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.
Rebirth
Hi, I've been reading various articles on the subject of rebirth but I'm not exactly clear on what is reborn.
In Buddhism there is no immortal soul so it would follow that at the moment of death you consciousness is annihilated never to reappear. From what I have read though a new consciosness based on your karma would form but it wouldn't be you as there is no immortal self.
I'm not quite understanding all this if anyone could explain more it would be helpful. The complete idea of rebirth doesn't seem logical at all if indeed consciousness is annhilated at death.
In Buddhism there is no immortal soul so it would follow that at the moment of death you consciousness is annihilated never to reappear. From what I have read though a new consciosness based on your karma would form but it wouldn't be you as there is no immortal self.
I'm not quite understanding all this if anyone could explain more it would be helpful. The complete idea of rebirth doesn't seem logical at all if indeed consciousness is annhilated at death.
0
Comments
Firstly let me state that this is my unpopular opinion based on the Pali Canon and teachings of certain Thai Forest teachers. In fact I won't even state it, I'll just link you to some of these resources for you to check out yourself...
Consciousness isn't annihilated at death nor is it reborn. Please refer to this sutta: http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
As for rebirth in general I would reccomend this article: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
Kutadanta: "Tell me, O Lord, if there be no atman [soul], how can there be immortality? The activity of the mind passeth, and our thoughts are gone when we have done thinking."
Buddha replied: "Our thinking is gone, but our thoughts continue. Reasoning ceases, but knowledge remains."
.
In Buddhism, sensory consciousness (vinnana) isn't viewed as a static thing that gets annihilated at death, it's simply the bare awareness of sense data and ideas. The arising of sensory-consciousness is said to be dependent upon the meeting of one of the six sense-organs (salayatana) and its corresponding object. The process of seeing, for example, is described as a conditional process where "dependent on eye and visible forms, eye-consciousness arises" (SN 12.43). Although I'm agnostic when it comes the traditional understanding of postmortem rebirth, I don't think it's necessarily illogical, and I'd like to at least mention how the process of rebirth is generally understood.
To begin with, the Buddha didn't reject that specific mental events are contingent upon corresponding physical events in the brain, which is the prevailing view of modern science, but he didn't explicitly promote it either. In The Buddha and His Teachings, for example, Narada Thera notes that:
So even though the Buddha detailed the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15), he wasn't a strict materialist. In regard to name-and-form (nama-rupa), for example, he didn't see consciousness as merely the byproduct of matter; he saw mentality and materiality as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their relationship (SN 12.67).
Moreover, in Theravada, the literal interpretation of rebirth (punabhava) is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness (kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances).
According to the teachings on dependent co-arising (paticcasamupadda) — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes (non-literalists simply disregard the 'three-life' model, e.g., see Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination) — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving (tahna) plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
In explaining how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). Hence, the Buddha states, "Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence" (SN 12.38).
To better illustrate this, I'd like to make an analogy to a theory introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. There, he presents his theory that those genes whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation will be favourably selected in detriment to their competitors, which is essentially a part of what helps species surive and reproduce. He does not mean that the human gene is actually selfish, but rather that it acts as if it were. Craving can also be seen to act in a similar way.
If we look at craving as being the cause by which this process happens at the molecular level, we can get an idea of the role that craving plays in realm of rebirth. In this pseudoscientific analogy, the propagation of genes is analogous to becoming and birth in dependent co-arising, and the cause of this process is craving; in the case of genes, it would be craving in regard for the reproductive success of the organism, or of other organisms containing the same gene, while in the case of beings, it would be craving in regard to the production of renewed existence, or the establishment and growth of consciousness.
Unfortunately, there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries. While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as reliable sources of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's true, for example, that the Pali term patisandhi-citta (re-linking consciousness) — which is used to explain the process of rebirth in detail — is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a 're-linking' consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "... when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
He did, however, reject the idea of consciousness as a kind 'spirit' that travels from one life to the next. For example, in response to the view that "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another" put forth by Sati, a bhikkhu that was the son of a fisherman, the Buddha rebukingly said, "Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness" (MN 38).
And, in the Theravadin understanding at least, kamma is what makes entire this process possible. In Bhikkhu Bodhi’s words, "When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death" (Anicca Vata Sankhara).
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in a way that supports a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. But in either interpretation, rebirth is the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains', nothing 'transmigrates', etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life. The only difference I see is that one side believes this process ceases at death, regardless of whether there's still craving present in the mind, and the other doesn't.
In a way, our actions are immortalized in others, and never really stop affecting the world. It's one giant game of dominos
Differing explanations by Buddha were given for differing minds. The store [alaya] or seed consciousness was explained by Buddha in this sutra excerpt:
From the Glossary:
While I think that a one-life interpretation of DO is possible, the canon is quite explicit about many-life rebirth. Unfortunately, nothing is said how this happens, so different schools have developed different ideas about it.
Joel, perhaps you will find it useful to look at the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1). It explains things in negative terms. This sutta lists a number of "wrong views" about post-mortem survival, i.e. views that the Buddha rejected.
Cheers, Thomas
Consciousness is the initial cognition that arises when the physical sense organs make contact with external objects. For example, when the eye makes contact with form the initial cognition is eye-consciousness.
I am clueless just like you as to what is reborn and how it is reborn assuming there is rebirth. Various people give various interpretations. I have not seen the Buddha giving explanation to such questions anywhere. On the contrary, he has explicitly said that such speculation is not related to Nibbana.
In case you are interested, this topic was recently discussed here.
Great post.
/Victor
The bigger part of us is this extension; is what we "do" during our life. We are not born into the world - we are born out of the world, from the world, and return to it when the conditions are just so.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha195.htm
Here is the text by Asanga that Dr Rahula refers to:
http://www.gampoabbey.org/translations2/ani-migme/Mahayanasamgraha.pdf
See pp. 48-51 of the PDF - it is large 2.5 megs
Buddha repeatedly taught that rebirth occurs over several lifetimes & that he could remember his past lives. Perhaps how it happens isn't important, but (according to Buddha) it certainly happens.
past dwellings
wow ok...
:bowdown:
I do not understand what you are saying. What is a materialist? How is this related to understanding Buddhism?
Can you show me where the Buddha said this?
:rolleyesc
Are you sure the Buddha is explaining rebirth here or is the Buddha just answering questions prompted by a very confused person holding their own pre-existing beliefs?
I read the link. It says "Of course you are befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you are uncertain. When there is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises."
I read the other link too. It says "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. "
How is this about rebirth? It just says if a person obssesses about something their consciousness becomes stationed there. When I watch TV my consciousness is stationed there.
As a sceptic, my reply is this explanation by Jason is befuddled like Vacchagotta the wanderer, like a somene who has wandered through a New Age bookshop buying different blind faith belief systems.
Us sceptics believe religions teach the afterlife so they can control people. Is your agnosticism a sign of your personal rebelliousness?
I have read the Buddhist teaching where Buddha tries to control the people saying if they do not follow five precepts (commandments) they will be reborn in hell.
:mad:
:buck:
Then that is obviously your belief system. :rolleyes:
Cheers, Thomas
You are seeing things Guy
Hm, seems fine to me.
Well, I have been to the bookstore a lot recently, but I wouldn't really consider Plato 'New Age'. Got a great deal on The Republic, though.
Lol I was just about to welcome him back.