A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of TheravÄda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
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
Helpful. but I don't know about "union" either.gabrielbranbury wrote: Mirriam Webster says...
A= What Buddhists should mean when they use the worda: uninterrupted connection, succession, or union
b: uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change
B= Not possible or applicable in any way to conditioned experience even in theory.
Maybe this wasn't necessary but hey... You never know.
And if self is already empty why haven't they already "expired"?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 so what "expires"?clw_uk wrote: the aggregates are empty of self
It says "or" not "and". I agree with you that union would be inappropriate.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Helpful. but I don't know about "union" either.gabrielbranbury wrote: Mirriam Webster says...
A= What Buddhists should mean when they use the worda: uninterrupted connection, succession, or union
b: uninterrupted duration or continuation especially without essential change
B= Not possible or applicable in any way to conditioned experience even in theory.
Maybe this wasn't necessary but hey... You never know.
Sounds Fine to me.Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Very true but then why isn't it called re-death?gabrielbranbury wrote: rebirth is just a word. All words subtly impute existence. The wise use words without this intention.
Yes that is what I hear and it seems logical enough.clw_uk wrote: All experiences are not-self
Acting on what? At different times?
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.
OK. Why qualify the differences as slight? I imagine experiencing blindness must be pretty substantially different than experiencing sight.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)
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?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
But that is what is called "death" in the Suttas...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
MettaBuddha 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.
MikeAjahn 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."
Well lets for say example perception, lets say you really like red cars and i really hate them (both because of ignorance of course)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?
ok slight may have been a wrong word to useAnatta 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.
Birth has the quality of coming forth, of generation, death has the quality of ending, of expiringIn 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?
No its an interesting line of questioningDont worry I have no idea where Im going with this line of questioning.
There are to posibilities, either dukkha will be allowed to rise again or its nibbanaIf there is no rebirth, what happens after death for the un-enlightened?
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 viewIf it is the end, how is that different from the atheist/agnostic view?
Reguardless of rebirth there is dukkha here and now, there is the oppression of craving and I-makingIf it is the end; for those who want to pursue hedonism, what incentive is there not to?
Hi clw_uk,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
