question on no-self

[culaavuso]

The self we create to navigate the samsaric world is empty and impermanent.

I think being aware of the way that the concept of self is created is helpful in understanding this doctrine. A good example of this being explained in the suttas is in SN 5.10

This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.

In the case of a chariot, there isn't really a particular thing that is the chariot. Conventionally, we could swap out any part of the chariot for another part and it would tend to be called the "same" chariot, even though it isn't really the same. The chariot could also be used as a storage shed if someone wished. The label "chariot" means that there is a conglomeration of parts which we intend to use for transportation. The intention to move between locations quickly combined with this set of parts combined in a particular way creates a situation where the label "chariot" has utility.

In a similar way there is consciousness of perceptions, intentions, feelings, and form, but there is no "self" to be found as an existing thing. It's simply a conventional name applied to aspects of experience as a tool for functioning in the world. Not only is there no particular thing that is the self, but the individual parts that we label as "self" are each individually arising and ceasing from moment to moment. Further, the function and utility of that tool is dependent upon the intentions with which we want to use that tool. There is no point for the label "self" without an intention to do something based on that label. These intentions then tend to be based on the three unwholesome roots in that they are usually things like greed for luxuries for this self, aversion to pain for this self, or the delusion that this self exists in a way that makes it worthy of forming intentions around.

[Aloka]

If there's no soul thatt gets reborn, is it possible at death for each bit of kamma to split off and and form a seperate being?

Curiously, in the Tibetan Buddhist tulku system, Alexander Berzin has said that the following can occur:

Participant: Can a tulku have several forms at the same time?

Alex: Yes, it is possible for tulkus to reincarnate in several forms simultaneously, but that’s a very high level. It depends on the level.


http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/ar ... ystem.html

.

[santa100]

mranonymous wrote: If there's no soul thatt gets reborn, is it possible at death for each bit of kamma to split off and and form a seperate being?

If that was true, then there'd be some problem. Say, Mr. GB countless lifetimes ago created some wholesome kamma and some unwholesome one. The good chunk then splitted off and became the "good" branches of G1, G2,...Gn in subsequent lifetimes; while the bad chunk became the "bad" branches of B1, B2,...Bn in subsequent lifetimes. The last iteration of Gn culminated in the highest attainment of Siddhartha Gautama, while the last iteration of Bn resulted in...Devadatta. Here's the main problem: the "G" series would only experience the good fruits, not the bad ones; while the "B" series would experience the reverse; needless to say, this is not the case in real life where individuals experience both the good and bad fruits throughout their life. Beside, if "each bit" of kamma splitted off and form a separate being, everyone would've started off fresh with just 1 single good card or bad card in the next lifetime, this would never accumulate enough merits or de-merits for one to eventually become the Buddha or...Devadatta..

[EndlessStream]

The consciousness that saw something yesterday arose and passed away right there. The mind consciousness that perceived that sight yesterday, arose and passed away right there and then. The perception that recognised and remembered that sight yesterday, arose and passed away right there and then.

The consciousness that remembered that sight today also arises and passes away from moment to moment. The wrong-view that believes in a person or being, a self or a soul, you or me, and believes wrongly that it is permanent, also arises and passes away. Wrong-view is a mental formation. The reason that wrong-view keeps on arising is due to unsystematic attention. That is, we do not see things as they really are, but only as they seem to be. It is like a magician's illusion.

The Buddha explained that consciousness arises dependent on conditions, that it is impermanent, and is not-self. Because it is dependently arisen, consciousness can arise whenever the conditions for its arising are present. As long as we keep making kamma, we will continue to reap its effects. The Buddha taught a way leading to cessation of kamma and its effects.

The Maha Nidana Sutta states consciousness descends into the womb at the conception of a new child in a mother's womb. Ajahn Brahm explains the stream of consciousness ('soc') is attracted to the mother. The Theravada commentaries state this consciousness is a 'relinking' consciousness. Like Retrofuturist, you have not mentioned the relinking consciousness that descends into the mother's womb.

[santa100]

EndlessStream wrote: The Maha Nidana Sutta states consciousness descends into the womb at the conception of a new child in a mother's womb. Ajahn Brahm explains the stream of consciousness ('soc') is attracted to the mother. The Theravada commentaries state this consciousness is a 'relinking' consciousness. Like Retrofuturist, you have not mentioned the relinking consciousness that descends into the mother's womb.

There's no conflict between Ven. Pesala's explanation and DN 15 ( http://suttacentral.net/dn15/en ) and the relinking consciousness. Maurice Walshe's commented in "The Long Discourses":

RD points out that this and other passages disprove the idea that consciousness (viññāṇa) transmigrates. For holding this belief Sāti was severely rebuked by the Buddha (MN 38). A new relinking consciousness (patisandhi) arises at conception, dependent on the old (see VM 17.164ff.).

And Vism XVII.164 further explained:

The former of these [two states of consciousness] is called “death” (cuti)
because of falling (cavana), and the latter is called “rebirth-linking” (paþisandhi)
because of linking (paþisandhána) across the gap separating the beginning of
the next becoming. But it should be understood that it has neither come here
from the previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the
formations, the pushing, the objective field, etc., as cause.

[SarathW]

If there's no soul thatt gets reborn, is it possible at death for each bit of kamma to split off and and form a seperate being?

There are no beings as such.
Only the ignorant Citta continues.

Just observe your thoughts and see how it change from one thought to another.
If something change all the time, can you call it a being?
Can you split your thought into two parts?

Just look at a ticking clock.
Is that the same clock all the time? No
But we say it is the same clock in conventional terms.

==============
Is self view, a self fulfilling prophecy?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=18241

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

I find the translation, “Descending into the mother's womb (mātukucchismiṃ okkamissatha),” rather misleading. It might perhaps make sense if talking about the Bodhisatta passing away from the Tusita realm and taking rebirth in the human realm, but what about the case where a being escapes from the lower realms into the human realm? Wouldn't that be ascending into the womb?

Maurice Walshe translates as “Having entered the mother's womb,” which is better, but I would prefer to refer to consciousness, “Having arisen in the mother's womb.”

Okkamati in the PTS.

Translation is a real art form. When reading any translation, we need to have a broad knowledge of related discourses and Buddhist doctrine to avoid falling into error.

When reading the translations from the 1890's by T.W. Rhys Davids, or even more so by his wife C.A.F. Rhys Davids, or other translators from a different era, we have to be especially careful.

I am not a Pāli scholar, so my translations may sometimes be quite wrong, but I always try my best to convey the essence, rather than the literal meaning.

[SarathW]

Citta (consciousness) is not subject to space and time.
So there is no time delay between one thought moments to the next.
(Choti Citta and Patisandi Citta)
No past, present ,future, no ups no downs or sideways.

[mranonymous]

mranonymous wrote: If there's no soul thatt gets reborn, is it possible at death for each bit of kamma to split off and and form a seperate being?

If that was true, then there'd be some problem. Say, Mr. GB countless lifetimes ago created some wholesome kamma and some unwholesome one. The good chunk then splitted off and became the "good" branches of G1, G2,...Gn in subsequent lifetimes; while the bad chunk became the "bad" branches of B1, B2,...Bn in subsequent lifetimes. The last iteration of Gn culminated in the highest attainment of Siddhartha Gautama, while the last iteration of Bn resulted in...Devadatta. Here's the main problem: the "G" series would only experience the good fruits, not the bad ones; while the "B" series would experience the reverse; needless to say, this is not the case in real life where individuals experience both the good and bad fruits throughout their life. Beside, if "each bit" of kamma splitted off and form a separate being, everyone would've started off fresh with just 1 single good card or bad card in the next lifetime, this would never accumulate enough merits or de-merits for one to eventually become the Buddha or...Devadatta..

But then couldn't other bits of good kamma from other beings combine with the bits of bad kamma?

[pegembara]

So my memory of yesterday is all made up, a complete illusion??

Who is that in the mirror?
What do you think?



A dog or a small child looks into a mirror and thinks there is another being inside.
A grownup sees the image and sees himself in the mirror.
An enlightened person doesn't see himself in the mirror. He knows that which stares back is not who he really is.
Just that appearance alone is! In seeing just the seen, no seer.

“….Following the teaching of the Buddha, the practice is to know the known. To know what? What do Buddhists know? What does the “One Who Knows” know, anyway?

“The One Who Knows” knows that these changing conditions are not-self. There is not any eternal or soul-like quality, no substance in these things that one could call a permanent possession. “The One Who Knows” knows that if it arises, it passes away. You don’t have to know any more to be a Buddha.

Being the Buddha means knowing by observing, not by believing the Scriptures or me. See for yourself.

Just try to find a condition that arises that doesn’t pass away. Is there something that’s born that doesn’t die? Be that Buddha who knows, by putting energy into experiencing your life here and now, not by getting lost in the delusion of the idea of being Buddha – ‘I’m the Buddha; I know it all.’ Sometimes desire even takes the form of a Buddha. Actually, there is no one who knows, and to conceive of being Buddha is not just being Buddha….”

From “Listening to the mind” by Ajahn Sumedho

[santa100]

mranonymous wrote: But then couldn't other bits of good kamma from other beings combine with the bits of bad kamma?

Then there still be some big issue: if Mr "GB" created G1, G2, B1, B2 good/bad deeds, and this got splitted into Mr/Ms K1 and K2 in future life. What and how do we decide which combinations of kamma to distribute? For K1 and K2 could have any combo: G1, G2, B1, B2, G1G2, G1B1, G1B2, G2B1, G2B2, G1G2B1, G1G2B2, etc.. Imgine Mr "GB" created millions of good/bad deeds in his life and he'd get reborn into K number of persons where K > 1, we'd face a combinatoric nightmare. Beside, if GB committed one of the Five Heinous crimes, would all K number of his incarnations suffer the most terrible punishments in the Avici Hell, or a few could get away with it and enjoy sensual pleasures up there in the Deva realms? You get the picture..

[Anagarika]

I recall before becoming a vegetarian that ground hamburger beef sold in the supermarkets was actually parts and pieces of over 100 cattle...bits and pieces all ground up in huge bins, and then separated into packages of ground meat. Eecchh.

I'm enjoying this discussion on the fragmenting of kamma, but have not seen in my years of poor scholarship any suggestion in the suttas of a fragmentation of kamma, akin to sundry DNA being split and replicating in various beings through time. When the Buddha meditated on his past lives while in jhana, it seems to me that the idea is that these past lives were rebirths from prior whole consciousness existence, rather than fragmentary pieces of kammic deeds by multiple disparate former lives reincorporated as pieces and parts into a singular reborn samsaric life....like hamburger... My sense is it is whole kammic experiences embodied in one life, that, like the mango seed, evolve into a rebirth that is part and parcel, in whole, of a previous life form. The seed has the kammic DNA from many prior seeds, but it is one distinct seed that becomes the mango sapling.

I'm going to have another cup of coffee and think on this some more....