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.
"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?
We are not nothing. We are dependent arising. Empty of a permanent separate self. True. But something not nothing. Between the hopeless nothing of nihilism and the attachment to a permanent self of eternalism lies the peace of mind and freedom of the Middle Way.
As to what exactly is or is not in each of the ancient teachings I don't know. These teachings are the finger pointing not the object being pointed at. Rather that trying to validate or refute a belief system, I am more concerned with what I can see with direct experience. Rebirth as a concept helps to explain the nature of reality to me. Others may see it differently, which is ok.
So what does it mean to say that Rebirth Consciousness occurs moment to moment.
Moment to moment means it is occurs right now in the present. This moment is not the same as the last moment or the same as the next moment.
Consciousness - Awareness. The perceiver and that which is perceived.
Birth - A new beginning.
It would be more accurate to say New Birth Consciousness occurs moment to moment. But that would not explain my illusion of self. Rebirth Consciousness does for it provides continuity to my perception of reality. That the me of the current moment is linked to the me of the previous moment complete with my past accumulated karma. Actually each new moment is just another dependent arising, a new beginning. Beginnings that we experience but do not own and therefore are not limited to the form of this current moment or this current life time.
[37] Karma has klesas as its cause. [Being] klesas, the karma-formations are of impassioned nature (klesatmaka). A body has karma as its cause. So [all] three are empty of own-being.
[35] If karma had own-being the body created by it would be permanent. So karma would not result in suffering and would therefore be substantial.
[29] The three times do not exist (substantially) since they are unfixed and are mutually established, since they change [and] are not self-established, [and] since there is no being. They are merely discriminations.
[25] If nirvana [resulted] from cessation, [then there would be] destruction. If the contrary, [there would be] permanence. Therefore it is not logical that nirvana is being or non-being.
Yes, but if you actually watch thoughts closely, they don't persist at all. It's an illusion.
I agree. But there are underlying patterns, tendencies, "habits" which do persist.
P
But that is the illusion. Ne?
Yes it is illusion. And it is an evidence of many past lives activities that accrued in the mind that resulted in those underlying patterns etc. Otherwise, you ought to be in constant emptiness free from illusion. :vimp:
I am at a loss. What does exactly Anicca mean to you in your own words?
By the way. Sorry for yelling earlier.
/Victor
Anicca just means "impermanent". Everything that arises will pass away.
But certain "states" can persist while the requisite conditions persist. The most obvious illustration is dependent origination, where suffering persists while ignorance persists.
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
Doesn't matter if its in the Sutras. Buddhism was passed on orally, only some of the teachings were written down, others continued to be passed on Master to Student. In some lineages there is an idea called instantaneous enlightenment, enlightenment that exists "now". If that is realised in the moment and then the meditator regresses, that could be construed as rebirth in samsara, though technically that is wrong view in this case, but then again right view is very difficult to obtain with instantaneous enlightenment due to the belief in polarities. In some ways, I suppose rebirth in this context could be described as the reemergence of formation of various types.
On a different approach to your question, I assume you are aware of the concept of reification? In this respects you could consider birth to be the reification of the self. In this respect the self is not always reified, it happens from moment to moment and this process has gaps in it. Part of the skilful means of Buddhism is the means to experience and know those gaps, or space, in the reification of the self.
One last thing, there is some merit in looking for something that cannot be found. In the practise mahamudra the yogin looks directly at mind to try and find it. They know conceptually that there is nothing to be found, but in the act of looking they can find mind's true nature. So this is one instance that works, I know this from documentation from the lineage, when looking for something known not to exist. So if it works in this respect, I imagine that it could very much work when looking for the self. Inference can only take you so far, direct cognition is what really works.
I agree. But there are underlying patterns, tendencies, "habits" which do persist.
The most obvious example of this persistence is dependent origination, where suffering persists while ignorance persists. This is directly supported by the first and third lines of the general formula for DO which occurs repeatedly in the suttas: "When this is, that is; This arising, that arises; When this is not, that is not; This ceasing, that ceases."
Does it really make sense to say that gravity, or a mountain, is reborn moment to moment? Or does it make more sense to describe them as persistent processes?
For the last thirty comments or so, this discussion has mostly been about semantics. That is, everyone seems to agree on what's happening, we're just arguing about whether it's appropriate to call it rebirth.
For the last thirty comments or so, this discussion has mostly been about semantics. That is, everyone seems to agree on what's happening, we're just arguing about whether it's appropriate to call it rebirth.
Exactly, and our choice of semantics has a powerful influence on our thoughts. It doesn't matter what's right or wrong, only what is most useful to the path of the individual involved.
Does it really make sense to say that gravity, or a mountain, is reborn moment to moment? Or does it make more sense to describe them as persistent processes?
P
I'd say the mountain is supported by conditions, with minor change each moment due to conditions (almost none compared to its mass). There's no rebirth there. No blinking out of existence and re-appearing for the mountain. The mountain is form, like the human body. Terminology that applies to "mind" is not used for form to my knowledge. So persistent process pretty much sums it up, except you have to add supported by conditions or it seems like it's unchanging/permanent.
Same goes with SteveP's universal rebirth. It's not the universe, but the mind that is reborn moment-to-moment (not the brain, the "experience"). The physical matter of the universe undergoes change, but these "things" that are in flux do not just blink in and out, they change at a certain rate and require the right conditions to dissipate. It's more our perception of them being "things" in the first place that gets us.
I would say that it's incorrect to say that "the mind is reborn moment-to-moment". Rather, the mind is in the same type of flux as the skandas, and is just responding to that flux.
How can the mind be reborn moment-to-moment? I think this is just a way of conceptualizing the process, and this is where it gets confusing. Ultimately, there is no "mind", nor is there a "moment". Both are just concepts.
And in response to the thought that we are just dealing in semantics, I would say that incorrect use of semantics or terminology or concepts can sometimes be misleading.
What is a "mind"? What is a "moment"? What does it mean for "the mind to be reborn moment-to-moment"?
For the last thirty comments or so, this discussion has mostly been about semantics. That is, everyone seems to agree on what's happening, we're just arguing about whether it's appropriate to call it rebirth.
But semantics is about language, and IMO the way we think about these things is significant.
Comments
P
We are not nothing. We are dependent arising. Empty of a permanent separate self. True. But something not nothing.
Between the hopeless nothing of nihilism and the attachment to a permanent self of eternalism lies the peace of mind and freedom of the Middle Way.
As to what exactly is or is not in each of the ancient teachings I don't know. These teachings are the finger pointing not the object being pointed at. Rather that trying to validate or refute a belief system, I am more concerned with what I can see with direct experience. Rebirth as a concept helps to explain the nature of reality to me. Others may see it differently, which is ok.
So what does it mean to say that Rebirth Consciousness occurs moment to moment.
Moment to moment means it is occurs right now in the present. This moment is not the same as the last moment or the same as the next moment.
Consciousness - Awareness. The perceiver and that which is perceived.
Birth - A new beginning.
It would be more accurate to say New Birth Consciousness occurs moment to moment. But that would not explain my illusion of self. Rebirth Consciousness does for it provides continuity to my perception of reality. That the me of the current moment is linked to the me of the previous moment complete with my past accumulated karma.
Actually each new moment is just another dependent arising, a new beginning. Beginnings that we experience but do not own and therefore are not limited to the form of this current moment or this current life time.
What does exactly Anicca mean to you in your own words?
By the way. Sorry for yelling earlier.
/Victor
[35] If karma had own-being the body created by it would be permanent. So karma would not result in suffering and would therefore be substantial.
[29] The three times do not exist (substantially) since they are unfixed and are mutually established, since they change [and] are not self-established, [and] since there is no being. They are merely discriminations.
[25] If nirvana [resulted] from cessation, [then there would be] destruction. If the contrary, [there would be] permanence. Therefore it is not logical that nirvana is being or non-being.
~Nagarjuna
P
But certain "states" can persist while the requisite conditions persist. The most obvious illustration is dependent origination, where suffering persists while ignorance persists.
P
P
On a different approach to your question, I assume you are aware of the concept of reification? In this respects you could consider birth to be the reification of the self. In this respect the self is not always reified, it happens from moment to moment and this process has gaps in it. Part of the skilful means of Buddhism is the means to experience and know those gaps, or space, in the reification of the self.
One last thing, there is some merit in looking for something that cannot be found. In the practise mahamudra the yogin looks directly at mind to try and find it. They know conceptually that there is nothing to be found, but in the act of looking they can find mind's true nature. So this is one instance that works, I know this from documentation from the lineage, when looking for something known not to exist. So if it works in this respect, I imagine that it could very much work when looking for the self. Inference can only take you so far, direct cognition is what really works.
Cheers, WK
The most obvious example of this persistence is dependent origination, where suffering persists while ignorance persists.
This is directly supported by the first and third lines of the general formula for DO which occurs repeatedly in the suttas:
"When this is, that is;
This arising, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
This ceasing, that ceases."
P
P
Same goes with SteveP's universal rebirth.
I would say that it's incorrect to say that "the mind is reborn moment-to-moment". Rather, the mind is in the same type of flux as the skandas, and is just responding to that flux.
How can the mind be reborn moment-to-moment? I think this is just a way of conceptualizing the process, and this is where it gets confusing. Ultimately, there is no "mind", nor is there a "moment". Both are just concepts.
And in response to the thought that we are just dealing in semantics, I would say that incorrect use of semantics or terminology or concepts can sometimes be misleading.
What is a "mind"? What is a "moment"? What does it mean for "the mind to be reborn moment-to-moment"?
P
P