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?
clw_uk wrote:RobertWhy 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
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
The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist
So something that now exists will be annihilated?
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.
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.
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"
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?
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".
I 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
Something exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.
Nevertheless 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.
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
Where 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?
What about experience is experienced by aggregates? In what way do the aggregates experience?
How are you defining "self
If there is an experience of perception which is totally unique to the aggregates which result in my loving red cars
So 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.
How 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
If 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.
clw_uk wrote: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 wrong
clw_uk wrote:...just i hope they dont forget that its happening right now. To me i still dont see that the buddha did teach it as three lives since its more practical in the here and now where it has more meaning, thats not to say though three lives is completely impossible.
I did mean well with all of the posts in this thread but i can see how i have forgotten how the buddha taught different ways to different people. If he had taught me himself he would have hardly ever used rebirth because that wouldnt benefit my practice, but i can see how he would have taught it to others because it would benefit them. I wasnt really ranting but i feel my zeal for wanting to help others, mixed with my forgetfulness about how there are different way to approach the dhamma, have made it seem this way.
Besides, its been an interesting and healthy debate dont you think?