So you are saying that what the Buddha was calling a "being" moving to the new body is not a unified thing at all but a wave, a "kammic tide". Is that right?thereductor wrote:The error here is to think that the being that is reborn is separate from the aggregates, or in possession of them, and so is changing from life to life. In fact the aggregates are the result of kamma coming to fruition and it are these aggregates that are clung to as mine, me, myself. So when one set of aggregates disbands, the enormous kammic 'tide' continues separately from those aggregates, acting as the cause of a new binding of elements* together into what might be called a being, and a new set of aggregates. So while each set of aggregates is separate from the next, the two sets of aggregates are both fruition of the same kammic tide. So the term of rebirth is not speaking of a soul or real self moving from life to life, but rather of the continued fruition of kamma in the mode of aggregates.
* Six elements: earth, water, wind, fire, space and consciousness.
the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
"Moving to a new body" is a little misleading, as the body and mind of the greater 'being' are both arisen together. But yes, the 'being' does not travel from life to life as a unified thing, but is rather the result of cause and effect on a massive scale. The six elements are impersonal in the sense that none of them is a self, but when acted on by cause and effect they are forced together to create a 'being'. This being responds to the cause and effect (kamma) which is creating it and acting on it, and so it in turn perpetuates the kamma that forces the creation of the 'being' from moment-to-moment and life-to-life.nowheat wrote: So you are saying that what the Buddha was calling a "being" moving to the new body is not a unified thing at all but a wave, a "kammic tide". Is that right?
Now we can see and measure the first five elements, but it is the inclusion of consciousness as an element which can be acted on by events which takes this whole things from the realm of mechanical materialism to the spiritual.
When people struggle with the idea of rebirth I suspect they are struggling with a very subtle perception of having a 'real' self. A 'real' self is not something that can be reconciled with all this talk on the aggregates, rebirth and nibbana.
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
"Being" is a term which is posited upon the aggregates as "I" (or sometimes outside of them, but associated with them as "mine" or "my soul"). Those aggregates however, change all the time. They change because they are conditioned. As the conditions change, they change. Even this is just an expression. Rather than "aggregate changes", which implies that it is still essentially the same thing, albeit in a different form, one may also consider it in the sense of "not even the same aggregate". However, the "essentially the same" approach leads most to fall to the extreme of eternalism, whereas the "not the same same" approach makes most fall to the extreme of annihilism.nowheat wrote:I took the candle as a metaphor. Are you saying that "being" is also a metaphor -- not literal?Paññāsikhara wrote: Well, the Buddha taught rebecoming, not rebirth. There is a continuity of causality, not continuity of a thing - mental or physical or otherwise.
As for candles, best not to take metaphors too far, they are only for reference, and never match the actuality described.
Metaphor is different. eg. "the mind is like the driver of a car". It's an even more colloquial parallel that may help one understand. But don't then examine the metaphor, find holes in it, and declare that the argument is thus invalid. It just means that the metaphor is not a 100% parallel, that is all.
This old one, huh?This sounds like you're not one who "accepts literal rebirth" but you are standing up for the more psychological moment-to-moment type of explanation.However, craving, ignorance, have their continuity through causality. It is not that the same craving and ignorance go from even moment to moment (let alone life to life), but one moment of craving and ignorance is the primary cause for the next.
Both. In effect, the process of continuity from one moment to the next, is the same as what happens when (in colloquial terms) a person "dies" (ie. snuffs it, croaks, pushes up the daisies, rolls off the mortal coil, passes away, is kapput, etc.).
However, for most people, they think that the body is the same pretty much, so think that "moment to moment" is psychological. Actually, the body is constantly changing too. The difficulties that annihilists attribute to explanations of post mortem rebecoming are equally applicable to their own explanation, but they often fail to see that. eg. When body and mind are both changing constantly, what is to stop the two becoming separated? Again, it is causality. Specific causality.
Causality. Causal process. Specific causality. Want to talk about anything much in Buddhism - get a really good understanding on dependent origination. Both what it is, and what it is not.If this is the case I need to point out that in this particular thread I'm trying to work towards my own understanding of how the literalists interpret rebirth and its necessity to the Buddha's teaching, so while I am interested in other interpretations of rebirth this thread isn't the best place for that discussion. But maybe that's not what you're saying?
There is continuity of causality. That is not a "thing" which could "move" anywhere. But in the whole process, there is nothing outside of that causal process.Are you saying that there is literal rebirth but it is a "continuity of causality" that moves to the next life?The whole notion of "being" is merely a thought, an idea, which the ignorant transpose upon this continuity of causality. Successive times which are similar, causality related, but not the same actual thing, are mistakening appropriated as a single entity or entities. Becomes even worse once a name is dropped on them.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
The difficulty I have in this is, how exactly it is that the breaking up of one interdependent-mind-body-causal-process-whatever leads to the arising of another? It's all a continuous constantly changing process, yeah, but after the "being" as we call it, "dies", what particular stacks of causal dominoes continue on and end up allowing the process to continue? I just can't get my head around it.Both. In effect, the process of continuity from one moment to the next, is the same as what happens when (in colloquial terms) a person "dies" (ie. snuffs it, croaks, pushes up the daisies, rolls off the mortal coil, passes away, is kapput, etc.).
-
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:27 am
- Contact:
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
that's why it's called specific conditionailty. ie. non-random.Kenshou wrote:The difficulty I have in this is, how exactly it is that the breaking up of one interdependent-mind-body-causal-process-whatever leads to the arising of another? It's all a continuous constantly changing process, yeah, but after the "being" as we call it, "dies", what particular stacks of causal dominoes continue on and end up allowing the process to continue? I just can't get my head around it.Both. In effect, the process of continuity from one moment to the next, is the same as what happens when (in colloquial terms) a person "dies" (ie. snuffs it, croaks, pushes up the daisies, rolls off the mortal coil, passes away, is kapput, etc.).
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
What I am struggling with is not my perception of the self, but with what's in the suttas. *Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.thereductor wrote: "Moving to a new body" is a little misleading, as the body and mind of the greater 'being' are both arisen together. But yes, the 'being' does not travel from life to life as a unified thing, but is rather the result of cause and effect on a massive scale. The six elements are impersonal in the sense that none of them is a self, but when acted on by cause and effect they are forced together to create a 'being'. This being responds to the cause and effect (kamma) which is creating it and acting on it, and so it in turn perpetuates the kamma that forces the creation of the 'being' from moment-to-moment and life-to-life.
Now we can see and measure the first five elements, but it is the inclusion of consciousness as an element which can be acted on by events which takes this whole things from the realm of mechanical materialism to the spiritual.
When people struggle with the idea of rebirth I suspect they are struggling with a very subtle perception of having a 'real' self. A 'real' self is not something that can be reconciled with all this talk on the aggregates, rebirth and nibbana.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
I actually think of it as a process, not a "thing" in any way, because a process is in a continual state of flux based on what's fueling it. It seems to me this is what the Buddha was trying to get to with his metaphor of fire.Paññāsikhara wrote: "Being" is a term which is posited upon the aggregates as "I" (or sometimes outside of them, but associated with them as "mine" or "my soul"). Those aggregates however, change all the time. They change because they are conditioned. As the conditions change, they change. Even this is just an expression. Rather than "aggregate changes", which implies that it is still essentially the same thing, albeit in a different form, one may also consider it in the sense of "not even the same aggregate". However, the "essentially the same" approach leads most to fall to the extreme of eternalism, whereas the "not the same same" approach makes most fall to the extreme of annihilism.
I am not using the metaphor of a candle flame to poke holes in the explanation of being. I am not confusing the candle flame with the being; please notice that this is not my question to you.Metaphor is different. eg. "the mind is like the driver of a car". It's an even more colloquial parallel that may help one understand. But don't then examine the metaphor, find holes in it, and declare that the argument is thus invalid. It just means that the metaphor is not a 100% parallel, that is all.
My question is: Are you saying that the Buddha is not just using candle as a metaphor but that his use of the word "being" here is some kind of a metaphor entirely apart from the candle metaphor. Are you saying that he did not literally mean that a being moves out of the body sustained by craving? That "being" too was a metaphor for something else?
So it seems we agree we're talking about a process; that'll be helpful in discussion.There is continuity of causality. That is not a "thing" which could "move" anywhere. But in the whole process, there is nothing outside of that causal process.
Then this is my problem: As I mentioned in my most recent answer to thereductor, *something* with a long lifespan must tie the current existence to all those past births and lives or the Buddha would not have been able to remember so many prior lives. It's a pretty remarkable process (or a remarkable "whatever") that is in flux but sustains detailed information inside of it. So what I am trying to understand is what this "thing or no-thing" is that is continuous from life to life to life for eons -- some part of it so unchanging as to be able to still contain the oldest information in a way that is so reliable as to be undoubted: what did the Buddha say about its beginning? How did such a thing come to exist, from what causes?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
nowheat wrote: I actually think of it as a process, not a "thing"
First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*nowheat wrote:
Then this is my problem: As I mentioned in my most recent answer to thereductor, *something*
The Buddha did specifically say that the question of "who _____" is incorectly phrased: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So again we are talking entirely about processes without "things" for them to happen to. To phrase it linguistically (this has always helped me) we are used to thinking in terms of verbs happening to nouns - and in this case there is just a verb. I am told that non-Asian speakers have more of a problem with this as languages like Chinese can have an action with no object. (I don't know if this is true. I think I learned it from an Alan Watts talk back in the day before I realized he was often full of poop. lol)"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.'
-M
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
The classical explanation that I've always heard is the positing of a "rebirth consciousness". This be the magical ingredient. To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha himself never explains rebirth ontologically.nowheat wrote: What I am struggling with is not my perception of the self, but with what's in the suttas. *Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Nowheat,
I also would like to point out that as analytical as you seem to be you would probably benefit greatly from studying Abhidhamma. For those of us who have trouble with the rebirth process becuase we want to know "how it works," it is a great help. Also, you can never read too much about dependent origination.
-M
I also would like to point out that as analytical as you seem to be you would probably benefit greatly from studying Abhidhamma. For those of us who have trouble with the rebirth process becuase we want to know "how it works," it is a great help. Also, you can never read too much about dependent origination.
-M
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing". A flame is most certainly a thing: that thing being visible light (radiation) resulting from chemical combustion.meindzai wrote: First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*
How does a flame move from one candle to another, as the common metaphor goes? While a flame moving from one candle to another can quite easily be explained, the rebirth phenomenon cannot. And that, I believe, is what nowheat was trying to ask.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
I'm not nihlistically claiming that things do not exist at all- but because they are anicca, they are anatta. All conditioned "things" are without a self - they do not have any inherent "thing-ness" or existence about them. What we call things are just handy names we give to processes. We give them a self.seanpdx wrote:You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing".meindzai wrote: First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*
-M
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
You may not be making any nihilistic claims of non-existence, but you do seem to be misrepresenting and disregarding the actual question. I tried to clarify what I believe nowheat is trying to ask. Do you have a response to the second paragraph I wrote in that particular post?meindzai wrote:I'm not nihlistically claiming that things do not exist at all- but because they are anicca, they are anatta. All conditioned "things" are without a self - they do not have any inherent "thing-ness" or existence about them. What we call things are just handy names we give to processes. We give them a self.seanpdx wrote:You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing".meindzai wrote: First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*
-M
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
As I pointed out, and as the Buddha points out in the Sutta I mentioned - the question is wrongly phrased, which is why it has to be disregarded.seanpdx wrote:
You may not be making any nihilistic claims of non-existence, but you do seem to be misrepresenting and disregarding the actual question.
Again, the question is incorrectly phrased, since there is no self that moves from one place/thing. etc. to another.I tried to clarify what I believe nowheat is trying to ask. Do you have a response to the second paragraph I wrote in that particular post?
The questions and answers are in the Suttas that describe dependent origination. They revolve around the central question - which is what is the cause of suffering and what is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. "What clings" or "what is born" or "what transmigrates" are all incorrectly phrased. Again:
The same can be said of any of the links of D.O."Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.1
-M
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
meindzai wrote: As I pointed out, and as the Buddha points out in the Sutta I mentioned - the question is wrongly phrased, which is why it has to be disregarded.
So... does that mean you don't understand how a flame moves from one candle to another?Again, the question is incorrectly phrased, since there is no self that moves from one place/thing. etc. to another.