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.
To end re-birth, that's what it is all about
Deshy
Veteran
I don't know if posting links is fine in this site but I couldn't resist posting this speech. Please hear it to the end:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc9j0NCYBC0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc9j0NCYBC0&feature=related
0
Comments
Unfortunately, he never actually bothered to explain the "huge spiritual significance and incredible bearing it has on our practice"...
I have seen this speech before and honestly thought it was a load of rubbish and the poorest dhamma talk I've ever heard. I have heard much more convincing speeches on rebirth in this past. Ajahn Brahmali clearly admits he accepts it on blind faith and suggests we should to, after telling us the Buddha himself apparently didn't accept it blindly (I'd argue whether he accepted it at all, but that's besides the point):
"What this shows is that the Buddha did not just take on a particular belief system at the time, he discovered this for himself! And this is what we would expect! The Buddha always taught the path of enquiry, of asking questions, of finding out for ourselves what the truth is. And here is that discovery of the Buddha: the discovery of the reality of rebirth."
He then goes on to say: "Why should we believe in it just because the Buddha said so? And of course the first thing is, if you know what the Buddha taught, and have respect for the Buddha, and you have respect for his teachings, and know his teachings work for yourself, then it becomes natural to take on his other teachings... because when you respect somebody, you tend to also...blah blah blah let me chew those worms up for you good so that when I regurgitate them into your mouth you swallow them up nice and easy."
Hypocrisy much? That's terrible, and no teacher should teach that way. I respect the schools that do at least try to reason it and not just blindly accept it.
It's not about ending literal rebirth and frankly anyone who feels that way is missing the entire point. It's one thing to believe in rebirth but it's another to follow this path because you view life as inherent suffering with no escape except a final death, basically. Not to mention, the view that it's "all about ending rebirth," I think, hinders understanding of anatta. What it's all about, is, in fact, doing away with the illusion of self, ending ignorance, and thereby ending clinging, and dukkha.
Doesn't all that lead to ending rebirth in any realm? I mean understanding the illusion of self, ending ignorance that leads to clinging and craving all this finally lead to the ending of rebirth.
Being alive is not the problem, being alive does not cause dukkha. It's the illusion of "self" that does. The Buddha didn't seek a way to "slit his wrists for one last, final time" but to LIVE his life in peace, free from dukkha. If one has a strong desire to never be reborn and practices for that reason, then they are equating past and future lives as "self" in some way and I don't see how that can lead to realiziation of not-self. Like I said, it's one thing to believe in rebirth, but to say "it's all about ending rebirth" is far off the mark.
But these appear to us in a deceptive way (static, singular, etc) and we form an image of ourselves as being unchanging, independent and singular (a self).
When we understand that the parts are not-self and we realize that we are empty of being unchanging and independent (called realizing selflessness) we understand how the person actually exists (ultimate truth).
We directly cognize the status of persons and its parts. The most important parts being how we feel about ourselves, the things that bring us the most pain day-to-day, namely our feelings and emotions. We realize these things directly and know how to work with them, which is how we bring about cessation.
To realize these things we don't need to accept rebirth from the start but we do need to study explanations of the mind and how it is itself a product of causes and conditions (ie. mental causes, including karma). These are the things directly realized on the path of seeing by all aryas and what enables them to bring about cessation.
Simply observing the impermanence of thoughts or bodily sensations gives a gradually clearer and clearer mental image of impermanence (moment by moment change) but this is quite worthless until it penetrates to the person. Even then, it must be realized without the use of a mental image.
Only when we realize ultimate truth pertaining to persons is the mind completely understood. Or, until we reach higher and higher dhyanas and observe the subtle workings, even though there are still clinging to self in these concentrations.
Deshy, does this mean, if you found out there was no rebirth, you would just kill yourself tomorrow to end suffering, and would not practice Buddhadhamma? The Dhamma is not meant to be a guide to ensuring that when you're dead, you're dead for good. No, being alive is not dukkha. Not fully knowing the truth of anatta causes dukkha. The Buddha taught a path that leads to freedom from dukkha right here and now.
As I've said before:
MN26: The Buddha, Awakened, still physically subject to aging, illness, and death as we see in the suttas, declares aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less. The false perception of "self" is gone, anatta, anicca, and dukkha are fully and completely understood on a direct and experiential level. Dukkha no longer arises: SN 22.1: "'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted"
The Buddha taught a path to the freedom of dukkha in the here-and-now. A natural consequence of realizing anatta fully, though, is supposedly release from the cycle of literal rebirth as well, according to those who believe in literal rebirth. But the "whole point" is internal peace and freedom from dukkha in this very moment.
This is what it's ultimately about: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Payutto_Bhikkhu_Dependent_Origination.htm
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
Of course not my friend. I would party till I'm purple just like a nihilist would do.
But anyway thanks for the links. I see you have a point. Will be reading them tomorrow thanks again
Ohh yes, I agree with this
Well, this is my point. Whether or not there is rebirth, there certainly is this moment, and "partying till you're purple" is just as impermanent and ultimately unsatisfactory and full of dukkha regardless of what happens after death. So if someone sees "partying till they're purple" as true happiness in any scenario (such as no rebirth), then I'm afraid they won't understand the Buddha's teachings or really benefit from them.
I realize this was not addressed at me but I hope you don't mind me adding my thoughts.
Not-self must first be understood to a certain degree on an intellectual level, but that's only so that we can take that concept and realize it through meditation, the "finger pointing to the moon" if you will. Medititation is absolutely necessary. As I said in another Thread:
It's not really something to be "comprehended." It's full release of the illusionary "self."
These things are not inherently dukkha. Only when they are attached to via craving & wrong view they are dukkha.
These things you need to sort out in your mind. Please...next time you get sick, look in your mind...see what the dukkha really is.
Everyday you see on television thousand of people dying in earthquake, war, etc, but it is not really suffering. Maybe you have some sympathy.
But when your loved one dies, like your mother, father, son, daughter, wife, husband, friend, etc, your mind suffers.
Why?
Because unlike those you see dying on the television, you regard your mother, father, son, daughter, wife, husband, friend as "mine". You have strong attachment to these people.
In the first noble truth the buddha diagnosed suffering. he listed the things people take to be dukkha. but as buddha, he said real dukkha is attachment to the five aggregates as "I" and "mine".
"Monks, whatever one intends, whatever one mentally constructs, whatever lies
latent, that becomes an object for the stationing of consciousness. There being an
object, there comes to be an establishment of consciousness. When that consciousness
is established and grown, there is the descent of name-and-form. Dependent on name-form....
"Monks, even if one does not intend or construct mentally, but has a latency, that
becomes an object for the stationing of consciousness. There being an object, there
comes to be the establishment of consciousness. When that consciousness is
established and grown, there is the descent of name-and-form. Dependent on name-.....
"But, monks, when one neither intends, nor constructs mentally, and has no latency
either, then there is not that object for the stationing of consciousness. There being no
object, there is no establishment of consciousness. When consciousness is not
established and not grown up, there is no descent of name-and-form, and with the
cessation of name-and-form, there comes to be the cessation of the six sense-bases"
Comment by Bhikkhu Nanananda in Nibbana Sermons
This third instance is the most significant. In the first instance, there were the
intentions, thought constructs and latency. In the second instance, that person had no
intentions or thought constructs, but only latency was there. In this third instances,
there is neither an intention, nor a thought construct, and not even a latency.
It is then that there comes to be no object for the stationing of consciousness. There
being no object, there is no establishment of consciousness, and when consciousness
is unestablished and not grown, there is no descent of name-and-form. Where there is
no descent of name-and-form, there at last comes to be that cessation of name-and-
form with which the six sense-bases, and all the rest of it, down to the entire mass of
samsaric suffering, cease altogether then and there.
An arahant’s consciousness is an unestablished consciousness, whereas the con-
sciousness of the samsaric individual is an established consciousness.
That is precisely why in the Sagāthavagga of the Saüyutta Nikāya and in the
Sāratthapakāsinī, where the episode of Venerable Godhika’s suicide is mentioned, it
is said that, though he cut his own neck intending to commit suicide, he was able to
attain parinibbāna as an arahant by radically attending to the deadly pain.xcvi[30]
But Māra took him to be an ordinary person and hovered around in search of his
consciousness - in vain. The Buddha, on the other hand, declared that Venerable
Godhika passed away with an unestablished consciousness:
Appatiññhitena ca, bhikkhave, viññāõena Godhiko kulaputto parinibbuto.xcvii[31]
"O! monks, the clansman Godhika passed away with an unestablished consciousness."
What is the relation between consciousness and name-form and how "consciousness turns back from name-and-form, it does not go beyond." [MahāPadānasutta of the Dīgha Nikāya]?
Is the chain of DO broken upon death automatically and if so why is there an injunction against suicide with the exception of Ven Godhiko's arahant death?
The great discourse on causation : Mahanidhana sutta and its commentried by Bhikku Bhodi