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.
about death and awareness
hey all,
From my life i can tell people are aware. Their percieving of the world is from my observation similair to mine. When i see that there is no longer a awareness in the body where there used to be one (death). how can i then be sure that there is an ongoing awareness (reincarnation... and the idea that enlightment assures this)
greets
From my life i can tell people are aware. Their percieving of the world is from my observation similair to mine. When i see that there is no longer a awareness in the body where there used to be one (death). how can i then be sure that there is an ongoing awareness (reincarnation... and the idea that enlightment assures this)
greets
0
Comments
I would consider it more helpful to simply observe that the body is alive if its alive and dead if its dead. The 'awareness after death' question becomes moot once one really accepts death as natural and normal. Is there a reason you're looking to find something eternal?
With warmth,
Matt
dreaming is reality itself, but our thiking mind tries to named it something else than reality purely because the event could not be reobtained by own initiative
I don't understand. If you could give a Buddhist source for this perhaps I would be able to understand what you are trying to say, but as it stands, this, to me, is very hard to understand.
We have to have some point of reference in these discussions so that they don't devolve into (sometimes incomprehensible) statements of personal speculation. This forum is "Buddhism for Beginners", and if we don't use something in Buddhism as a point of reference, then discussions can get off into imponderables and idle speculation. I'm not even saying that we have to "retreat to the authority of scripture", but if we don't have a point of reference in Buddhism as opposed to personal speculation or personal thought and opinion, then these discussions can get sidetracked pretty easily.
Clarification need not be accompanied by the authority of scripture. And in Buddhism (generally speaking) understanding need only rely on perception or inference.
Frankly, I welcome discussion of the "imponderables". And it is my experience with almost EVERY tradition that the 4 imponderables are discussed all the time!
1) The Buddha-range of the Buddhas. This is discussed extensively in Mahayana literature. Quite elegantly, I might add.
2) The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana. This is described and discussed in practically every tradition. Including the Pali, which states this is an imponderable.
3) The results of kamma. This is described all the time also. You can read in the Pali canon the story of a Prince who murdered his father to become King. Buddha explains that he will be tortured in Hell for a thousand years by his own son. Is that not a discussion of the imponderable results of kamma, no less by Buddha himself?
4) Speculation about the cosmos. See, the Agganna Sutta and others.
So, those are the four. But, you put the discussion of death and after-death in there didn't you?
Well, why not discuss the process of death, the awareness during the process of death, and the ceasing of the process of death and the initiation of the process of birth?
These issues are described in great detail by many Buddhists. See, Tibetan Book of the Dead for example.
it is what I have come to be naturally aware of in my path. I have gathered it in studying quantum physics. Doing meditation. And taking part in shamanism. Buddhism as well
Buddhism is mentioned last in the list of sources for the statement. This forum is "Buddhism for Beginners". It's important to know what comes from Buddhism as a source and what comes from personal experience or other sources. If I find something interesting, I need to know where it comes from and where I can find out more.
The OP is asking how he can know if a person that he has just observed to die will have an ongoing awareness and be reborn. I simply submit that he cannot directly know that. Certainly the Tibetan Book of the Dead has some good indications of what happens after death and may be a good source for some, but it is ultimately unknowable from this side. I happen to like the Tibetan Book of the Dead's rendition of what happens after death, but that doesn't mean that I can know with any certainty from this side, which is what the OP is asking.
What I am trying to address, I guess, is this issue of deciding what is "Buddhist" and what is not.
"Buddhist statements"? Is that the same thing as dogma, "a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative"?
So, my question is: how does the "Buddhism" label imputed on a statement help us to understand whether a statement is in accord with reality?
Which one of the above statements is in accord with reality?
Personally, I have no problem with saying that anything (regardless of it being explicitly Buddhist or not) that is in accord with reality is therefore dharma.
IMO, everyone is a "Buddhist" whether they profess so or not. They remain in "samsara" whether the believe in it or not. They reach "enlightenment" whether they believe in it or not. This is a universalism much like the Christian belief that sinners will got to Hell even if they don't believe in Hell.
I guess the only final answer I have for you is that, for purposes of posting on this forum, the Administrator and Moderators have the final say in what is Buddhist and what is not. The forum is named "Buddhism for Beginners", and it's their forum. Apparently they allow very free-form discussions just for the sake of allowing free discourse.
If you're going to say that "everyone is a "Buddhist" whether they profess so or not.", then you allow absolutely any discussion of any subject whatsoever to take place here regardless of whether or not it appears to have any connection with historical Buddhism, Buddhist commentarial literature, or anything of the sort. According to this notion, you would allow discussion of something like the plight of polar bears in the Arctic because "everyone is a Buddhist" and therefore that affects us as Buddhists. All I am saying is that discussions here need to relate in some way to some aspect of Buddhism as opposed to the rest of the entire discourse of human civilization, which you would allow, because "everyone is a Buddhist". There have to be guidelines for discussion. That's all I'm saying. Otherwise people can just write whatever they want to here, including representing their own personal experience as validly "Buddhist" because, as you say, "everyone is a Buddhist".
I cannot tell you which of the statements regarding what happens to the mind-stream after death because I cannot know from this side, and I believe that no one really can. And I cannot tell you how the label "Buddhism" attached to a particular rendition of reality can be judged, because apparently you would allow anything at all to be stated and regarded as authoritatively "Buddhist" because "everyone is a Buddhist".
If there are no guidelines for discussion, no limits recognized as to what is or is not "Buddhist", and people can "just write stuff" from their own experience and apparently from their own authority, and it is felt to be validly Buddhist because "everyone is a Buddhist", then meaningful discussion falls apart completely, and we end up discussing "how many hungry ghosts can dance on the head of a pin". I think the onus is now on you to give us guidelines for how discussions should take place here, because "everyone is a Buddhist".
Reality stays the same regardless of the disagreements.
Everyone has access to this reality and everyone has the opportunity to live in accord with this reality. This ability transcends the labels of "Buddhist" and "non-Buddhist". IMO, to harp on the appropriateness of the definition, to appeal to the discretion of others (you mention the web administrators, and I assure you I am not trying to police the board) in maintaining a particular definition misses my point entirely.
I believe that you also misrepresent my argument so as to reduce it to absurdity. E.g. you think that the plight of polar bears is not fit to be discussed on a Buddhist forum. This, to me, ignores the very interesting field of "Buddhist" ecology and environmentalism, which certainly, IMO, could be appropriately discussed here. (Well, perhaps not this thread.)
I'm sorry, though, my onus to myself is to break through the neat little boxes we think accurately define things. There is no clear, black line defining the form of Buddhism. Neither is there a clear, black-and-white delineation of what is not Buddhist.
IMO, at death ALL the conceptual delineations are removed. There you can color outside the lines, as it were. Desire for something other than a blank page to draw on will result in the rebirth of the coloring book, with its nice clear, black lines.
Cherish the realizations achieved by the experience of meditating on materials; I know I do. But do not become attached to the idea that materials are necessary; I'm sure you aren't.
For some reason, this is a very taboo topic on this board. But, IMO, if you can maintain mindfulness while on material, then it has not intoxicated you.
Thanks.
Not to be a nit picker, but you can never replicate another's experience or experience what they have experienced. So if you are unwilling to listen to another's experience with an open mind, you will never be able to have an honest discussion.
But it seems to me like you are imposing an underlying belief system to the conversation, which is telling you that the discussion has gone "far afield" from what you would prefer to discuss.
Not saying that is bad or anything. If you decide its not worth your time, than don't give it any time, like you said.
Sorry again, just nit picking, not trying to judge.
I am. It has.