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.
Why would you bother practising Buddhadharma if all there was is one existance with no repercussion for oneself particularly ( Or the karma that later forms the new dependent arising of seld ) after this life, After the break up of the body...If Buddhadharma teaches the elimination of suffering for onelife only and holds the Nihilistic view to be true then what point is there practising that which will be accomplished by death anyway ? Happiness even a temporary one in the face of total destruction is as pointless as rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic. Such a depressing line of thought into nothingness.
This statement gives the impression your mind has not gained any benefits from Buddhism.
Is that so?
That doesnt awnser the question does it DD it avoids the subject. Once this life has ended does our peace of mind go withit into the oblivion of death...If so then this is a definitive temporary phenomena of this life alone unless one is going to suggest that there is some form of re-arising of an Impermenant self and or no continuation of an enlightened mind it sounds like sinking in to a Nihilism equally acheived by beleiveing death is the way to acheive peace.
Lets say the suffering of this life can be ended by death and upon death there shall be no re-arising Of a self...why would one work to acheive Nivarna when death can equally be the cause of peace ?
Less personal attacks more attacking the argument.
Well I have read all of the posts to date in the thread, and can I just say thank you to all who have commented thus far. As I have said I do believe that our life force does transmigrate after death, and to me it seems common sense. I mean a lot has been said on Buddhas teachings and the sutras, but I think you just need to take one look at our world and the history of mankind to see things as they are. By this I mean just look at the huge effect Kamma has on each sentient beings life. For instance some have said that they believe in Kamma but do not believe in rebirth and you only need one lifetime to experience Kamma. For me this view does not fare very well when you consider such examples of people who are born into extreme poverty while others are born into extreme wealth, if Kamma is not transmigrated after death then why is this unfairness the case ? why should someone be born into poverty and hardship if this is their only life and their Kamma started at birth, how come they are born in poverty and hardship while another person, which should have the same Kamma (if Kamma begins at birth and ends at death) is born into wealth and luxury. The same argument could be said for many other attributes. Hence, I would argue that Kamma is the most significant evidence in favour of rebirth, evidence which stares us in the face everyday be it on the news or in the street.
I don't know what the truth is but I think it helps me understand the rebirth issue better when I read threads like this. Right now I tend to see things pretty much the same way Caz does but I wanted to add a small personal note to something thickpaper said:
"It is a hard thing to grasp, I agree. Especially when we all want to belive in an afterlife, it is the most signifigant of spiritual beliefs.
None of us want to die. None of us want death to be the end."
Actually, I don't want to believe in an afterlife. In my selfish and weak current state (my normal state....) I deeply wish death would be the end of everything for me. I dread facing a rebirth and the only thing that calms that fear is hoping that whatever is reborn won't have any memory of this dread and weariness and that it won't be 'me' in the sense that it won't have the same brain with all it's current quirks and well trodden pathways to the fear centers and so on. When I have enough guts to contemplate rebirth I always do so with the hope that the most painful parts of 'me' will be annihilated forever when this brain dies but I'm also aware that this simplistic, self-centered hope is surely wrong view with its dependence upon a self concept. So I go round and round and round.....then I throw my hands up and go wash the dishes.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I must disagree, thickpaper. I DO want death to be the end and I doubt I'm the only one. I don't know how this contributes to the actual conversation though. Just saying.....
P.S. I'm having some posting issues with quoting and smileys and so forth. Still getting used to the new software....
I missed the thread where I questioned thickpaper so I didn't get his answer, but he says he is a very happy guy. So happy that he believes he is enlightened with the caveat that enlightenment is nothing mystical. Just happy person coupled with a philosophy of 3 marks 4 NTs, a few sutras, and 8 fold.
I missed the thread where I questioned thickpaper so I didn't get his answer, but he says he is a very happy guy. So happy that he believes he is enlightened with the caveat that enlightenment is nothing mystical. Just happy person coupled with a philosophy of 3 marks 4 NTs, a few sutras, and 8 fold.
I don't recall saying I am enlightened:) I do believe that enlightenment is mundane and nonmystical - this doenst mean it can't be the most profound/wonderful change a person can experience.
Just happy person coupled with a philosophy of 3 marks 4 NTs, a few sutras, and 8 fold.
I have dedicated my life to Dharma for nearly a decade, still very much a greenhorn. I think you missed the essence of what I was saying if this is what you took from my answer.
Actually, I don't want to believe in an afterlife. In my selfish and weak current state (my normal state....) I deeply wish death would be the end of everything for me.[/quote]
The Mirror is there for you, isn't it?
>>>Anyway, I just wanted to say that I must disagree, thickpaper. I DO want death to be the end and I doubt I'm the only one. I don't know how this contributes to the actual conversation though. Just saying.....
Maybe if you embrace finality it will positivise your experince, rather than the negative spiral your words depict?
How can anything be carried over from past lives? Like memories or anything? Bah, I give up. Doesn't make sense.
That's a good questions. It could be that memories are stored in the brain; and when the body dies, all memories are lost. Or, perhaps our memories are stored/carried on via some difficult to access medium, e.g., genetics, storehouse consciousness a la Yogacara, morphogeneic field, etc.
As for how such a transference of memory is possible (if indeed such a thing even exists), it may take place on the quantum level, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances. This could also go to explain rebirth — which 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 — occurs.
This is all just speculation on my part, however, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
hmm quantum mechanics i wonder how the buddha knew about that 0.o the first real knowledge of subatomic particles didn't come until Rutherford's gold foil, that was around 1900
hmm quantum mechanics i wonder how the buddha knew about that 0.o the first real knowledge of subatomic particles didn't come until Rutherford's gold foil, that was around 1900
Never said the Buddha knew about it, only that certain concepts within quantum mechanics can be used to illustrate how things like rebirth and the transference of memory may be possible.
I see. I don't think it's odd at all. The Buddha was describing things he experienced using language and images that he and his audience were familiar with 2,600 years ago. When trying to describe those same ideas and experiences today, I think it makes sense to use modern language and analogies when they seem appropriate and useful.
huh, but you aren't implying he experienced rebirth in the sense of one human being dying and their consciousness instantly being reborn in another?
According to the texts, a beginning point to samsara (literally 'wandering on') isn't evident (SN 15.3). This can be interpreted two ways — that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of beings isn't evident, or that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta), isn't evident — and they're not mutually exclusive.
To put it simply, one moment of consciousness conditions the arising of next (rebirth), just as one action conditions the quality of feeling a moment of consciousness cognizes (kamma); and if one accepts the teachings on rebirth, this process doesn't ceases at death if there's still craving (tahna) present in the mind (SN 44.9). Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
As for rebirth, whether one takes a literal or non-literal approach, it's simply 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. No one sutta deals with this question, but this idea is found throughout the canon. If you're interested, you can find more of thought on kamma, rebirth and not-self here, here and here.
I think your attitude is conducive for practice. I use death as a motivation to value my experience. Part of that is leaving this life and the uncertainty. I think it is depressing to fear hell for a westerner. Or alternatively it is laughable hocus pocus.
Do you want to know why it is taught? The buddhism in the east is the cultural 85% majority heritage in some of these nations. Equivalent to catholics who just take the wafer and care less about the religion, in east the monks are trying to reach lay people who are not serious about the 4 NT and other teachings. The goal is to make them stop spending all their time on the 8 worldly winds: praise blame and so forth, hope and fear, and to study the dharma. I know you don't meditate but meditation naturally extends from a friendly attitude like you have. It rests on easy going light touch rather than fear. The eastern people need that initial kick to put them on the journey and make them sincere and serious. I think you are actually not in the west so maybe you can inform me haha.
>>>>"Jeffrey">>>>>I think your attitude is conducive for practice.
I think, with that view, you would be in the minority here:p
>>>>The buddhism in the east is the cultural 85% majority heritage in some of these nations.
Yes.
I have lived in Sri Lanka and know many lifelong buddhists, its engrained in them, even though often they dont study Dharma much past school.
>>>I know you don't meditate
I do meditate in a few ways, including visisisipsiisiinasa, I am very poor at the latter (I have been diagnosed with ADD, it doesn't help meditation though mediitation helps with add to a degree. I also chant.
Only a few of my therevadan Buddhist friends meditate. if you go to a temple there, its rare to see meditation going on. Though in other palces I have been in asia it seems much more common for the monks to be sitting.
I have difficulty meditating to to schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, depression. So I understand difficulty. I learned to have a light attitude and to not make a big deal about meditating or not.
Its like people who have severe asthma have to take that in consideration to run a marathon. Sort of.
Anyhow I can share in the difficulty with meditation.
SN 44.9 is not an exposition of Buddha-Dhamma. It is simply a discussion with Vacca and responses to Vacca by the Buddha which the Buddha regarded as suitable.
We must keep in mind it was to Vacca that Buddha refused to declare the doctrine of "not-self". Some people quote this Vacca sutta to support the view Buddhism does not teach "not-self".
In SN 44.9, it is Vacca who raised the notion of a a flame is being swept on by the wind and going a far distance. If we accept this notion literally, we are as befuddled as Vaccca.
Why?
Because a flame itself cannot be swept along in the wind. The flame requires physical sustanence to sustain it, such as a twig, grass, leaf, etc.
If we recollect MN 38, here, the Buddha lists certain kinds of fire and their fuel (leaf, twig, dung, grass, etc) as metaphor for how consciousness is dependent on a sense organ.
In the end, the Buddha's answer to Vacca is just Dhamma language, open to the reader's interpretation. The Buddha states a person that will be reborn in the future is sustained by craving.
For example, I enjoy chocolate, but I do not eat chocolate 24 hours per day. There are times I do not eat nor have a consciousnes craving for chocolate. However, because I have not uprooted my mind's tendency (anusaya) towards chocolate, it is guaranteed I will reappear or take birth as a chocolate eater in the future.
SN 44.9 does not give any detailed meta-physical explanation of rebirth and, as such, cannot be regarded as one.
SN 44.9 is merely a conversion with Vacca, where the Buddha has given answers to notions the befuddled Vacca has concocted in his befuddlement.
You can only understand rebirth when you understand not-self, emptiness, and impermanence. These hold the key to what rebirth really is.
The Buddha did not teach rebirth and not-self, emptiness and impermanence together.
The Buddha advised rebirth teachings side with (promote) morality, whereas the not-self teachings side with liberation.
If we read the scriptures, "so and so person" is reborn.
In the scriptures, an actual person is reborn. "Not-self elements" are not said to be reborn.
So you care more about what some guy said thousands of years ago than your own personal experience? Even if i'm wrong, i'm giving my own answers based off of my experience. The buddha, jesus, all of them. They made their own way. They didn't follow anyone. The truth is found in your own path. If you follow someone else, you cannot know the truth. Sure, following someone can help you get there, but you must break the ties eventually. I don't know the buddha. His teachings have much wisdom, but i'm not gonna put all of my faith in some guy i've never met in my life. My truth is mine.
I think in Tibetan buddhism, The Journey, that is sometimes discussed as upadesha versus Lam Rim teachings. Lam Rim is a systematic study to put you on a path of teachings that proven in the past to help to become enlightened. Upadesha is the pointing out of the teacher using any means necessary the nature of the mind. And it is based on your experience and your mind.
My teacher said in the Lam Rim there are times when you are at an impasse that you need to go back to the root of samsara the nature of mind to progress. I am messing this up probably but I try to remember. The example given was (and I only realize this intellectually not at deep level): at some point you realize there is undending karma of negative. So you cannot possibly create positive karma to purify. That is like coming to a cliff. I have no idea how thats resolved as its all textbook and not my experience.
I also liken it to zen masters who had a question, I cannot recall one, but I think maybe Dogen or Hakuin had the question how come you have buddha nature, but need to work to be enlightened. That question (their personal) drove them on a search that lead to a high degree of enlightenment. I think buddha was not at an endpoint but that the buddha qualities are infinite. Nonetheless he had become unbinded from suffering. I cannot just text book take the zen question and find my own enlightenment because it is not my experience.
I do believe that our life force does transmigrate after death...
But friend. What you have said above is not a Buddhist notion. The Buddha said beings are "reborn" according to their actions & cravings. The Buddha never provided a meta-physical explanation of rebirth, such as how a soul, consciousness or a life force re-enters a new physical body. You are way off the mark by inferring the Buddha taught the life force (jiva indriya) transmigrates.
For me this view does not fare very well when you consider such examples of people who are born into extreme poverty while others are born into extreme wealth...
IMO, here, you are entering very dangerous territory. Very dangerous.
Why?
Because you are blocking out the here & now causes of poverty & the remedy for change.
The causes of poverty are here & now. The means to change such injustice is here & now.
For example, recently we had a Global Financial Crisis (GFC) due to certain bankers playing games with money. Their games caused a catastrophe and many people lost their jobs. In the USA, the real unemployment rate is probably over 10%. 15 million people are unemployed.
The Great Depression was the same. The poverty was causes by unethical Wall Street bankers rather than rebirth.
The same occurs in African nations. Here, poverty has been caused by year after year of war, of various military groups being supplied weapons by various Western governments and industries. Zimbabwe is an excellent example. This was once a prosperous country but now many live in poverty due a inhumane dictator, who lives in unimagined luxury.
The causes of poverty & wealth are before our eyes. They do not come from a past life. Further, wealth is not necessarily the result of good karma. Many wealthy people have done many very evil things, such as human slavery.
So you care more about what some guy said thousands of years ago than your own personal experience? Even if i'm wrong, i'm giving my own answers based off of my experience.
Hi
Your statement above which defers no cause or gratitude to the Buddha & the history (lineage) of Buddhism is indicative of your level of "enlightenment". Obviously, your mind has not realised the reality of cause & effect clearly.
Sure, you are giving answers from your own experience but that does not mean your answers are of any benefit
For example, I may ask a psychopath killer (say Charles Manson) about how I should live. This does not mean Charlie's answers have any merits.
If you understood impermanence & 'not-self', you would understand there is no such thing as "rebirth" because there is no such thing as the "same thing" being reborn.
Rebirth is a conventional teaching rather than ultimate reality. Rebirth & the higher teachings do not fit together.
For example, when a person's craving for chocolate arises, it is a new craving everytime. The person is a new person. Their body is different, their mind is different. Everything has changed from the last moment of craving. Even their tendency for craving has changed. In the last moment it had x degree of intensity and in the next moment is has y degree of intensity.
On the level of ultimate truth, there is no "rebirth". There is just the "birth" of new things, that is all. On the level of ultimate truth, in his Dependent Origination, the Buddha used the word "birth" rather than "rebirth". In the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha used the term "craving that leads to new becoming". He did not say "rebecoming" but instead "new becoming".
The buddha, jesus, all of them. They made their own way. They didn't follow anyone. The truth is found in your own path.
I already said to you in another thread how you would soon be comparing yourself to Jesus.
The Buddha certainly found his own way. That is why he is called the Sammasambuddha, self-enlightened Buddha.
The Buddha declared there can be only one Sammasambuddha in one world system so the Buddha declared Jesus did not find his own way.
Not only did the Buddha disagree with you, the disagreement with you makes perfect common sense.
The Bible reports Jesus was a master of the Jewish teachings as a child. Thus, he did not find his own way here. He was a student of the Torah. Then he reappeared in Isreal, later in his life, with a revolutionary new teaching about non-violence, love & forgiveness, which was basically the same as the Buddha's teachings about "the path to heaven".
Jesus basically taught Brahminism. Jesus introduced a new teaching into Israel & the Western world but introduced nothing new into the world as a whole.
Jesus was merely a disciple. That is why he gave reverence to his Father in Heaven. However, the Buddha only gave reverence to the Dhamma (natural truth) he discovered (see Garava Sutta).
Jesus cannot be compared to Buddha in any way, shape or form. Jesus was a disciple and the Buddha was the discoverer of supramundane Dhamma & the perfector of mundane Dhamma.
If you follow someone else, you cannot know the truth. Sure, following someone can help you get there, but you must break the ties eventually.
Your view here is both false & contradicted.
Why is it false? Because by following a path given by another, one can realise the truth.
Why is it contradicted? Because you spend your time on this chatsite posting for others to follow your advice and your path.
I don't know the buddha. His teachings have much wisdom...
You have contradicted yourself again. The Buddha said he who knows the Dhamma (his teachings, wisdom) knows him (The Buddha). This was similar to Jesus who said: "He who knows the Father knows the Son". Yet you declare to not know the Buddha but yet regard his teachings as wise. This makes no sense at all.
This is known as covetousness. One declares to have never known a person yet one steals their teachings as one's personal knowledge. Many gurus have followed this path, eg. Krishnamurti. They spent their lives studying teachings but then declare themselves to be self-enlightened.
All I can say is you have spoken truthfully when declaring: "I don't know the Buddha".
...but i'm not gonna put all of my faith in some guy i've never met in my life.
You seems stuck in "personality view". The Buddha advised the state of enlightened is free from "personality view".
I put my faith in the Dhamma of the Buddha which was taught for the purpose of ending suffering. When one verifies for oneself this Dhamma works then one understands the Buddha was a Buddha (i.e. fully enlightened).
As was said: "He who sees the Dhamma (natural truth), sees the Buddha".
.My truth is mine.
Of that, I cannot dispute. "Your truth" is certainly "yours".
However, the Buddha taught all things are not "I", "me", "my" or "mine".
Yes, your truth is yours, where as the truth I take an interest in is "natural truth". It is the truth or reality of nature. For example, when a leaf falls from a tree, decays & dissolves, that is natural truth.
When my younger sister was a child, she would close her eyes and declare: "You cannot see me". As my younger brother, your truth of non-conceptuality is similar. Because you deem it does not exist, for your mind, it does not exist. This is your subjective truth but it is not natural truth.
Natural truth does not depend on thinking or non-thinking. When a leaf falling from a tree is observed, it is seen to be impermanent & unpossessable. Our bodies & minds are the same. When observed, it can be seen there is no real self in them. It is a matter of observation (anupassana) rather than thinking or non-thinking.
When "you" die, "you're" dead. Your atoms, your energy, the matter that makes you up is recycled in worm food, heat, plant food, water, whatever. You're body, your energy, is transfered to other beings, because that energy wasn't ever "you" to begin with. It was never yours, nothing is yours, but you aren't "you." So, I don't think rebirth happens. Theres nothing, from what I'm aware of, that is "you" personally that could be reborn. If Buddha taught of reincarnation, it was probably due to his Indian origin where he grew up in a Hindu culture where everyone believed in reincarnation. Perhaps he spoke metaphorically. Maybe he didn't.
What is Nirvana? I think Nirvana is the state of mind a Buddha has in his life, and when it ends, the Nirvana, for him ends.
What is karma? Equal and opposite reactions, cause and effect, etc. And when Buddha refers to karmic effects other lives of yours, I think he was referring to the lives of others that you effect. Your child is dependently here. You made them. They are part of what made you up. If you're bad to that child, when it grows up, it will most likely be mean too. This goes for anything. Every creature is dependent on other creatures (sentient beings). If you're mean to somebody on the street, that is effecting their lives. "You" are "living" through them, because of what you did, you changed their life, and theres really no "them" anyways.
So whats the point of Buddhism? Well, I'm pretty sure its to free yourself of suffering, liberation, and to live in the moment. You aren't supposed to be preoccupied with the future, you're supposed to deal with this very moment. Why would he teach of Samsara if he was against beliefs, dogma, and worrying about the future? I just don't see it. Plus, we have no real written records during the time of Buddha himself. Things may have been added in later.
But friend. What you have said above is not a Buddhist notion. The Buddha said beings are "reborn" according to their actions & cravings. The Buddha never provided a meta-physical explanation of rebirth, such as how a soul, consciousness or a life force re-enters a new physical body. You are way off the mark by inferring the Buddha taught the life force (jiva indriya) transmigrates.
I am sorry if you thought I inferred this, but I don't think I actually did mention this in connection to Buddha's teachings. I was inferring what a lot of the Masters (mostly of the Tibetan order) have taught through their own direct experiences, which some might argue are at a level that may equal that reached by our Lord Buddha.
IMO, here, you are entering very dangerous territory. Very dangerous.
Why?
Because you are blocking out the here & now causes of poverty & the remedy for change.
The causes of poverty are here & now. The means to change such injustice is here & now.
For example, recently we had a Global Financial Crisis (GFC) due to certain bankers playing games with money. Their games caused a catastrophe and many people lost their jobs. In the USA, the real unemployment rate is probably over 10%. 15 million people are unemployed.
The Great Depression was the same. The poverty was causes by unethical Wall Street bankers rather than rebirth.
The same occurs in African nations. Here, poverty has been caused by year after year of war, of various military groups being supplied weapons by various Western governments and industries. Zimbabwe is an excellent example. This was once a prosperous country but now many live in poverty due a inhumane dictator, who lives in unimagined luxury.
The causes of poverty & wealth are before our eyes. They do not come from a past life. Further, wealth is not necessarily the result of good karma. Many wealthy people have done many very evil things, such as human slavery.
Kind regards
DD
Yes I understand what you are saying, but as I have said, if a person DOES NOT believe in rebirth but DOES believe in Kamma, then no matter what circumstances have occurred before a person is born, if everyone has a clean slate of Kamma at birth how can some people be born into a fortunate life and others into a life of misery ? What decides which baby gets born into a fortunate life and which baby is born into a life of hardship ? So IMO its hard to believe in Kamma and not Rebirth and visa versa. For me it is logical to believe that Kamma and Rebirth are dependent on each other as all things are, and that both are a real part of the wonderful complex workings of existence.
It's really sad. Say the world is the way it is right now, full of joy and despair, and a baby is conceived. Why ever would you think karma has anything to do with the conditions it's born into? The condition of the world is why it is born; the conditions of the world are what it inherits.
It is a hard thing to grasp, I agree. Especially when we all want to belive in an afterlife, it is the most signifigant of spiritual beliefs.
None of us want to die. None of us want death to be the end.
We do? (want to believe in an afterlife). I didn't believe in any kind of afterlife until studying Buddhism. Ever heard the expression, "Life's a sh** and then you die"? Lots of people see no reason to believe in an afterlife. I don't think belief in rebirth/reincarnation sprang from some sort of collective unconscious. But...what do I know?
It's really sad. Say the world is the way it is right now, full of joy and despair, and a baby is conceived. Why ever would you think karma has anything to do with the conditions it's born into? The condition of the world is why it is born; the conditions of the world are what it inherits.
According to the Lamrim, the conditions into which the baby is born are determined by past life actions. Life seems very unfair until you study these texts. But I understand not everyone buys into that. Some do. To each his/her own. We could raise the question, what is the Lamrim based on, what is its source material? I can't answer that one.
I don't desire for anyone to see things my way. Clearly you think i'm wrong about things, and believe that I am wrong in my views. That is ok! But i'm not going to waste my breath trying to convince you, or defend my views. My views are mine, and I am entitled to them. Your views are yours, and you are entitled to them. I don't criticize your views, I ask you don't mine but if you do that's ok too.
Journey I see what DD is saying. Its what I said in another thread. Keeping a life conducive to practice... turning toward the dharma and out of trouble. Getting further inspiration. And the actual nature of mind and reality.
These levels get mixed up. I am still contemplating how but I was very confused about rebirth. Its ok what you believe. Don't feel that you have to be shoed along the path to the slaughter house. Just be where you are and entertain us as brothers and sisters sharing. The irony is that we too are persnickety self righteous argumentatatators. As well as wanting to reach out, participate, and share. Do you care what christmas gifts you get? Or do you just want to share?
...if everyone has a clean slate of Kamma at birth how can some people be born into a fortunate life and others into a life of misery ? What decides which baby gets born into a fortunate life and which baby is born into a life of hardship ? So IMO its hard to believe in Kamma and not Rebirth and visa versa. For me it is logical to believe that Kamma and Rebirth are dependent on each other as all things are, and that both are a real part of the wonderful complex workings of existence.
Hi
Personally, my perspective is 100% different than yours. For me it is illogical to believe the current lives of people are due to Rebirth from a past life. For me, I do not perceive anything as "wonderful" or "complex". I find realities such as poverty very sad and simply caused by human greed & inhumaneness. It is rather "simple" to me rather than "complex".
For example, I sponsor two children in Africa. I chose the children from photographs. Their good fortune is due to my karma or actions rather than their karma performed in a past life.
Also, there is no such thing as a "clean slate". Socially there may be but not individually. The Buddha taught each human being is born with defiled tendencies (anusaya) and spiritual faculties (indriya). Each human being without exception is born with ignorance.
Let me tell you about my life and childhood friends. Our parents were immigrants. Due to the countries they lived in, our parents had limited educations and acquired limited skills. For example, my father as a boy was required to find food & money for his family. There was Depression & then war. Due to their economic hardships, they decided to immigrate to Australia and worked very basic jobs. However, many of their children, due to the opportunities in Australia, excelled in education and have university degrees.
This has nothing to do with karma in a past life. It merely has do with genetic capacities and social opportunities. It is called 'nature & nurture'.
"Having approached the priests & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past?"
' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.'
Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'
When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative.
This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.
To me rebirth is 'the sun rises in the east'... It is aparent truth...
The meditative experience is of how the mind is. Well how is it? Is it bound by birth and death? Something reminds you of something else. A word. An emotion. Thats karmic connections.
They operate outside of time space. Ego is thinking. Thinking is spontaneous and is not coming or going from anywhere. The continuity is a habitual thought itself.
Yet at the same time the sun does rise in the east. And I am up past my bedtime, but happy new year soon. I don't know exactly where I am located in my time zone.
Grasping is causing rebirth because a construct is taken for an ultimate reality.
Clearly you think i'm wrong about things, and believe that I am wrong in my views. I don't criticize your views, I ask you don't mine but if you do that's ok too.
TJ
I gained the impression you criticized the reality I described.
Now I am still hoping that you share "your own path".
If you are not sure how to begin, I will share with you "my own path".
Once upon a time I lived a normal Western life, having an interest in "sex drugs & rock'n'roll". Then one day, via my own insight, I saw for myself those things were harmful. I stopped doing those things, which at the time was very alienating & received alot of criticism from people. I was not influenced by any religion because I despised religion. Here, I followed my own path.
About two years later, I walked into a Buddhist monastery as a tourist. I bought a book on meditation & tried to practise it. For the first time in my life, I tasted 'peace'. I was amazed that there could be such a thing as 'peace'. Then I listened to a teaching of a monk who said: "Establish the mind in spiritual stillness. Free the mind from all positiveness & negativeness". I applied this teaching, which improved my meditation greatly.
In summary, for two years, I followed my own path. Later on, I followed the path spoken by another. Years later, I read some of the Buddha's more mundane teachings, which helped me understand the world greatly, increasing my harmony with the world.
So has your spiritual life been entirely "your own path". Or have you received some tips from others?
I have noticed that a lot of members who have stated that they are Buddhists, have said that they do not believe in the concept of rebirth. Why they believe in Buddhism but not rebirth?
So returning to the orignal post, when we study the scriptures, the Buddha instructed his core teachings are about emptiness. The Buddha never once instructed his core teachings are about rebirth.
Rebirth was a teaching that existed before the Buddha. On many occassions, the Buddha's teachings about rebirth are responses to questions asked of him by laypeople and Brahmins, who already held beliefs in rebirth.
The Buddha said his special teachings are the Four Noble Truths and Emptiness.
So my reply to the original post is: "How can you say you are a Buddhist if your mind has not realised the Four Noble Truths (which includes Nirvana) and Emptiness?"
oh deedee i know it is foolish to enter into discussion with you but i'll say one or two things, that desire which is one of the four noble truth will indubeditly cause rebirth because desirous actions , let's say, for example, sex, will cause, let's say, for example, birth, let's say for example a new human being, who will continue anew the path of reproduction and destruction for generations upon generations into the aeonless age of semiinfinitude- Now do you see what im saying i dont want to argue with you but perhaps help me see any mistake im making or am i not making any mistake? I dont care to argue whether rebirth is real or not im just sayin that new life and new consciousness will arise and , this is a question to your wisdom- what is it that arises? what is this new life?
I have certainly learned from others along the way. My path has included many different belief system, including nearly converting to orthodox judaism, all the way down to being a hardcore atheist who thought that anyonen who believed in god was an idiot. And many other things. I have listened to many, and I have learned from many. Now I realize that there is no "truth" set in stone, that someone else could have figured out in the past and then taught it to others eventuallly leading to me learning it and still having it be 100% true in the same way. There is no lasting truth. That being said, I now follow noone. The things I have seen in the past few days are amazing. The way people react to me now. It's crazy. My first time hanging out with someone in months and the first person I met I instantly had a connection to. I know that he understood something. He knew that I understood something. He brought it up. He asked me, "so you can speak to your consciousness too?" I said "in a way." But now we both know that we both know something. I guess I got a bit off topic. I guess I was just trying to give a little more insight into the experiences i've been having. But I have been posting about my truth a lot in the last few days. I'm sure you've read some of it. My truth dictates that I am no different than anyone else, and we are all just expressing the same thing, and as such no thing or thought or person is better than any other. Therefore I don't desire to change people. I desire for them to be what makes them happy. To find their own truth. I love discussing this stuff, and I feel my path has much happiness in it if you're open to it. But I will not proselityze. People who want to hear what I have to say will. I don't need to force it. Some become very attracted to me, and gain a strong desire to hear what I have to say. To them, I will talk to them about whatever they are ready and desire to talk about. To those who feel that they have nothing to gain from me, I let them go in peace and find their own path, having no negative feeling towards them. That is my truth, and I am happy.
Comments
Happiness even a temporary one in the face of total destruction is as pointless as rearranging the deck chair on the Titanic. Such a depressing line of thought into nothingness.
And what happens after this body falls away. Where does our peace of mind go ?
Is that so?
That doesnt awnser the question does it DD it avoids the subject.
Once this life has ended does our peace of mind go withit into the oblivion of death...If so then this is a definitive temporary phenomena of this life alone unless one is going to suggest that there is some form of re-arising of an Impermenant self and or no continuation of an enlightened mind it sounds like sinking in to a Nihilism equally acheived by beleiveing death is the way to acheive peace.
Lets say the suffering of this life can be ended by death and upon death there shall be no re-arising Of a self...why would one work to acheive Nivarna when death can equally be the cause of peace ?
Less personal attacks more attacking the argument.
Metta to all sentient beings
"It is a hard thing to grasp, I agree. Especially when we all want to belive in an afterlife, it is the most signifigant of spiritual beliefs.
None of us want to die.
None of us want death to be the end."
Actually, I don't want to believe in an afterlife. In my selfish and weak current state (my normal state....) I deeply wish death would be the end of everything for me. I dread facing a rebirth and the only thing that calms that fear is hoping that whatever is reborn won't have any memory of this dread and weariness and that it won't be 'me' in the sense that it won't have the same brain with all it's current quirks and well trodden pathways to the fear centers and so on. When I have enough guts to contemplate rebirth I always do so with the hope that the most painful parts of 'me' will be annihilated forever when this brain dies but I'm also aware that this simplistic, self-centered hope is surely wrong view with its dependence upon a self concept. So I go round and round and round.....then I throw my hands up and go wash the dishes.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that I must disagree, thickpaper. I DO want death to be the end and I doubt I'm the only one. I don't know how this contributes to the actual conversation though. Just saying.....
P.S. I'm having some posting issues with quoting and smileys and so forth. Still getting used to the new software....
I don't recall saying I am enlightened:) I do believe that enlightenment is mundane and nonmystical - this doenst mean it can't be the most profound/wonderful change a person can experience.
I have dedicated my life to Dharma for nearly a decade, still very much a greenhorn. I think you missed the essence of what I was saying if this is what you took from my answer.
Sorry to have misunderstood. I wrote you a more detailed question maybe a week ago but I cannot find the thread. Oh well nevermind.
Well wishes
As for how such a transference of memory is possible (if indeed such a thing even exists), it may take place on the quantum level, kind of like 'spooky action at a distance' where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances. This could also go to explain rebirth — which 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 — occurs.
This is all just speculation on my part, however, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.
To put it simply, one moment of consciousness conditions the arising of next (rebirth), just as one action conditions the quality of feeling a moment of consciousness cognizes (kamma); and if one accepts the teachings on rebirth, this process doesn't ceases at death if there's still craving (tahna) present in the mind (SN 44.9). Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
As for rebirth, whether one takes a literal or non-literal approach, it's simply 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. No one sutta deals with this question, but this idea is found throughout the canon. If you're interested, you can find more of thought on kamma, rebirth and not-self here, here and here.
I think your attitude is conducive for practice. I use death as a motivation to value my experience. Part of that is leaving this life and the uncertainty. I think it is depressing to fear hell for a westerner. Or alternatively it is laughable hocus pocus.
Do you want to know why it is taught? The buddhism in the east is the cultural 85% majority heritage in some of these nations. Equivalent to catholics who just take the wafer and care less about the religion, in east the monks are trying to reach lay people who are not serious about the 4 NT and other teachings. The goal is to make them stop spending all their time on the 8 worldly winds: praise blame and so forth, hope and fear, and to study the dharma. I know you don't meditate but meditation naturally extends from a friendly attitude like you have. It rests on easy going light touch rather than fear. The eastern people need that initial kick to put them on the journey and make them sincere and serious. I think you are actually not in the west so maybe you can inform me haha.
I think, with that view, you would be in the minority here:p
>>>>The buddhism in the east is the cultural 85% majority heritage in some of these nations.
Yes.
I have lived in Sri Lanka and know many lifelong buddhists, its engrained in them, even though often they dont study Dharma much past school.
>>>I know you don't meditate
I do meditate in a few ways, including visisisipsiisiinasa, I am very poor at the latter (I have been diagnosed with ADD, it doesn't help meditation though mediitation helps with add to a degree. I also chant.
Only a few of my therevadan Buddhist friends meditate. if you go to a temple there, its rare to see meditation going on. Though in other palces I have been in asia it seems much more common for the monks to be sitting.
namaste
The Buddha advised rebirth teachings side with (promote) morality, whereas the not-self teachings side with liberation.
If we read the scriptures, "so and so person" is reborn.
In the scriptures, an actual person is reborn. "Not-self elements" are not said to be reborn.
Its like people who have severe asthma have to take that in consideration to run a marathon. Sort of.
Anyhow I can share in the difficulty with meditation.
SN 44.9 is not an exposition of Buddha-Dhamma. It is simply a discussion with Vacca and responses to Vacca by the Buddha which the Buddha regarded as suitable.
We must keep in mind it was to Vacca that Buddha refused to declare the doctrine of "not-self". Some people quote this Vacca sutta to support the view Buddhism does not teach "not-self".
In SN 44.9, it is Vacca who raised the notion of a a flame is being swept on by the wind and going a far distance. If we accept this notion literally, we are as befuddled as Vaccca.
Why?
Because a flame itself cannot be swept along in the wind. The flame requires physical sustanence to sustain it, such as a twig, grass, leaf, etc.
If we recollect MN 38, here, the Buddha lists certain kinds of fire and their fuel (leaf, twig, dung, grass, etc) as metaphor for how consciousness is dependent on a sense organ.
In the end, the Buddha's answer to Vacca is just Dhamma language, open to the reader's interpretation. The Buddha states a person that will be reborn in the future is sustained by craving.
For example, I enjoy chocolate, but I do not eat chocolate 24 hours per day. There are times I do not eat nor have a consciousnes craving for chocolate. However, because I have not uprooted my mind's tendency (anusaya) towards chocolate, it is guaranteed I will reappear or take birth as a chocolate eater in the future.
SN 44.9 does not give any detailed meta-physical explanation of rebirth and, as such, cannot be regarded as one.
SN 44.9 is merely a conversion with Vacca, where the Buddha has given answers to notions the befuddled Vacca has concocted in his befuddlement.
Kind regards
DD
My teacher said in the Lam Rim there are times when you are at an impasse that you need to go back to the root of samsara the nature of mind to progress. I am messing this up probably but I try to remember. The example given was (and I only realize this intellectually not at deep level): at some point you realize there is undending karma of negative. So you cannot possibly create positive karma to purify. That is like coming to a cliff. I have no idea how thats resolved as its all textbook and not my experience.
I also liken it to zen masters who had a question, I cannot recall one, but I think maybe Dogen or Hakuin had the question how come you have buddha nature, but need to work to be enlightened. That question (their personal) drove them on a search that lead to a high degree of enlightenment. I think buddha was not at an endpoint but that the buddha qualities are infinite. Nonetheless he had become unbinded from suffering. I cannot just text book take the zen question and find my own enlightenment because it is not my experience.
So I agree.
IMO, here, you are entering very dangerous territory. Very dangerous.
Why?
Because you are blocking out the here & now causes of poverty & the remedy for change.
The causes of poverty are here & now. The means to change such injustice is here & now.
For example, recently we had a Global Financial Crisis (GFC) due to certain bankers playing games with money. Their games caused a catastrophe and many people lost their jobs. In the USA, the real unemployment rate is probably over 10%. 15 million people are unemployed.
The Great Depression was the same. The poverty was causes by unethical Wall Street bankers rather than rebirth.
The same occurs in African nations. Here, poverty has been caused by year after year of war, of various military groups being supplied weapons by various Western governments and industries. Zimbabwe is an excellent example. This was once a prosperous country but now many live in poverty due a inhumane dictator, who lives in unimagined luxury.
The causes of poverty & wealth are before our eyes. They do not come from a past life. Further, wealth is not necessarily the result of good karma. Many wealthy people have done many very evil things, such as human slavery.
Kind regards
DD
Metta to all sentient beings
Your statement above which defers no cause or gratitude to the Buddha & the history (lineage) of Buddhism is indicative of your level of "enlightenment". Obviously, your mind has not realised the reality of cause & effect clearly.
Sure, you are giving answers from your own experience but that does not mean your answers are of any benefit
For example, I may ask a psychopath killer (say Charles Manson) about how I should live. This does not mean Charlie's answers have any merits.
If you understood impermanence & 'not-self', you would understand there is no such thing as "rebirth" because there is no such thing as the "same thing" being reborn.
Rebirth is a conventional teaching rather than ultimate reality. Rebirth & the higher teachings do not fit together.
For example, when a person's craving for chocolate arises, it is a new craving everytime. The person is a new person. Their body is different, their mind is different. Everything has changed from the last moment of craving. Even their tendency for craving has changed. In the last moment it had x degree of intensity and in the next moment is has y degree of intensity.
On the level of ultimate truth, there is no "rebirth". There is just the "birth" of new things, that is all. On the level of ultimate truth, in his Dependent Origination, the Buddha used the word "birth" rather than "rebirth". In the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha used the term "craving that leads to new becoming". He did not say "rebecoming" but instead "new becoming".
I already said to you in another thread how you would soon be comparing yourself to Jesus.
The Buddha certainly found his own way. That is why he is called the Sammasambuddha, self-enlightened Buddha.
The Buddha declared there can be only one Sammasambuddha in one world system so the Buddha declared Jesus did not find his own way.
Not only did the Buddha disagree with you, the disagreement with you makes perfect common sense.
The Bible reports Jesus was a master of the Jewish teachings as a child. Thus, he did not find his own way here. He was a student of the Torah. Then he reappeared in Isreal, later in his life, with a revolutionary new teaching about non-violence, love & forgiveness, which was basically the same as the Buddha's teachings about "the path to heaven".
Jesus basically taught Brahminism. Jesus introduced a new teaching into Israel & the Western world but introduced nothing new into the world as a whole.
Jesus was merely a disciple. That is why he gave reverence to his Father in Heaven. However, the Buddha only gave reverence to the Dhamma (natural truth) he discovered (see Garava Sutta).
Jesus cannot be compared to Buddha in any way, shape or form. Jesus was a disciple and the Buddha was the discoverer of supramundane Dhamma & the perfector of mundane Dhamma. Your view here is both false & contradicted.
Why is it false? Because by following a path given by another, one can realise the truth.
Why is it contradicted? Because you spend your time on this chatsite posting for others to follow your advice and your path. You have contradicted yourself again. The Buddha said he who knows the Dhamma (his teachings, wisdom) knows him (The Buddha). This was similar to Jesus who said: "He who knows the Father knows the Son". Yet you declare to not know the Buddha but yet regard his teachings as wise. This makes no sense at all.
This is known as covetousness. One declares to have never known a person yet one steals their teachings as one's personal knowledge. Many gurus have followed this path, eg. Krishnamurti. They spent their lives studying teachings but then declare themselves to be self-enlightened.
All I can say is you have spoken truthfully when declaring: "I don't know the Buddha". You seems stuck in "personality view". The Buddha advised the state of enlightened is free from "personality view".
I put my faith in the Dhamma of the Buddha which was taught for the purpose of ending suffering. When one verifies for oneself this Dhamma works then one understands the Buddha was a Buddha (i.e. fully enlightened).
As was said: "He who sees the Dhamma (natural truth), sees the Buddha". Of that, I cannot dispute. "Your truth" is certainly "yours".
However, the Buddha taught all things are not "I", "me", "my" or "mine".
Yes, your truth is yours, where as the truth I take an interest in is "natural truth". It is the truth or reality of nature. For example, when a leaf falls from a tree, decays & dissolves, that is natural truth.
When my younger sister was a child, she would close her eyes and declare: "You cannot see me". As my younger brother, your truth of non-conceptuality is similar. Because you deem it does not exist, for your mind, it does not exist. This is your subjective truth but it is not natural truth.
Natural truth does not depend on thinking or non-thinking. When a leaf falling from a tree is observed, it is seen to be impermanent & unpossessable. Our bodies & minds are the same. When observed, it can be seen there is no real self in them. It is a matter of observation (anupassana) rather than thinking or non-thinking.
Kind regards
When "you" die, "you're" dead. Your atoms, your energy, the matter that makes you up is recycled in worm food, heat, plant food, water, whatever. You're body, your energy, is transfered to other beings, because that energy wasn't ever "you" to begin with. It was never yours, nothing is yours, but you aren't "you." So, I don't think rebirth happens. Theres nothing, from what I'm aware of, that is "you" personally that could be reborn. If Buddha taught of reincarnation, it was probably due to his Indian origin where he grew up in a Hindu culture where everyone believed in reincarnation. Perhaps he spoke metaphorically. Maybe he didn't.
What is Nirvana? I think Nirvana is the state of mind a Buddha has in his life, and when it ends, the Nirvana, for him ends.
What is karma? Equal and opposite reactions, cause and effect, etc. And when Buddha refers to karmic effects other lives of yours, I think he was referring to the lives of others that you effect. Your child is dependently here. You made them. They are part of what made you up. If you're bad to that child, when it grows up, it will most likely be mean too. This goes for anything. Every creature is dependent on other creatures (sentient beings). If you're mean to somebody on the street, that is effecting their lives. "You" are "living" through them, because of what you did, you changed their life, and theres really no "them" anyways.
So whats the point of Buddhism? Well, I'm pretty sure its to free yourself of suffering, liberation, and to live in the moment. You aren't supposed to be preoccupied with the future, you're supposed to deal with this very moment. Why would he teach of Samsara if he was against beliefs, dogma, and worrying about the future?
Sorry, had to say that. No need to point fingers. Its rude, Dhamma Dhatu.
Yes I understand what you are saying, but as I have said, if a person DOES NOT believe in rebirth but DOES believe in Kamma, then no matter what circumstances have occurred before a person is born, if everyone has a clean slate of Kamma at birth how can some people be born into a fortunate life and others into a life of misery ? What decides which baby gets born into a fortunate life and which baby is born into a life of hardship ? So IMO its hard to believe in Kamma and not Rebirth and visa versa. For me it is logical to believe that Kamma and Rebirth are dependent on each other as all things are, and that both are a real part of the wonderful complex workings of existence.
Metta to all sentient beings
I look forward to your reply.
If your reply is moving, we may start a new religion called "TheJourneyism".
However, if on your journey, you received some teachings or read some books then it is not your own path.
I say to this: They must be Killed
These levels get mixed up. I am still contemplating how but I was very confused about rebirth. Its ok what you believe. Don't feel that you have to be shoed along the path to the slaughter house. Just be where you are and entertain us as brothers and sisters sharing. The irony is that we too are persnickety self righteous argumentatatators. As well as wanting to reach out, participate, and share. Do you care what christmas gifts you get? Or do you just want to share?
Personally, my perspective is 100% different than yours. For me it is illogical to believe the current lives of people are due to Rebirth from a past life. For me, I do not perceive anything as "wonderful" or "complex". I find realities such as poverty very sad and simply caused by human greed & inhumaneness. It is rather "simple" to me rather than "complex".
For example, I sponsor two children in Africa. I chose the children from photographs. Their good fortune is due to my karma or actions rather than their karma performed in a past life.
Also, there is no such thing as a "clean slate". Socially there may be but not individually. The Buddha taught each human being is born with defiled tendencies (anusaya) and spiritual faculties (indriya). Each human being without exception is born with ignorance.
Let me tell you about my life and childhood friends. Our parents were immigrants. Due to the countries they lived in, our parents had limited educations and acquired limited skills. For example, my father as a boy was required to find food & money for his family. There was Depression & then war. Due to their economic hardships, they decided to immigrate to Australia and worked very basic jobs. However, many of their children, due to the opportunities in Australia, excelled in education and have university degrees.
This has nothing to do with karma in a past life. It merely has do with genetic capacities and social opportunities. It is called 'nature & nurture'.
All the best
DD
The Buddha's view on past karma theories can be found here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html
The meditative experience is of how the mind is. Well how is it? Is it bound by birth and death? Something reminds you of something else. A word. An emotion. Thats karmic connections.
They operate outside of time space. Ego is thinking. Thinking is spontaneous and is not coming or going from anywhere. The continuity is a habitual thought itself.
Yet at the same time the sun does rise in the east. And I am up past my bedtime, but happy new year soon. I don't know exactly where I am located in my time zone.
Grasping is causing rebirth because a construct is taken for an ultimate reality.
Just thinking.
I gained the impression you criticized the reality I described.
Now I am still hoping that you share "your own path".
If you are not sure how to begin, I will share with you "my own path".
Once upon a time I lived a normal Western life, having an interest in "sex drugs & rock'n'roll". Then one day, via my own insight, I saw for myself those things were harmful. I stopped doing those things, which at the time was very alienating & received alot of criticism from people. I was not influenced by any religion because I despised religion. Here, I followed my own path.
About two years later, I walked into a Buddhist monastery as a tourist. I bought a book on meditation & tried to practise it. For the first time in my life, I tasted 'peace'. I was amazed that there could be such a thing as 'peace'. Then I listened to a teaching of a monk who said: "Establish the mind in spiritual stillness. Free the mind from all positiveness & negativeness". I applied this teaching, which improved my meditation greatly.
In summary, for two years, I followed my own path. Later on, I followed the path spoken by another. Years later, I read some of the Buddha's more mundane teachings, which helped me understand the world greatly, increasing my harmony with the world.
So has your spiritual life been entirely "your own path". Or have you received some tips from others?
Kind regards
DD
Rebirth was a teaching that existed before the Buddha. On many occassions, the Buddha's teachings about rebirth are responses to questions asked of him by laypeople and Brahmins, who already held beliefs in rebirth.
The Buddha said his special teachings are the Four Noble Truths and Emptiness.
So my reply to the original post is: "How can you say you are a Buddhist if your mind has not realised the Four Noble Truths (which includes Nirvana) and Emptiness?"
All the best
DD