what gets reborn

[SarathW]

True. I agree with you.

[ground]

what gets reborn

After the death of one idea aka consciousness another is born (i.e. consciousness is re-born) in the aftermath of mentally affirming the former by means of imputing a sense of this idea being more than just an idea. This may be called "perpetuation of consciousness" or "the cycle of rebirths". If affirmation ceases perpetuation ceases which may be called "end of rebirths".

[retrofuturist]

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

:goodpost:

Metta,
Retro.

? Well, it could be clearer.

[Digity]

If there is no self, no I , no soul.... I'm still a little wrapped up with what actually is reborn at death??????? Can anyone answer this? What might be reborn in another realm if anything?

with metta

I don't understand people's preoccupation with looking for the "what" that gets reborn. I'd counter that question with another question: Why do you think there needs to be a "what" that gets reborn in the first place? What exactly are you looking for in this "what" and why? I think when you look at this question deeply you'll see that it's really the ego doing the talking...it's trying to find something solid to plant itself into. It doesn't like the alternative idea, because it loses footing then and no longer has a firm grip.

[convivium]

it's easy to have a naturalistic account of rebirth; that is, a conception of rebirth amenable to the view that consciousness arises from biological conditions (e.g. neuronal configurations) (a view held by most scientists and philosophers today). the catch is, that on this view, mental qualities of one being will have no impact on the particular life form that will be inhabited (by virtue of biological conditions i.e. worlds continuing to produce sentient organisms) after that being's death. so, the buddhist explanation of consciousness can't be biological naturalism or even lesser theories like reductionism etc. since this naturalistic view of consciousness seems the most promising, and i haven't yet heard any promising alternative explanation, i remain somewhat skeptical towards both kamma-linked rebirth and the possibility of avoiding consciousness arising in another body by way of the deathless. can someone help me out with this? do i have to resort to abhidhamma to answer these questions?

[LonesomeYogurt]

since this naturalistic view of consciousness seems the most promising, and i haven't yet heard any promising alternative explanation

What about a (materialist) naturalistic view of consciousness makes it the most promising explanation? Where is the evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain?

[convivium]

I don't understand people's preoccupation with looking for the "what" that gets reborn. I'd counter that question with another question: Why do you think there needs to be a "what" that gets reborn in the first place? What exactly are you looking for in this "what" and why? I think when you look at this question deeply you'll see that it's really the ego doing the talking...it's trying to find something solid to plant itself into. It doesn't like the alternative idea, because it loses footing then and no longer has a firm grip.

not accepting a positive view can't really be attributed to ego-clinging. it seems more like accepting a positive view entails ego-clinging (which of course isn't always a bad thing). what kind of view is rebirth? mundane right view? it's somewhat problematic to be a practicing buddhist with the shadow of this doctrine that i can't yet rationally justify. so, that's why i'm trying to clarify it.

in the aftermath of mentally affirming the former by means of imputing a sense of this idea being more than just an idea... If affirmation ceases perpetuation ceases...

could you elaborate on these bits?

What about a (materialist) naturalistic view of consciousness makes it the most promising explanation? Where is the evidence that consciousness is produced by the brain?

first, biological naturalism doesn't necessarily entail materialism (nor necessarily dualism). my understanding is that most all the neurological findings of the past decade point in this direction. of course, we don't have conclusive understanding of the cause of consciousness in the brain. when we do, it will fit into a naturalistic framework; that is, i don't yet see any other scientific possibility.

[gavesako]

I like this metaphor:

What if the brain and nervous system relate to consciousness like the TV set to radio signals? Let's call this the nonlocal model of consciousness. If we accept the nonlocal model of consciousness provisionally, we can compare TV reception to sense perception. We can compare qualia (conscious experience) to TV images and sounds; we can compare memories to the recording function, thoughts to the playback and edit functions, and mental chatter to audiovisual noise. Furthermore, if the nervous system/brain functions as receiver/modulator of consciousness rather than its producer, it follows that consciousness is not based on the brain, but that the brain is based on consciousness. There are a number of theoretical considerations and phenomena that point in this direction. These phenomena show the limits of the current mainstream (materialistic) understanding of consciousness and provide theoretical support for the nonlocal model of consciousness.
http://www.thebigview.com/mind/nonlocal.html

[convivium]

a) the epistemic gap in materialism, b) the absence of a neural correlate of consciousness, c) out-of-body experiences (OBEs), d) near-death experiences (NDEs), and e) the measurement problem in quantum physics.

these are all pretty weak arguments and the positive view is pretty vague. a) we are still stuck in a cartesian metaphysical vocabulary that causes this apparent problem. however, something objective (nervous system) can give rise to something subjective (consciousness) in the sense that consciousness is just a higher level property of a lower level system. in this way, consciousness (subjective, aware, qualitative experience) is a natural phenomena just like digesting food. b) neuroscientists are still working on that, but getting closer and everything is pointing in this direction c) i am skeptical about veridical OBEs and d) near death experiences due not having seen strong enough evidence. e) the collapse of the quantum packet thing is really not that strong of a view within quantum mechanics. it would entail that subjectivity/consciousness qua consciousness is a major force in the operation of the objective universe, which seems absurd.

[sarahypp]

When we die, it is our mind/consciousness that travels and takes a new form... depending on the natural state of the mind at death will determine where our consciousness arises. When I say where I am referring to the which realm we will end up in.

So, when we pass away, most of the time we will be in a period of transition. This transition time is what we call the Bardo. Modern science has proven that the Bardo exists... take for example Dr Brian Weiss' book on Many lives, Many Masters... It tells a story of one of his patients that undergo past life regression. There are many voids between lives which she mentions as 'waiting'.

To know more about rebirths, we must understand the concept of reincarnation. I found this particular article about reincarnation which was taught by HHDL, Avalokiteshvara. Do have a read for further understanding. http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-ri ... -lama.html

[Aloka]

Modern science has proven that the Bardo exists... take for example Dr Brian Weiss' book on Many lives, Many Masters... It tells a story of one of his patients that undergo past life regression. There are many voids between lives which she mentions as 'waiting'.

As far as I know, Brian Weiss isn't a buddhist or a scientist. He's an American psychiatrist who writes books about reincarnation and appears on TV and radio chat shows in the USA.

He also: "writes about the messages received by the Ascended masters he claims to have communicated through his subjects." ....whatever that's supposed to mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Weiss


.

[Billymac29]

So, when we pass away, most of the time we will be in a period of transition. This transition time is what we call the Bardo. Modern science has proven that the Bardo exists...

I'm not sure how modern science could prove this, but it sounds interesting!

[Billymac29]

So what is 'consciousness'.. what would be the most helpful definition?

[equilibrium]

So what is 'consciousness'.. what would be the most helpful definition?

Close your eyes.....lift up you right hand and slap your face!.....do it!.....by doing it, one experience it not by words (through eyes) but by actual experience.....in the mind! (consciousness).

On the subject of what gets reborn:
Just take a look at a mirror.....it is right there in front of you.
There are 3 important issues here to be understood: (seen, unseen and unknown)
1. The face/body image: This is the physical (form).....if you are ready, you will know there is more than this.....
2. Say one is blind and cannot see the face/body image: one will have consciousness (formless) and is aware of the face/body.

The above show 2 things: The form (physical face/body) and the formless (consciousness).....They exist together just like day and night, they both depend on the other.....as one! Cannot be seperated until time is up (if there is such a thing as time).....meaning conditioned to exist!
The REAL understanding here is what this means.....EFFECT!
Now an effect cannot happen without a CAUSE!.....so this is the bit we need to understand deeply.....which leads to 3.

3. The unknown element is the consciousness (mind of the current body) itself floating around earth!.....deluded being!.....wondering!.....does not know!
The MIND is the driver of the body so if the mind does not know, it cannot escape samsara!.....hence we have the effects (the mind/body).
If one is ready, one will be able to realize emptiness of the mind/body.....now this is the most important bit, this realization can only happen in the mind (consciousness).....then and only then and not any moments before (and it cannot be achieved by speculation), one will realize this knowing!.....this removes the deluded self (ignorance).....which has been at it for all those lives.

edit: Anything beyond death is not a requirement for escaping samsara.....make this your main task in hand. To know consciousness is to comprehend when one is ready.

[kirk5a]

This is a pretty interesting passage:

"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad. If one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment, then when the body — endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, & dispersion — is eaten by crows, vultures, hawks, dogs, hyenas, or all sorts of creatures, nevertheless the mind — long nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment — rises upward and separates out.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Bhikkhu Bodhi translates the last part as "that goes upward, goes to distinction." with a note that says:

Tam uddhangami hoti visesagami. The passage shows citta as the principle of personal continuity which survives the death of the body and reaps the fruits of kamma. In the case of a noble disciple it "goes to distinction" by way of a higher rebirth and be evolving onwards to Nibbana. The following simile of the pot is at 42:6 (IV 313,27-30), differently applied.

[Aloka]

Different translations can be really confusing sometimes ... to me, the meaning of "separates out" is nothing remotely like "goes to distinction" .

[gavesako]

I think Thanissaro is referring here to a simile used by Ajahn Lee in which he describes the purification of gold ore by putting it into a fire so that the pure element "separates out". However, I also don't think this translation does justice to the Pali in this case. "Uddha" and "visesa" obviously have a similar meaning here: high, special, refined.

[pegembara]

If in riding a boat you look toward the shore, you erroneously think that the shore is moving. But upon looking carefully at the ship, you see that it is the ship that is actually moving. Similarly, seeing all things through a misconception of your body and mind gives rise to the mistake that this mind and substance are eternal. If you live truly and return to the source, it is clear that all things have no substance. Burning logs become ashes - and cannot return again to logs. There for you should not view ashes as after and logs as before. You must understand that a burning log - as a burning log - has before and after. But although it has past and future, it is cut off from past and future. Ashes as ashes have after and before. Just as ashes do not become logs again after becoming ashes, man does not live again after death. So not to say that life becomes death is a natural standpoint of Buddhism. So this is called no-life. To say that death does not become life is the fixed sermon of the Buddha. So this is called no-death. Life is a position of time, and death is a position of time . . . just like winter and spring. You must not believe that winter becomes spring - nor can you say that spring becomes summer.

http://www.zenki.com/index.php?lang=en&page=GenjoKoan

If you think you can watch minutely the progress of time, see whether you can divide it into present, past, and future as do grammarians speaking of present tense, past tense and future tense. In the view of Buddhist philosophy, time is one continuous process, each fragmentary portion of time merging into the other and forming such an unbroken continuity that no dividing line can precisely be drawn separating past time from present, or present time from future.

The moment you think of the present and say to yourself "this moment is present time" it is gone — vanished into the past before you can even complete your sentence. The present is always slipping into the past, becoming the past, and the future is always becoming the present. Everything is becoming. This is a universal process, a constant flux. It is when we miss the continuity of action that we speak in terms of things (atta/self) rather than processes or becomings.

Thoughts arise, one following the other with such a rapidity of succession that the illusion of a permanent thing called "the mind" is created; but really there is no permanent thing but only a flow of thoughts. The rapid succession of thoughts is compared to the flow of water in a river (nadi soto viya), one drop following another in rapid succession that we seem to see a permanent entity in this flow. But this is an illusion. Similarly, there is no such permanent entity as the mind. It is only a succession of thoughts, a stream of thoughts that arise and pass away.

Questioning on these lines one comes to the inevitable conclusion that there is no such thing as a permanent mind; it is only a convenient expression (vohara vacana) for an incessant and variegated stream of thoughts that arise and pass away. "Mind" does not exist in reality. It exists only in name as an expression for a succession of thoughts. There is thinking without a thinker but the thought think of itself as thinker!

[Ñāṇa]

something objective (nervous system) can give rise to something subjective (consciousness) in the sense that consciousness is just a higher level property of a lower level system. in this way, consciousness (subjective, aware, qualitative experience) is a natural phenomena just like digesting food. b) neuroscientists are still working on that, but getting closer and everything is pointing in this direction....

A point that should probably be acknowledged is that believing in the philosophy of physicalism based on the current scientific knowledge of consciousness is quite unsatisfactory. Physicalism and emergentism are problematic theories that fail to adequately account for how non-experience can give rise to experience. Jerry A. Fodor, The Big Idea: Can There Be a Science of the Mind:

Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious.

Ned Block, "Consciousness," in A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind:

We have no conception of our physical or functional nature that allows us to understand how it could explain our subjective experience.... in the case of consciousness we have nothing -- zilch -- worthy of being called a research program, nor are there any substantive proposals about how to go about starting one.

Alan Wallace, Hidden Dimensions:

A true revolution in the mind sciences has been delayed by an enforced conformity to the unnatural ideological and methodological constraints imposed by the assumptions of scientific materialism, particularly neo-Darwinism. One such assumption is that mental phenomena are equivalent to neurophysiological processes in the brain, an empirically uncorroborated belief. If the first revolution in the mind sciences is to take place, such unsubstantiated ideas must be suspended and new methodologies must be employed that are uniquely suited to the scientific study of mental phenomena, including consciousness. In other words, science can either continue to let its study of the mind be dominated by the metaphysical assumptions of a well-established ideology or pursue the open-minded, empirical investigation of mental phenomena, even if it calls into question some of the most deeply held scientific beliefs based on classical physics and contemporary biology.

Some of the issues involved are investigated in Mind and Its Place in the World: Non-Reductionist Approaches to the Ontology.