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.
Could re-birth just be a false refuge for enternal life?
This question has been bugging me for a long time. The Buddha always talked about false refuges, but could this be one itself?
0
Comments
where do you stand?
but on the topic of rebirth we will never know for sure.
But if you do decide to take a look, maybe you'll see something in it. A minute ago, you started to read this post. That minute is now gone forever ... sort of. You cannot grasp it or revise it or even remember it perfectly. You were 10jellis when you started reading, but the 10jellis who started reading is gone forever ... and yet something remains, or whispers, or weaves itself into the moment in which 10jellis reads this word.
Spelling things out in this way may sound sexy or profound or wise or just plain nuts, but isn't it just what actually happens? Happens all the time? Birth and death are a package deal. Over and over again. It's not a big deal any more than a daisy is a big deal, but it is worth noticing, if only as a contrast to the notion that 10jellis is the same/different today as s/he was yesterday.
____________________
Yes, rebirth is fine. Just be a little careful of reincarnation, which seems to mean, for some, that they will wake up tomorrow morning and be Lady Gaga or Thor or the best of all possible tulkus.
As humans we're not guaranteed to live as humans again either - so a new life could be worse than this one. Even though live as a human can be miserable enough already.
If you believe it that literally, though. To me personally "rebirth" seems possible if the "big bounce" theory is true and the world is driven by quite strict rules, meaning that everything will happen all over again forever with the small differences a stable, yet chaotic system provides - like Langton's ant..
I could be totally wrong and maybe risk attachment to this concept, but I believe it's worth striving for. I don't think of it as the heaven and hell described in other religions. I believe that there are limitless planes of existence available for our development.
So, when I watch TV, read blogs, books, or articles, choose friends and associates- I am mindful of how they will affect my state of consciousness. Will they inspire a healthy perspective or a corrupt one? I still do pay attention to pop culture, but with a different attitude. I'm more analytical about what is being presented to us.
Sorry to go on and on. JMO.
with metta
Something a bit random here; do you believe than when we are re-born we are a different person but made with the same building blocks (but built in a different way), or the same person (sub-consciously)?
Rebirth is a refuge for some but not for others
Regards
@kayte :bowdown:
Belief in rebirth doesn't necessarily involve "refuge" in the idea of future rebirths. It can simply mean that you're aware to some extent of the chain of past life experiences that brought you to the present point. As someone said above, life is suffering, so who'd want to volunteer for more of that ?!
:eek2:
The only thing you have said that makes any sense is: "Enlightenment means you can handle that with equanimity".
But then, as you said: "But I guess"
:-/
The Buddha unambiguously advised rebirth belief does not accord with liberation or the path. The Buddha taught rebirth belief is right view for ordinary people.
If you wish to laugh at the Buddha, that is your choice.
All the best
But speaking frankly, I don't care what the Buddha taught about rebirth. After having an experience of past-life recall, I believe in rebirth, based on my own experience. (yeah, yeah, I know: "thought formations". We don't have to flog that particular dead horse here, do we? :rolleyes: ) If people choose not to believe in rebirth, I think that's a perfectly rational choice. I rejected rebirth for decades, myself. If people choose to believe, because they feel it makes sense, or they have past life recall, that's fine, too. The thing is, when we have no attachment to how others believe, then we're free to enjoy the full spectrum of human diversity, which IMO is very precious. Spiritual, musical, linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity is one thing that makes life worth living. How sad (not to mention: BO-ring!) life would be if everyone thought alike, believed alike, lived and behaved and dressed alike, all to one uniform beat? If you do or don't accept rebirth, it's all good.
Where at all is that a Mahayana teaching? Nagarjuna never taught that, as he taught that there is not one aspect of reality that arises from itself. Yogachara and Chittamatra schools don't teach that either. The alayavinjana or storehouse consciousness is also considered dependently originated and empty of inherent existence, so is not to be ascribed with the notion of pure selfhood. Also the text the Parinirvana Sutra which plenty of Westerns and Neo-Tantrics (as well as the Dark Zen group) quote to prove that Buddha taught of a self is misunderstood. It's talking about the realized yogi who is fully aware of the relative nature of self and thus illumined knows himself and sits in the constant awareness of his process, making a stable abode in that insight. Thus, it's not referencing a self existence, nor a singular self of all like monist idealists such as Vedantins do.
Now, if you can find a quote that supports this idea that Mahayana teaches about a permanent, self caused existence, please do! I'd be interested in seeing this.
HHDL: "Now that very subtle consciousness, which is the self, heads into the next life."
I found more on this at: www.viewonbuddhism.org/rebirth_reincarnation.html
"Death is in Tibetan Buddhism defined as 'the separation of the most subtle body and mind from the more gross aspects of the body and mind.' As this separation is a gradual process, death is not a point in time, like in Western thought, but it describes a period during which this separation occurs. ... [After a time in the bardo state] the most subtle body/mind is connected to the fertilized egg" to begin a new rebirth.
Vajraheart, feel free to shed light on this use of the word "self", if you can.
Thanks for bringing up the quote. It's in reference to various teachings in Yogachara and Chittamatra teachings of Mahayana from Asanga, derived from various sources in the Pali Cannon and Sanskrit Sutras. Which very clearly state that the Alayavijnana is to be untied of any self attachments, which then flips the personal experience of Alayavijnana (storehouse of/as seeds of becoming) into the experience of Dharmakaya, the enlightened mind of a Buddha. So, you see it's relative, and not inherently absolute with intrinsic nature.
The subtle nuances are very important to understand. The over all context of the teaching and it's sources need to be understood. What I like about Buddhism, as it does somewhat require one to exercise scholarship. You can't really take anything on face value.
Of course, these teachings, back in the day were taught to those with adequate knowledge of Buddhism in general through the sutas and sutras. These days, people are coming across these teachings without first studying the core teachings and are being confused by the word usage, which of course needs to be referenced. As well, all of HHDL's books are translated from the Tibetan, so one has to take that into account.
All the best! Thanks for the opportunity.
So it's about a progression from understanding to wisdom, not about some kind of 2-tier system where rebirth and kamma are inferior teachings just for ordinary people, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
Spiny
Spiny
Yes, it could be. There could be an strong emotional attachment to a belief in rebirth, based on a need for continuity beyond death, a fear of extinction, something that many religions capitalise on.
Which misses the point that the Buddhas teachings on rebirth are not about eternal life but about how our actions in this life determine our next rebirth, ie kamma.
Spiny
Let me know when you open an online school.
The formless level of the seeds, which has to do with the pali suttas description of the dependent origination continuum of the individual, is the alaya vijnana. The term alaya vijnana is just the very subtle level of this continuum, it's not a real self existence, it's just a term for the formless, non-gross aspects of self grasping, and ignorance, as well as the various elements, like fire, water... etc. on a formless level where they are more experienced as colors and radiance's. Since these seeds hadn't formed into the body and brain and are still waiting for their conditions to ripen and come out in another body and brain, they will do so in the next body and brain of the future life. As you, in all your depths of relative identities, are not the sum total of all that is in your body and brain at least on the gross level, not all the impressions will die with this body, only some... so... because of this... the mind stream keeps going past the body to another body in order for these impressions to be expressed.
Just like you are not the sum total of all the different clothes you have worn, when they wear out, or you stop liking that style, that impression dies with those clothes, and you pick up new clothes in order to express a different condition or seed of self value, or self identity.
Since, time without beginning, this cycling has been going on, it can get nitty gritty when you get into the inner energy work where awareness transcends the gross physical body level. Just like you are more complicated than your clothes, your energy is more complicated than your body, and your energy is nothing other than your mind which has conscious, subconscious and unconscious layers. This is where you start getting into "Chakra" awareness. Illuminating the unconscious with awareness is what the Buddhist path is all about. That's when you get into the formless level samadhis or jhanas, the upper 4 as apposed to the lower 4. The Jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, infinite nothingness, neither perception nor non-perception. That's where your Alayavijnana is.
Doesn't matter whether we are convinced of rebirth, or convinced of no-rebirth.
We all want certainty, "ground under our feet", and the rebirth issue is a big source for that. But enlightenment requires a tolerance for "groundlessness", so perhaps it's better just not to get too hooked by either side of the argument. It is okay to believe either way, but I think it is always best to understand that belief is not knowledge. In Tibetan, there are two different words for the one English word "know". One of these words means you know because someone told you so. And the other word means you know because you experienced it yourself firsthand. I wish we had that distinction in the English language.