The Danger of Rebirth

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:57 pm

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
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:03 pm

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.
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:06 pm

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: ;)
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:12 pm

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:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Karma Dondrup Tashi » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:15 pm

clw_uk wrote:the aggregates are empty of self

And so what "expires"?
User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:23 pm

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
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:23 pm

The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:27 pm

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

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:51 pm

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
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:54 pm

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
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: 10131
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:02 pm

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
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:03 pm

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
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7965
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:14 pm

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 clw_uk on Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:27 pm

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
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:40 pm

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.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7965
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:46 pm

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.


If there doing it for a better future life, this isnt really the essence of the buddhas teachings. The buddhas teachings is to end all dukkha, end all becoming of self and i-making so one is free, not for some future happy life

One is a buddhist to work for the happiness in the here and now, for unconditioned nibbana in the here and now not for future lives

Any life that arises in the future will still have dukkha
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby David N. Snyder » Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:54 pm

clw_uk wrote:If there doing it for a better future life, this isnt really the essence of the buddhas teachings. The buddhas teachings is to end all dukkha, end all becoming of self and i-making so one is free, not for some future happy life

Not necessarily for a good rebirth, but they might be going for Nibbana (yes, here and now and in the hereafter), for the benefit of others, for teaching the good Dhamma.

Those who go off to the Himalayas, etc., are not enlightened yet or they wouldn't make the trip; not that one needs to do that, but first you go to the stream, then the other shore, not starting with the other shore and going backwards.
User avatar
David N. Snyder
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7965
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:05 am

Not necessarily for a good rebirth, but they might be going for Nibbana (yes, here and now and in the hereafter), for the benefit of others, for teaching the good Dhamma.


I take it this is refering to a bodhisattva. Im going to answer from my own understanding of the suttas

The buddha wanted us to realise nibbana in the here and now not put it off for some future life, he instructed us to be urgent in our practice


Nibbana is the quenching of greed, hatred and delusion which can be done right now, why put it off for some future life that would be immersed in conditonality and dukkha?

If they were going for nibbana here and now then why would they be concerned about future lives?
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3352
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby mikenz66 » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:20 am

clw_uk wrote:
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.

If there doing it for a better future life, this isnt really the essence of the buddhas teachings. ...

It's not that they are doing it for "a better future life". They are doing it so that they can bring the entire round of rebirth to a halt. Which may take more than one lifetime...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Prasadachitta » Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 am

clw_uk wrote: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)

Where did my love of red cars come from? Why do I really enjoy life? Do you think the tendencies of beings are purely a function of the experience which happens from conception to this moment?



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

What about experience is experienced by aggregates? In what way do the aggregates experience? How are you defining "self"? If there is an experience of perception which is totally unique to the aggregates which result in my loving red cars, In what way is that experience not mine? Also you said before "we have different conditions acting on us at different times and so experience is always varied for each psycho-physical organism." So I hear you saying that at different times different conditions act on "us". Well I may begin to dislike red cars but there will still be residual influence from craving red cars which will effect the experience of red cars. There appears this succession of apparent events none of which are completely without influence.


Birth has the quality of coming forth, death has the quality of ending

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




How is coming forth different from ending?
What is it that birth comes forth to and death is the end of?
If they are interconnected as you say, at what point do they connect?
If there is a point at which death becomes birth is there a transition from death to birth or does death instantaneously become birth?

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


How many years ago? How are you defining nibbana here?


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

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests