thing. It follows, imo, there is no same consciousness that is "reborn". In MN 38, the Buddha heavily admonished the Bhikkhi Sati for asserting the Buddha taught the same consciousness is reborn.

The Buddha taught there are six kinds of consciousness, namely, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind consciousness.

My view is moment-to-moment, the one or various kind/s of consciousness arise & pass. They are subject to moment-to-moment or continual "birth" and "death". But they are not "reborn".

Each arising of a particular consciousness is a new consciousness. There is "birth" but not "rebirth" of moment-to-moment dhammas.

That is my opinion

Kind regards

DD

DhammaDhatu

Porpoise Man, prettypleasewithsugerontop tell me this thread is a joke?

Porpoise

Imo, this is an excellent thread for contemplation & consideration.

Imo, its subject matter is deep.

This kind of thread separates the wheat from the chaff.

Warm regards

DD

SherabDorje

Isn't consciousness reborn moment-to-moment?

if there is a form or feeling or perception or thought for the consciousness to be attached then there is a birth in the next moment

Citation?

I would ask if there is such a thing as a "moment" at all aside from the human habit of discriminating one "moment" from another.

DhammaDhatu

I agree. Hit yourself on the toe with a hammer really hard and then come back here and tell this forum "I" do not exist.

Hi Victorious

Hitting the toe with a hammer demonstrates merely one reality:

(1) there is the element of earth or hardness (the hammer);

(2) there is a body with a nervous system (the feeling of pain); and

(3) there is body consciousness (the mental experience or knowing of pain).

Apart from that, heedlessness hitting a toe with a hammer does not demonstrate hitting "yourself" or there is an "I".

The Buddha taught a practitioner is skilled in stopping the cycle of Dependent Origination, namely, sense contact with ignorance > feelng > craving > attachment > becoming > birth of "self" illusion > suffering.

All the best

Long live the revolution

"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'.

Phagguna Sutta:

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 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 [of self] 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.

Parileyyaka Sutta

Cloud

With the hammer hitting the toe, body-consciousness is the sensation that is felt, and the perception is of pain. There's no self there, just consciousness and perception.

The thought might arise "I hurt myself", but that is only thought.

So you have body-consciousness, perception and thought. That's all! There's no self there, except in thinking "me" or "mine".

Victorious

With the hammer hitting the toe, body-consciousness is the sensation that is felt, and the perception is of pain. There's no self there, just consciousness and perception.

The thought might arise "I hurt myself", but that is only thought.

So you have body-consciousness, perception and thought. That's all! There's no self there, except in thinking "me" or "mine".

Yes but do you mean that in a mundane or supramundane way? If you say mundane then I would seriously have to doubt that you have tried the hammering trick...

.

Vangelis

is consciousness serial or parallell?

Serial. According to Theravadin Buddhism anyway.

Cloud

@Victorious, I mean it just the way it is. If one doesn't have Right View, they naturally take it the other way, with thoughts like "I hurt myself". With Right View the thought might be "ouch", pain would be felt, but it would simply be recognized as temporary bodily pain that will go away. The next step of giving ownership of the action, of the body, and of the pain... does not happen. It would be seen clearly what happened, and so still could be communicated to others, but the mind wouldn't take it as self.

GuyC

Hi Simon,

As Fivebells says. Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction. Spending many hours searching the vast ocean of the sutras in order to find a minnow of quotation is a wonderful way of wasting time.

This kind of attitude amongst Buddhists suprises me. I would have thought that in order to practice Buddhism we must be familiar with the Teachings of the Buddha?

Metta,

Guy

Cloud

There's a lot that's called the teachings of the Buddha. What we really need is a solid foundation of the basics. The Four Noble Truths, Noble Eightfold Path, Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta, the (Five) Precepts, Dependent Origination, the Sense Bases, Karma, Ignorance, Nirvana, some type of Meditation. Probably more stuff, but you see what I'm saying.

The problem is when you take a vast body of sutras to be your only guide, you're making it more difficult. Perhaps you'll not have time to find what you're looking for. Maybe you won't understand it, because of the archaic form. I'm very grateful for all of the people who wrote books on Buddhism, and websites like http://www.buddhanet.net and http://accesstoinsight.org for their contributions. And forums like this one too.

That being said, some familiarity with the sutras is advisable too, to each his or her own ability to delve into and understand. Every resource that you can get your hands on can be helpful to understanding this world, but not everyone is so much into reading a lot of text (nor technically need to, take Zen for instance).

SherabDorje

Hi Simon,

As Fivebells says. Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction. Spending many hours searching the vast ocean of the sutras in order to find a minnow of quotation is a wonderful way of wasting time.

This kind of attitude amongst Buddhists suprises me. I would have thought that in order to practice Buddhism we must be familiar with the Teachings of the Buddha?

Metta,

Guy

Really.

fivebells

This kind of attitude amongst Buddhists suprises me. I would have thought that in order to practice Buddhism we must be familiar with the Teachings of the Buddha?

Simon was hardly suggesting a complete abandonment of the teachings of the Buddha. He was just saying that one needn't necessarily seek a scriptural imprimatur for something which accords with one's reason and experience. (Anyone who's gone some distance with the teachings of the Buddha has encountered the experience of rebirth which I described in my response to porpoise.)

SherabDorje

As I said in the other thread, maybe doing it more moderately and more to the point might be helpful. It's a lot for those of us who aren't that far into the original sutras. I have had a mild cognitive deficit the past few months (transient, ok now), so looking at those has been hard.

I guess some of us just feel overloaded by too much of it.

GuyC

Hi Fivebells,

He was just saying that one needn't necessarily seek a scriptural imprimatur for something which accords with one's reason and experience.

Even reasoning may be flawed and experience may be interpreted through delusion/wrong view.

Metta,

Guy

MindGate

Hi Simon,

As Fivebells says. Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction. Spending many hours searching the vast ocean of the sutras in order to find a minnow of quotation is a wonderful way of wasting time.

This kind of attitude amongst Buddhists suprises me. I would have thought that in order to practice Buddhism we must be familiar with the Teachings of the Buddha?

Metta,

Guy

I'm a Zen Buddhist. We don't consider scriptures to be of too much importance, for the most part. "Inquire within" instead.

upekka

Citation?

most of the time i read sutta, get the gist out of it, think over it and contemplate on it
so i can not give the exact citation, sorry for it

I would ask if there is such a thing as a "moment" at all aside from the human habit of discriminating one "moment" from another.

there is not a 'thing' called "moment" but the passing experience

Cinorjer

Hi Simon,

As Fivebells says. Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction. Spending many hours searching the vast ocean of the sutras in order to find a minnow of quotation is a wonderful way of wasting time.

This kind of attitude amongst Buddhists suprises me. I would have thought that in order to practice Buddhism we must be familiar with the Teachings of the Buddha?

Metta,

Guy

Guy, one of the huge differences between Buddhism and religions with a closed, sacred canon is we maintain that the Dharma is a living thing and the words and understanding of today's Masters are as valid as those written down centuries ago by previous Masters.

While there are ancient sutras that are honored, studied, and revered among Buddhists more than other lesser known writings, and a few councils over the centuries that tried to gather "authorized" sutras together, we have thousands of scriptures written across many centuries and dozens of cultures. Nobody ever had the authority to say, "This is Buddhism. No other writings are allowed to be called authentic teachings!" So the sutras are a great treasure, but Buddhism is not defined by only what's been written in the past.

For a Jew, if it isn't in the Torah as defined by a small collection of Rabbis in the distant past, it's not valid teaching. For a Christian, if it isn't in the Bible as defined by a small collection of Bishops in the distant past, it's not valid teaching. Same for Muslims and the Koran. One book per religion. One teaching, one understanding to rule them all. Only one book? Buddhism has an entire library of sacred sutras, some more popular than others, but none more important than the questioning mind and the living Masters who pass the Dharma on to you, today.

SherabDorje

@upekka:

"...if there is a form or feeling or perception or thought for the consciousness to be attached then there is a birth in the next moment."

I think it's a very important point to go without citation. Especially since later on you say "there is not a 'thing' called "moment" but the passing experience".

So if there's no moment how can there be "birth in the next moment"?

genkaku

I mean what's the point of looking for moment-to-moment rebirth when there is nothing to be reborn?
_________________________

Who says there is nothing to be reborn?

pegembara

If one can actually "see" the moment to moment arising of consciousness the sense of solidity of consciousness/self and experiences will break.

Take hitting one's toe as an example. It may seem to be a volitional act but in actuality it isn't. It may have been triggered by the thought, "I have to prove my point", wanting to prove a point may have been conditioned by one's previous understanding of the Dhamma and so on.

Fact is every single act has a prior cause but we wrongly impute that there is a person doing this song and dance but there isn't really anyone doing this.

Cloud

@pegembara

GuyC

Hi Cinorjer,

Buddhism has an entire library of sacred sutras, some more popular than others, but none more important than the questioning mind and the living Masters who pass the Dharma on to you, today.

I would say that the Dhamma is the most important part of Buddhism; the Suttas are a Dhamma container. The Suttas are the best link we have between us and the historical Buddha. Modern teachers are certainly helpful (if they know what the're talking about), but we shouldn't take their words for granted as necessarily being in line with the Teachings of the Buddha. How do we find out if our teacher knows what he's talking about? One way would be to check his words with the Suttas.

The Suttas are indeed subject to question, however, so to are the "living Masters". The Suttas can tell us how to identify who is definitely not a living Master...but it is not so easy to tell who definitely is a living Master, even with the help of the Suttas.

Just as there are bound to be corruptions in meaning here and there in the historical texts, this is perhaps even more problematic when it comes to living Dhamma teachers; it is like a 2500 year game of Chinese whispers. Through careful study of a wide range of Suttas in addition to consulting with a local teacher (if one is available) this is probably the optimal way in our modern times of getting a good over-all view of what the Buddha taught.

I believe that a combination of Sutta study, Sangha participation and personal experience (each of these three factors helping to clarify the meaning of the others) is our "best bet".

Metta,

Guy

fivebells

Even reasoning may be flawed and experience may be interpreted through delusion/wrong view.

Yes, and scriptures may be corrupted or misleadingly translated, or leave out an esoteric aspect of the tradition which is transmitted through another channel. Hanging all your hopes on the accuracy of the scriptures is no substitute for personal responsibility for the things you've chosen to believe.

GuyC

Hi Fivebells/Cijorjer/Simon/Everyone,

I am happy to discuss the topic of "how important are the Suttas?" further in another thread if you would like to do so, but I don't want to derail this thread any further than I already have.

Metta,

Guy

DairyLama

Indeed, I would add that scriptural 'support' is unnecessary and can be a distraction.

The problem is that without scriptural support we're just expressing personal opinions which may or may not be related to Dhamma / Dharma.

P

DairyLama

Samsara arises from, includes and feeds the experience of an enduring personal self, and the experience of rebirth arises in the context of this self-experience.

I would express this differently and say that samsara arises from grasping and clinging, attachment to desires. This is a habitual process based on ignorance. There is no self involved in this process and therefore to talk about the rebirth of a self or an "I" doesn't make sense. It perhaps makes sense to talk about a process of becoming, but introducing the idea of "rebirth" is misleading, confusing and not supported by the suttas.

P

DairyLama

Craving and aversion (which creates suffering) is reborn.

This makes more sense, though IMO it would be more accurate to say that craving re-occurs continually in different forms - in other words tanha re-expresses itself continually in different ways. But again I'd observe that introducing the idea of rebirth here is somwwhat confusing.

P

DairyLama

if there is a form or feeling or perception or thought for the consciousness to be attached then there is a birth in the next moment

A birth of what exactly?

P

DairyLama

Who says there is nothing to be reborn?

Me ;-)

P

fivebells

I would express this differently and say that samsara arises from grasping and clinging, attachment to desires. This is a habitual process based on ignorance. There is no self involved in this process and therefore to talk about the rebirth of a self or an "I" doesn't make sense. It perhaps makes sense to talk about a process of becoming, but introducing the idea of "rebirth" is misleading, confusing and not supported by the suttas

Well, if we go much further, we're just going to be arguing about semantics, which would be a waste of time by my values. I wasn't saying whether there is or isn't a self, I was saying that there is the experience of a self, and in the context of that experience, the term "rebirth" makes a kind of sense. I agree that that experience does not bear close examination.

fivebells

I am happy to discuss the topic of "how important are the Suttas?" further in another thread...

No one is saying the sutras are unimportant.

seeker242

Samsara arises from, includes and feeds the experience of an enduring personal self, and the experience of rebirth arises in the context of this self-experience.

I would express this differently and say that samsara arises from grasping and clinging, attachment to desires. This is a habitual process based on ignorance. There is no self involved in this process and therefore to talk about the rebirth of a self or an "I" doesn't make sense. It perhaps makes sense to talk about a process of becoming, but introducing the idea of "rebirth" is misleading, confusing and not supported by the suttas.

P

I don't think anyone is saying that the "Self or "I" is reborn because everything is not self according to the Buddha. And if you trust the Buddha's wisdom then you trust that to be true. He certainly did not teach the the "self" is reborn either. However, the IDEA of a self "me, I, mine" is a different situation altogether. You can't deny that the IDEA of "me I, mine" exists in people minds. I think "rebirth" is only misleading if you think it is referring to an actual self, rather then the IDEA of an actual self. If it is seen as referring to the idea of self, rather than the self, then it makes perfect sense.

SteveP

All that there is, is contained in this moment. The Universe that exists NOW is not the same Universe that exists NOW. Each "moment" the Universe is reborn. Everything is impermanent and is the nature of change. Each thing in the universe is made only of other things. They are empty of any intrinsic self nature that can be ultimately identified apart from the "One". Things manifest, and “we” are conscious of them, but their nature is impermanent, and they dissipate. This is the world of the relative. The deepest nature of things is empty, much like our idea of “self” - it is made only of other things. Those things are in turn, made of other things and so on, extending outward to the entire Cosmos. That the Universe is a vast mutually interpenetrating whole is what allows things to be "One." This formless whole, a great unity, is that which exists ultimately. That ultimate reality exists right here before our eyes if we look deeply. The world of the relative (Samsara) and the ultimate (Nirvana) are not two seperate realities, merely two ways of seeing one reality. When we think of ourselves as something that is cut off from the universe, a separate self, then we can entertain ideas like reincarnation. This self idea is born in each moment that there is not recognition of true (ultimate) nature. When we see that we are not separate from anything, when we deeply recognize our true nature, then there is nothing that “dies” or is “reborn.”

DairyLama

You can't deny that the IDEA of "me I, mine" exists in people minds. I think "rebirth" is only misleading if you think it is referring to an actual self, rather then the IDEA of an actual self. If it is seen as referring to the idea of self, rather than the self, then it makes perfect sense.

I don't think it makes perfect sense atall. The belief in a self is habitual and persistent, not something that is "reborn" moment to moment.

P

fivebells

The belief in a self is habitual and persistent, not something that is "reborn" moment to moment.

It appears that you don't fully understand the dharma seal of impermanence. The belief in a self is no more persistent than any other mental phenomenon.

DairyLama

The belief in a self is habitual and persistent, not something that is "reborn" moment to moment.

It appears that you don't fully understand the dharma seal of impermanence. The belief in a self is no more persistent than any other mental phenomenon.

Persistent doesn't mean permanent.

P