Re: The Danger of Rebirth
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:21 am
So something that now exists will be annihilated?clw_uk wrote: The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
So something that now exists will be annihilated?clw_uk wrote: The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
Of course he is, you can claim not to belive in self till the cows come home but the fact is you think that somehow life springs forth from a material process - which is self view to the nth degree.clw_uk wrote:Robert
Why would you get struck down, what you say is absolutely correct. Anatta implies rebirth as anatta is about conditionality.
Anyone who thinks there is no rebirth is by an anihilationist who rejects anatta
An anihilationist is someone who holds there is a self to be anihilated, dont assume that because someone says there is no rebirth one is an anihilationist
If you want to discuss the supposed eternalism of Ven Thanissaro, please start a new thread. Thanks.Chris wrote:Hello Rob,
At the monastery I attend on Sundays, Bhante Dhammasiha advised me to read some of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's articles on Not-Self .... would you be so kind enough as to point out how Ven. Thanissaro is an eternalis?
metta and respect
Chris
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:So something that now exists will be annihilated?clw_uk wrote: The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
The aggregates arent an illusion, the view of self in relation to them in an illusion (as is any self view)clw_uk wrote:
The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
So something that now exists will be annihilated?
When have i stated that without question life springs forth from a completely material process? The points i have put forward are valid points to be discussed, simply holding rebirth straight away without question is not in line with the buddhas spirit of inquiryOf course he is, you can claim not to belive in self till the cows come home but the fact is you think that somehow life springs forth from a material process - which is self view to the nth degree.
Buddhists with strongly held self view are either eternalists like Thannisaro or anihiliationists like yourself. It is of course normal that people hold worng views but not good when you try to equate these views to what the Buddha taught.
Yes, and this has not been going on since beginningless time because ...?clw_uk wrote: When eye consciousness falls, it ceases to exsist, until another form comes into contact with the eye and a new eye consciousness is "born"
When an arahant sees the coagulation and dissolution of the aggregates he sees them as unendingly being born and unendingly dying, does this make the arahant an eternalist?clw_uk wrote: When an arahant sees the break-up of the aggregates he sees them as ending and so ceasing to exists, does this make the arahant an annihilationist?
Something exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.clw_uk wrote: Maybe your picking up on the word exisist as me refering to a self, which i am not im using it for the aggregates only.
Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote: I'm with Tilt these endless rebirth threads should permanently "expire".
It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevantI don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this
If there is rebirth is it the same rupa? is it the same perception through moments? is it the same conscious awareness through moments? no, when they arise its brand new and when they cease they cease forever, the cognition of forms through eye is new when arising, when the form goes that consciousness dependent on the eye-form ceases forever, if a form comes into view again its a new conscious awarenessSomething exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.
Im discussing relevant points, would you prefer it if i just accepted something blindly without investigating so i can know for myself? and just because a lot of people oppose a view or understanding doesnt make it wrongNevertheless if the OP is willing to argue less and listen more, perhaps he won't continue to be so "puzzled" or even surprised at the seeming endless number of posters opposing him.
This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.clw_uk wrote:It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevantI don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this
I used red cars and life enjoyment just as a way of showing how experience can vary, its not to say that you do like red cars and i hate lifeWhere 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?
In what way do the aggregates experience? Perception percieves, consciousness cognizes and so is aware, feeling feels, as buddha said, when there is painful feeling, its just painful feelingWhat about experience is experienced by aggregates? In what way do the aggregates experience?
Self is an error, an illusion, in reality there is no such thing as I or mine and so no craig. Self comes to be through craving and clinging "This is mine" so through clinging there has been birth of self and self grasping in a moment. This is why there is birth and death constantly and not when refering to the end of the bodyHow are you defining "self
"You" dont love red cars, the ignorant craving has lead to a birth of "I" or "me" who loves red cars through craving/clinging to the pleasure that red cars bring to the senses because of ignoranceIf there is an experience of perception which is totally unique to the aggregates which result in my loving red cars
The "us" bit was for convention. To dislike red cars is still craving and your right there is succession of events, this is conditionalitySo 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.
Coming forth is different from ending because it is the birth of something new, ending is the expiringHow 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
Nibbana is the end of all I-making and so the end of sense of self. If after the first time my sense of self or view of "I" died and that was the end of conditionality then there would be no more I-making and so it would be nibbana, the first time in this exisistence when my sense of self died for the first time was obviously as a child or younger. However because of dependent origination which is occuring in moments the death of "I" is not the end, since dependent origination has not been stopped a sense of self or "I" will be born again, therefore there can be birth after a deathIf death didnt lead to birth then there would have been nibbana years ago
How many years ago? How are you defining nibbana here?
This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.