Recommended Posts

pondering a bit on this samsara idea. didnt know to put in buddhist discussion or vedanta or taoist.

not sure the jainist view either. or any others,

so , thought i would place in general discussion and hopefully bums

can share their samsara views.

is there a self that reincarnates ?

when we enter the great quiessence does samsara vanish?

do we really change bodies like changing clothes?

i have heard in native american circles a reference to "those made again"

so here in my ignorance i ponder on.......

2232-astral-plane-01.jpg?cid=18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the tao bums banner, the depth of space you see in that image is the position of the mystery. The self is not the edge of the picture, it is opaque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pondering a bit on this samsara idea. didnt know to put in buddhist discussion or vedanta or taoist.

not sure the jainist view either. or any others,

so , thought i would place in general discussion and hopefully bums

can share their samsara views.

is there a self that reincarnates ?

when we enter the great quiessence does samsara vanish?

do we really change bodies like changing clothes?

i have heard in native american circles a reference to "those made again"

so here in my ignorance i ponder on.......

2232-astral-plane-01.jpg?cid=18

Yes and no....:)

Yes...at the dualistic level...no at the nondual level...imho.

So depending on what you mean by great quiessence, samsara vanishes. At the dualistic level, there is karma, there is suffering, joy, sorrow, pain, pleasure,actions/inactions, consequences thereof...reincarnation...

 

I too join you in our ignorance too ponder now....happy ponderance :)

 

http://www.inbetweenness.com/Dwai%20Lahiri/THE%20MAYA%20AND%20KARMA%20CONUNDRUM.pdf

Edited by dwai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On an outer level, samsara is the inability to recognize and then correct negative habitual tendencies. So one who remains 'caught' repeatedly is (metaphorically) said to be unable (almost mesmerized, like a moth zoning in on a bright flame) to remove his or her mind from the wheel of suffering. As with any habitual patterns, they are usually carried with the subtle consciousness of the person into the dying phase, and if at that time clear light is not essentially recognized, then a new 'bardo' takes effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

existence + ignorance = samsara

existence - ignorance = nirvana

 

That's my understanding, anyway. The real world, people, experiences, are the same before and after "enlightenment". Just mind/consciousness recognizing or remembering itself. No magic or other realms, etc. Same flesh and blood body which is born and dies.

 

Personally I think that reincarnation is just a metaphor. An old superstition from ancient India that gets carried along in Buddhism. There is no permanent self to continue beyond death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally I think that reincarnation is just a metaphor. An old superstition from ancient India that gets carried along in Buddhism. There is no permanent self to continue beyond death.

 

Then you are mistaken :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until we can observe activities of consciousness before and after birth these questions will depend on testimony and personal experience. There are many testimonies on remembering past lives or seeing beyond this realm into other dimensions/after-life. My personal experience has yet been able to answer these questions directly, so until then, they just remain as they are.

Edited by Lucky7Strikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a self that reincarnates ?

 

No, there is not. The self is a preservation construct of the mind that is carried on lifetime after lifetime, and it fails each time as you know otherwise you'd remember every single detail of each of those lifetimes. Just try to remember everything that happened to you while you were 4 years old, I mean every day during that entire year. :)

 

Impermanence takes care of the "self."

 

Our task is to reconnect with the original mind, which has no self. It's not conditioned by the delusion of maya and karma.

 

 

 

Personally I think that reincarnation is just a metaphor. An old superstition from ancient India that gets carried along in Buddhism. There is no permanent self to continue beyond death.

 

Reincarnation is not part of Buddhist philosophy and practice. Buddhism teaches that what is carried lifetime after lifetime is the mind conditioned by karma. They call that process rebirth as the manifestation of karmic processes, which is an entirely different concept to reincarnation (where there is an immutable self).

 

 

There are many testimonies on remembering past lives or seeing beyond this realm into other dimensions/after-life.

 

Yes they are karmic experiences that are carried lifetime after lifetime but they have no effect on the original mind since it is pure and unaffected by karma. Once you truly realise this mind you are "out", you cease to light the karmic flame as fire on a match and therefore the appearance of the conditioned mind. Here's what Buddha teaches:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they are karmic experiences that are carried lifetime after lifetime but they have no effect on the original mind since it is pure and unaffected by karma. Once you truly realise this mind you are "out", you cease to light the karmic flame as fire on a match and therefore the appearance of the conditioned mind. Here's what Buddha teaches:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca3/nibbana.html

 

Gerard,

 

Does it matter whether you call it a "self" or a collection of skandhas?

 

I guess from a insight point of view, yes, but in the end it has the same effect: remembering things from past lives occur no matter whether it is part of the skandha or the self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it matter whether you call it a "self" or a collection of skandhas?

 

You can call it an onion, if you like.

 

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shall answer from the Buddhist perspective.

is there a self that reincarnates ?

No, there is no self, but there is rebirth.

 

Some may say, if there is no self, then what reincarnates?

 

The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"

 

The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. Everything arises in the same way: not via a self, or agency, but due to dependent origination.

 

That is, the activity of rebirth takes place due to causes and conditions. Due to ignorance and the conceit of 'I Am' (the delusion of there being an existing self), craving, clinging, which led to the formation of karma (volition), which results in the arising of consciousness, the process of rebirth starts in this way.

 

So it is not the transmigration of a self-entity, but the arising of consciousnesss via a karmic process, which is explained in a good analogy here - that of a candle lighting up another candle. The flame of one candle is neither the same of the other one, but there is cause and effect, and this is how rebirth takes place.

 

Also, in the //Milindapanha// the King asks Nagasena:

 

"What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

 

"A psycho-physical combination (//nama-rupa//), O King."

 

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical

combination as this present one?"

 

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces

kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and

through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be

born."

 

when we enter the great quiessence does samsara vanish?

 

There are two kinds of nirvana.

 

The first is the nirvana with remainder. This is attained by an arahant, whose awakening and liberation has put an end to the I and my-making, the delusion and conceit of a self, and has put an end to the three poisons of craving, aversion and ignorance. He has put an end to making karma which leads to rebirth in the afterlife. But being still alive, his body and senses are fully functioning and he is capable of being aware of sensations and feelings, even though he has no attachment at all for anything. He can still experience unpleasant physical feelings, but he has no mental suffering and aversion.

 

The second is nirvana without remainder. This is when an arahant enters post-mortem state. An arahant has put an end to the cycling of rebirth in samsara, there is no more karmic causes for him to reborn in the 6 realms. So such a being has put an end to both physical pain and mental suffering - no more aggregates arise for him.

 

So yes, there is an end for samsara.

 

do we really change bodies like changing clothes?

 

This question seem to imply a soul inside the body, but in Budddhism, there is no soul.

 

So yes, body changes, but there is no soul changing body, nor a soul inhabiting a body. There is a stream of consciousness but no transmigratory self or soul.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a deathless Self,

Simple as that.

 

Beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a deathless Self,

Simple as that.

 

Beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything.

 

That is the Vedanta viewpoint, not accepted by Buddhist. Buddhists would say - there is no self, simple as that. Beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the Vedanta viewpoint, not accepted by Buddhist. Buddhists would say - there is no self, simple as that. Beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything.

 

Ah, you apparently accept the "beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything" part... not unlike what the Buddha alluded to with the "four-fold negation", which btw proves nothing except the limit of intellect when same is wise enough to recoginize its limits, whether such intellect holds a Buddhist or Vedanta viewpoint.

Edited by 3bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, you apparently accept the "beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything" part... not unlike what the Buddha alluded to with the "four-fold negation", which btw proves nothing except the limit of intellect when same is wise enough to recoginize its limits, whether such intellect holds a Buddhist or Vedanta viewpoint.

The fourfold negations are negation that a self can be asserted. It is what is called a "non-asserting negation". It does not prove or assert any "thing" or reality, it simply rejects/dis-asserts the notion of selfhood, as stated:

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

 

"No, lord."

 

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress."

Edited by xabir2005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I like this

 

1). Remove the objects, not the man (non-dual awareness that is both the source and substance of all things)

2). Remove the man, not the objects (no sense of self or agency, all that remains is the functioning of the six senses)

3). Remove both man and objects (emptiness of both self and phenomena)

4). Remove neither man, nor objects (traceless enlightenment beyond enlightenment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is this: you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life - therefore, to speak of the existence or non-existence of an existent entity is untenable.

 

It does not mean 'the reality of Tathagata cannot be comprehended by the intellect', it means that 'you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality'.

 

That's like trying to pawn off an obvious contradiction as if it were non-contradictory, good luck.

Edited by 3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pondering a bit on this samsara idea. didnt know to put in buddhist discussion or vedanta or taoist.

not sure the jainist view either. or any others,

so , thought i would place in general discussion and hopefully bums

can share their samsara views.

is there a self that reincarnates ?

when we enter the great quiessence does samsara vanish?

do we really change bodies like changing clothes?

i have heard in native american circles a reference to "those made again"

so here in my ignorance i ponder on.......

2232-astral-plane-01.jpg?cid=18

I found this book interesting as an alternative to religious and dogmatic thought due to the fact that he is stating clinical results and not putting any type of slant to it:

http://www.spiritualregression.org/page.php?slug=destiny-of-souls

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the Vedanta viewpoint, not accepted by Buddhist. Buddhists would say - there is no self, simple as that. Beat it up however you want, makes no difference nor proves anything.

Why does this have to be a buddhist viewpoint alone? I mean this thread. You and others feel free to post buddhist views. Others might post vedantic or daoist views. All are relative truths...the real thing cannot be named.

 

 

Why there is an eternal self --

 

In the gap between thoughts

You will find

A consciousness

Despite the mind

When you sit in that space

Empty and free

You will know

Your are infinity

That one alone

Is beyond space and time

There is no other

When there is no time

That which has never begun

Can never end

Only itself will it find

At every bend

From which everything

does rise and fall

You can break down the limiting walls

Once you know

You are only that

Tat tvam asi

Om tat sat

Edited by dwai
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites