The Danger of Rebirth

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Greetings Craig,

You keep banging the drum about emptiness, but fail to see the emptiness of death.

Metta,
Retro.
Best post in this entire thread IMHO

I dont view death to be death since there is no me to die, only the expiring of aggregates that have run their course empty of self
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi »

gabrielbranbury wrote: Mirriam Webster says...
a: uninterrupted connection, succession, or union
b: uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change
A= What Buddhists should mean when they use the word

B= Not possible or applicable in any way to conditioned experience even in theory.

Maybe this wasn't necessary but hey... You never know.
Helpful. but I don't know about "union" either.
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi »

clw_uk wrote: I dont view death to be death since there is no me to die, only the expiring of aggregates that have run their course empty of self
And if self is already empty why haven't they already "expired"? :quote: ;)
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

the aggregates are empty of self, not a self empty of self

To say the self is empty of self is to still cling to a self

Even when one attains nibbana and has no self-view the aggregates remain, they expire when conditions are right for them to do so


Metta

:namaste:
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi »

clw_uk wrote: the aggregates are empty of self
And so what "expires"?
It has been the misfortune (not, as these gentlemen think it, the glory) of this age that everything is to be discussed. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France.
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote: Mirriam Webster says...
a: uninterrupted connection, succession, or union
b: uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change
A= What Buddhists should mean when they use the word

B= Not possible or applicable in any way to conditioned experience even in theory.

Maybe this wasn't necessary but hey... You never know.
Helpful. but I don't know about "union" either.
It says "or" not "and". I agree with you that union would be inappropriate.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote: rebirth is just a word. All words subtly impute existence. The wise use words without this intention.
Very true but then why isn't it called re-death? :rolleye:
Sounds Fine to me. :smile:

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

clw_uk wrote: All experiences are not-self
Yes that is what I hear and it seems logical enough.

If your question relates to if they are not-self why cant others experience them the only reason you cannot know mine is because we have different conditions acting on us at different times and so experience is always varied for each psycho-physical organism.
Acting on what? At different times?
Anatta states that whatever is experienced or conditioned is not-self its just the experiences differ for different beings in some slight reguards (i.e. a blind man, a deaf man etc)
OK. Why qualify the differences as slight? I imagine experiencing blindness must be pretty substantially different than experiencing sight.
The only experience that all beings know is birth, ageing sickness and death because these are inherent to conditionality of which we are all a part of
In what way do you think these three experiences differ? In other words, what quality do you associate with death which you do not associate with birth?

Dont worry I have no idea where Im going with this line of questioning.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

clw_uk wrote: I dont view death to be death since there is no me to die, only the expiring of aggregates that have run their course empty of self
But that is what is called "death" in the Suttas...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SN 12.2 Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta
Analysis of Dependent Co-arising
Buddha wrote:"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

And, to quote from the Ajahn Brahm article...
Ajahn Brahm wrote:First of all, The Buddha said: "What, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, their break up, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the break up of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together called aging-and-death." It is quite clear here that The Buddha was talking about death in the usual meaning of the term, not a death in a moment (which is a term that some people mistakenly use). It means the death that you call an undertaker to settle.

"And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent (into the womb), production (abhinibbatti= rebirth), the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth." The meaning of the term `various orders of beings', is fully brought out by a passage in another sutta specifically dealing with Dependent Origination, the Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15): "With birth as condition there is aging and death. How that is so, Ananda, should be understood in this way. If there were absolutely and utterly no birth of any kind anywhere - that is, of gods into the state of gods, of celestials into the state of celestials, of spirits, demons, human beings, quadrupeds, winged creatures, reptiles, each into their own state - if there were no birth of beings, of any sort into any state, then, in the complete absence of birth, with the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?" "Certainly not, venerable sir."3 Again, it is quite clear here that birth means what we would normally consider it to be: the arising in the human realm of a being in the womb."
Mike
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by DNS »

My apologies if the following questions have been answered, since I have not read all 430 posts in this thread. These questions are especially geared toward those who reject rebirth but are in some way Buddhist:

If there is no rebirth, what happens after death for the un-enlightened?

If it is the end, how is that different from the atheist/agnostic view?

If it is the end; for those who want to pursue hedonism, what incentive is there not to?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Gabriel

If your question relates to if they are not-self why cant others experience them the only reason you cannot know mine is because we have different conditions acting on us at different times and so experience is always varied for each psycho-physical organism.


Acting on what? At different times?
Well lets for say example perception, lets say you really like red cars and i really hate them (both because of ignorance of course)

There is only the red car but our ignorant perception is different because of different kinds of craving, of wanting and adverting so the experience is different

Lets take another example of death

You really enjoy life and im really depressed (again because of ignorance on both parts)

Your perception of death is fear, mine might be delight

Again there is only death, but our different cravings change experience, your crave existence, i crave annihilation (no realtion to this thread lol)

What does it act on? well all different things, consciousness, mental formations etc but all experience is experienced by the aggregates themselves, not by a self and so not-self

When there is perception, its just perception, not "my perception"

When there is cognition, its just cognition


Anatta states that whatever is experienced or conditioned is not-self its just the experiences differ for different beings in some slight reguards (i.e. a blind man, a deaf man etc)

OK. Why qualify the differences as slight? I imagine experiencing blindness must be pretty substantially different than experiencing sight.
ok slight may have been a wrong word to use

In what way do you think these three experiences differ? In other words, what quality do you associate with death which you do not associate with birth?
Birth has the quality of coming forth, of generation, death has the quality of ending, of expiring

Birth depends on death and death depends on birth, they are interconnected and differ in their dependencies thus giving them different characteristics

Birth and death are conditioned, dependently arisen and so impermanent, unstable and so not-self

If death didnt lead to birth then there would have been nibbana years ago

Dont worry I have no idea where Im going with this line of questioning.
No its an interesting line of questioning

Does this answer?

:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Hi thedhamma

This thread was about rebirth view not rebirth itself (at least to begin with)

I dont deny rebirth completely i have condidence in it but with skeptical doubt, however i will answer your questions because they raise good points


If there is no rebirth, what happens after death for the un-enlightened?
There are to posibilities, either dukkha will be allowed to rise again or its nibbana

If it is the end, how is that different from the atheist/agnostic view?
Well to be atheist is just not to believe in gods and agnostic is just to hold that one cannot know for sure, i think you mean however atheist/annihilationism and/or nihilist view

Well first of all if one understands dhamma well then to hold there is no rebirth is not annihilationist because one sees anatta and annihilation is about the self being annihilated so one would just see it in the correct way, as the ending of a heap of aggregates and just seeing rupa death as the end of dukkha as well

One can deny rebirth and not be a nihilist because of dependent origination which covers moments and not just three lives so there is a point to actions in this moment its just this ends with rupa death

If it is the end; for those who want to pursue hedonism, what incentive is there not to?
Reguardless of rebirth there is dukkha here and now, there is the oppression of craving and I-making

When one sees correctly then hedonism isnt viable since sensual-desire brings pain, reguardless of what happens after the aggregates break apart
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by DNS »

clw_uk wrote: Reguardless of rebirth there is dukkha here and now, there is the oppression of craving and I-making

When one sees correctly then hedonism isnt viable since sensual-desire brings pain, reguardless of what happens after the aggregates break apart
Hi clw_uk,

Yes, that is a good point and arguably made by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutta when he stated that even if there was not rebirth, there would be happiness here-and-now. But the Buddha was clearly stating that there is rebirth, just that there will also be happiness in this life too, by following the Dhamma.

Although true, I don't think there would have been many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of men and women traveling to Tibet, India, and the Himalayas to seek inner peace, by leave all of their possessions, families, friends, careers, just for happiness in the here-and-now with no regard for any future life.
Post Reply