What is reincarnated???
M. Riepl
I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is reincarnated?
I am no buddhist, but for many years I've found much of the
(pre-commercial) Zen literature quite compelling, especially Dogen. One
thing that has always seemed extrememly profound to me about Buddhism is
its denial of any separate ego, or self-ness, (not only in humans, but
in anything), and the doctrine of Emptiness. It has always struck me as
deeply insightful to question the belief that any THING exists in
itself, as itself.
However, what then is reincarnation all about? How can something that is
fundamentally not a THING exist ad infinitum? If all is transitory, how
can something be passed on from body to body forever? If there is no
separate self, why do so many Buddhists talk about 'past and future
lives'? If Buddhism posits Emptiness but also some sort of everlasting
'soul' (albeit in different terminology - perhaps "locus of karmic
accumulation"), is it not fundamentally contradictory? Granted,
contradiction doesn't seem to bother a Buddhist much, but it sort of
bothers me (why should almost every aspect of the universe be averse to
contradiction except those surrounding reincarnation?). Besides, the
early Pali logicians at the time (give or take a hundred years or so)
were fairly rigorous and hard-headed... and yet Buddhists to the core.
What gives? They certainly would have noticed such a contradiction, if
it is in fact a contradiction.
One thing has occurred to me, but I don't think many contemporary
Buddhists will find this idea very palatable: Buddha was a Hindu, and he
preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma as an
allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his teachings in a
manner comfortable to Hindus. I've looked briefly through some of the
few English translations of early (Therevadin) Buddhist texts, and there
is a surprising absence of Karma and Reincarnation in those I've looked
at - though I'm certainly no Buddhist scholar and have only scratched
the surface as far as these texts go...
Is reincarnation so fundamental to Buddhist philosophy?
Anyway, just food for thought. I'd be grateful for a reply from someone
who has actually thought about this issue. I'm quite sure I'm
mis-construing some important aspect of the doctrine here, so I thought
I'd ask.
Thanks in advance,
Mark.
Theravad
>Buddha was a Hindu, and he
>preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma as an
>allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his teachings in a
>manner comfortable to Hindus.
Interesting idea. can you explain how the Buddha was a Hindu when Hinduism was
not established until 1300 years after his death? The doctrines of
reincarnation and karma come from a Brahman, Yajnavalkaya, the great
Upanishadic teacher who lived about 200 years before the Buddha. It was also
invented by Pythagorus at about the same time.
Your post is excellent and should give Buddhist pause for thought before they
go spouting off about things that are beyond range.
M. Riepl
Theravad wrote:
> Interesting idea. can you explain how the Buddha was a Hindu when Hinduism was
> not established until 1300 years after his death? The doctrines of
> reincarnation and karma come from a Brahman, Yajnavalkaya, the great
> Upanishadic teacher who lived about 200 years before the Buddha. It was also
> invented by Pythagorus at about the same time.
>
Okay... sorry, perhaps "Hindu" is not the most accurate term to use... but I use
the term loosely.
What I meant was that the particular culture that the Buddha was born into was one
in which Karma and Reincarnation were pretty fundamental cultural ideas...
Perhaps I should have said "Pre-Hindu".
M. Riepl
pre-dates Buddha, permeated Northern India at Buddha's time, and held reincarnation as
a central idea.
Theravad
>Okay... sorry, perhaps "Hindu" is not the most accurate term to use... but I
>use
>the term loosely.
So does almost every scholar in the world, i am nit picking but there is an
important point here.
>>Perhaps I should have said "Pre-Hindu".
The Buddha's cultural background was primarily Indo-aryan but there were some
elements of the indiginous culture of the Dravidians which the Buddha for the
most part rejected. Reincarnation and karma were basically a Upanishadic
concept but, as you say, they were prevalent in the society at the time of the
Buddha.
Theravad
>Perhaps and even better term to use would be "Vedic". Vedic culture certainly
>pre-dates Buddha, permeated Northern India at Buddha's time, and held
>reincarnation as
>a central idea.
Excellent suggestion. vedanta which means 'the end of the Vedas' was appended
onto the Vedas just as the New Testament was appended to the old. this does
not make a Jew a Christian and it does not make a Hindu a Brahman. Just as
Moses was a jew and not a Christian, the Buddha was a Brahman (not caste) and
not a Hindu.
Punnadhammo
This is a question that has come up continually since the time of the
Buddha and has often sparked long discussions right here. It is a bit of an
old chestnut in Buddhist philosophy, but it is an important question
nonetheless and the resolution of the seeming paradox is a key pointer to
the fundamental Buddhist idea.
Beware of answers from those who say there is no paradox to be resolved and
that rebirth is a myth. There is very trendy form of neo-buddhism making
the rounds that does just this. It is a philosophically lazy approach to a
deep question.
> However, what then is reincarnation all about?
Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" to avoid the implication that there is
anything which reincarnates.
>How can something that is
> fundamentally not a THING exist ad infinitum?
It doesn't. The Buddhist idea of rebirth is that each successive moment of
consciousness conditions the next. There is nothing which persists even
from moment to moment within one life. The causal link is karma, each
moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh from the void. And
passes away into the void. At death, if there is still karma outstanding
the consciousness will rise again afresh to a new physical base.
>If all is transitory, how
> can something be passed on from body to body forever?
Again, nothing does. The key is to understand how this is true even within
the life.
>If there is no
> separate self, why do so many Buddhists talk about 'past and future
> lives'?
It is a conventional way of identifying lifetimes that are karmically
linked in a single stream of mind moments. It has no ultimate reality
beyond that.
>If Buddhism posits Emptiness but also some sort of everlasting
> 'soul' (albeit in different terminology - perhaps "locus of karmic
> accumulation"), is it not fundamentally contradictory?
It's like one candle flame lighting another ad infinitum. Is the flame
eternal? Is the new flame the same or different?
>Granted,
> contradiction doesn't seem to bother a Buddhist much, but it sort of
> bothers me (why should almost every aspect of the universe be averse to
> contradiction except those surrounding reincarnation?). Besides, the
> early Pali logicians at the time (give or take a hundred years or so)
> were fairly rigorous and hard-headed... and yet Buddhists to the core.
> What gives? They certainly would have noticed such a contradiction, if
> it is in fact a contradiction.
As I said, the seeming paradox has been noticed and commented on from the
beginning. For a key early discussion see the questions of King Milinda
(MilindaPanha) from which I took the candle analogy above. Another of his
analogies is an echo across a chasm. Is the voice coming back the same or
different?
> One thing has occurred to me, but I don't think many contemporary
> Buddhists will find this idea very palatable: Buddha was a Hindu, and he
> preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma as an
> allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his teachings in a
> manner comfortable to Hindus.
This has been suggested from time to time but doesn't bear scrutiny. The
Buddha was quite fearless in challenging other beloved concepts of the time
such as an immortal unchanging atman or the caste system. Also he put great
emphasis on speaking only the truth. Why would he make an exception for
this one idea only?
> I've looked briefly through some of the
> few English translations of early (Therevadin) Buddhist texts, and there
> is a surprising absence of Karma and Reincarnation in those I've looked
> at - though I'm certainly no Buddhist scholar and have only scratched
> the surface as far as these texts go...
If you look longer you will see that it comes up again and again and that
in some places the Buddha is very categorical about it and even defines
acceptance of the idea of karma, rebirth and other realms as part of Right
View.
> Is reincarnation so fundamental to Buddhist philosophy?
To traditional Buddhism, as taught by the Buddha and preseved in the living
tradition, yes definitely.
--
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu
Arrow River Community Center
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
>
> Perhaps and even better term to use would be "Vedic". Vedic culture certainly
> pre-dates Buddha, permeated Northern India at Buddha's time, and held reincarnation as
> a central idea.
Depends on what noted scholar one chooses to read. Not all are singing
in unison that "reincarnation" as modern Vedanta understands it was on
the minds of Vedic priests. For a number of reasons, it seems unlikely
that Vedic priests were interested in such a theory. Their gods were all
powerful. They were not subject to change or death and could well save
anyone from any catastrope who undertook the proper sacrifice.
Best regards,
AvS
lawrence day
"M. Riepl" wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is reincarnated?
>
a point of view.
-l
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
M. Riepl <mar...@uvic.ca> wrote in message news:384E0DD1...@uvic.ca...
> Hello.
>
> I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is reincarnated?
The consciousness.
>
> I am no buddhist, but for many years I've found much of the
> (pre-commercial) Zen literature quite compelling, especially Dogen. One
> thing that has always seemed extremely profound to me about Buddhism is
> its denial of any separate ego, or self-ness, (not only in humans, but
> in anything), and the doctrine of Emptiness. It has always struck me as
> deeply insightful to question the belief that any THING exists in
> itself, as itself.
This is a denial of a modern terminology which is self-image. It is not a
denial of consciousness but a denial of self-consciousness found in
defile-mind consciousness.
> However, what then is reincarnation all about?
It is about the embodiment and re-embodiment of consciousness (vijnana)
within the vessels (sentient beings) of the six realms of existence (loka).
>How can something that is
> fundamentally not a THING exist ad infinitum?
How can something which implies eternal existence, be a concrete existing
thing? If it is a thing, how can it be break apart? If it is not a thing,
how can it not be breaking apart and disintegrated?
>If all is transitory, how
> can something be passed on from body to body forever?
Since it is all transitory (it is the opposite of a concrete existing
thing), thus implies eternal existence (the circle of
transmigration/reincarnation is eternal). Since the body is not a thing, it
can be break apart, thus subject to disintegration. The body which is
subject to disintegration is not a self, thus the brain state of the body
cannot be passed on from body to body forever. But consciousness is a thing
(an element), therefore it cannot be break apart, therefore it is the
something that passed on from body to body forever.
This is the first foundation which established the certainty of
reincarnation, if reincarnation is not possible, the body of sentient beings
would have to be established as permanent (thus against the truth of
impermanence, against the mode of birth, aging, sickness and decay). Because
the body being permanent would be established as an element, then it implies
an eternal separation (being of independent existence) from the
consciousness element, thus the incarnation/embodiment of the consciousness
within this body will be impossible.
Secondly, since the consciousness exists as a separate element from the body
of composite of the four elements of water, fire, earth and wind, the decay
of the body which is not the destruction of the elements of composition by
of the separation of the composition, does not implies the destruction of
the consciousness element either. Therefore, the death of the body of
sentient beings, does not implied the destruction of consciousness.
Thirdly, since the state of sentient beings, is the composition of the 4
elements that make up the physical body, in order to sustained the 4
elements, the element of space is required, in order for the body to think
and feel, the consciousness element is required. Thus sentient beings are
composed of the 6 elements, since the death of the body implies the
disintegration of the first four elements, it freed the consciousness
elements to spaciousness of the space element, since the space element
pervades all elements, this consciousness elements with the space element as
support can penetrate all phenomena appearances of samsara and nibbana,
therefore it is fully capable of penetrate the womb of the mothers of
sentient beings to take embodiment within the central conductor of the baby.
It can also take residence within the central conductor of another being (in
this case 'possession' occurred on the victim, in the case of master who
take residence in the disciple, he will lead the disciple to liberation).
>If there is no
> separate self,
There are separate consciousnesses because the consciousness in each being
is separate from the other.
>why do so many Buddhists talk about 'past and future
> lives'?
Because of the existence of consciousnesses of beings and their clinging to
embodiment due to sexual desire.
>If Buddhism posits Emptiness but also some sort of everlasting
> 'soul' (albeit in different terminology - perhaps "locus of karmic
> accumulation"), is it not fundamentally contradictory?
There is no contradictory because the self-image (self) is emptied
(emptiness) on the background of pure consciousness.
>Granted,
> contradiction doesn't seem to bother a Buddhist much, but it sort of
> bothers me (why should almost every aspect of the universe be averse to
> contradiction except those surrounding reincarnation?).
This is a contradiction arise due to confusion of pure (logical) dhamma with
faulty logic (meaning).
>Besides, the
> early Pali logicians at the time (give or take a hundred years or so)
> were fairly rigorous and hard-headed... and yet Buddhists to the core.
> What gives? They certainly would have noticed such a contradiction, if
> it is in fact a contradiction.
Their lack of mahayana scriptural reference is the fault. The building
foundation without the upper extension will not made up the complete
building. On the other hand the building with the look but does not have the
foundation (hinayana) will collapse at any time.
>
> One thing has occurred to me, but I don't think many contemporary
> Buddhists will find this idea very palatable: Buddha was a Hindu, and he
> preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma as an
> allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his teachings in a
> manner comfortable to Hindus.
Rather than to comfort them, he gave them much tortured, e.g. he declared
the hindus and all their religions as cults.
>I've looked briefly through some of the
> few English translations of early (Therevadin) Buddhist texts, and there
> is a surprising absence of Karma and Reincarnation in those I've looked
> at - though I'm certainly no Buddhist scholar and have only scratched
> the surface as far as these texts go...
Kamma and reincarnation are the special characteristics (the fuller picture)
of buddhism found only in the mahayana (preserved in the Chinese tripitaka)
>
> Is reincarnation so fundamental to Buddhist philosophy?
Like a tree with only roots (without the trunks and branches) is the
buddhism without reincarnation. Even so this is not a strong enough
metaphor. For if not for the inevitable possibility of all beings to
transmigrate to the three lower realms, the Four Noble Truths would not have
been possible to be declared, for there will be no truth for suffering, no
truth for the cause of suffering (if there is no suffering, the cause also
does not exist), no truth for the cause of the liberation of something which
does not exist, and the truth of the freedom from something which does not
exist cannot be established. All that Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara had ever
vowed is the deliverance of sentient beings from the afflictions of three
lower realms, he never declared the deliverance of sentient beings from the
three upper realms. If it is to be in accord with the Four Noble Truths, the
cause of the freedom from suffering, is the cause of deliverance of sentient
beings from the suffering of three lower realms, by having accomplished
that, that is already the fruition of the Fourth Noble Truth, for having
sealed the doors to the three lower realms, all subsequent transmigration
(reincarnation) of beings in the three upper realms will be freed of
suffering, thus the state of nibbana (condition of pure land). But by
ignoring the topic of reincarnation, the alternative of nibbana while still
in the status of sentient beings (who is subject to endless reincarnation)
will be impossible (in term of logic of the hinayana). But since the
end-goal of hinayana is cessation of the round of rebirth (to cease
something such as round of rebirth must necessitate the existence of the
round of rebirth/reincarnation in the first place, thus a prove of the
faulty logic/deficiency in doctrine due to the fact that it is called an
inferior/*hina vehicle/*yana, a name does not come without reason and causes
behind it), therefore the alternative of non-abiding nibbana (nibbana in the
status of sentient beings) never need (not at the proper time and
circumstances) to be discussed (in the hinayana).
>
> Anyway, just food for thought. I'd be grateful for a reply from someone
> who has actually thought about this issue. I'm quite sure I'm
> mis-construing some important aspect of the doctrine here, so I thought
> I'd ask.
So have I spotted them.
--
Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
Punnaantan amumoditiva, ciram rakkhantu sasanam
(Celestial deities, earth deities, powerful dragon-like deities,
and god-like deities, with honour receive this merit, always
protect the flourishing of sacred doctrine)
Mahasanti
URL: http://mahasantisangha.jumptunes.com/mara_disciples.htm
Home: http://www.angelfire.com/ia/mahasanti/index.html
Jigme Dorje
M. Riepl>I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is
reincarnated?
Mahasanti>The consciousness.
Jigme>This is conjectural, I'm afraid, and proceeds, unfortunately, not from
the diologues but from the commentarial tradition. I urge one and all to
read Punnadhammo Bhikkhu's excellent reply which is possibly the closest to
the Buddha's actual teaching on rebirth than I have read in any forum.
M. Riepl
Thanks very much for your post. I found it extremely informative and
interesting.
To regard karma (and reincarnation) as the conditioning of consciousness from
moment to moment, even within the same life, is something I've never considered
before, and it squares nicely with the idea that there is no separate
autonomous 'self'. This clears up alot of my questions surrounding this issue.
If I understand you correctly, 'rebirth' is a process that is occuring
continuously, at every moment. Wonderful idea.
>
> ... At death, if there is still karma outstanding
> the consciousness will rise again afresh to a new physical base.
One thing that I am still unsure about is how the consciousness of one body may
influence that of another body which the origininal body never came into
contact with... but this may be because I am a materialist and find it
difficult to regard consciousness as something separate from a 'physical base'
(sorry, I may be small minded, but I come from a scientific background in
cognitive science, and as far as the scientific study of mind can tell us,
consciousness is a function of the brain).
>
> It's like one candle flame lighting another ad infinitum. Is the flame
> eternal? Is the new flame the same or different?
>
Wonderful analogy. I'll have to read Milinda...
>
> > One thing has occurred to me, but I don't think many contemporary
> > Buddhists will find this idea very palatable: Buddha was a Hindu, and he
> > preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma as an
> > allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his teachings in a
> > manner comfortable to Hindus.
>
> This has been suggested from time to time but doesn't bear scrutiny. The
> Buddha was quite fearless in challenging other beloved concepts of the time
> such as an immortal unchanging atman or the caste system. Also he put great
> emphasis on speaking only the truth. Why would he make an exception for
> this one idea only?
>
Yes, you are obviously correct on this... I didn't think about it clearly
enough. It was just a thought that occured to me as I was writing and that I
tossed out for a reply... how ironic in a Buddhist newsgroup!
Thanks again,
My regards.
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
lawrence day <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote in message
news:3850021C...@pathcom.com...
>
>
> "M. Riepl" wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is reincarnated?
> >
>
> a point of view.
A point of view is mental composition, subject to disintegration, how could
it survived in a reincarnation process? Mental defilements being the factors
that lead the vijnana to reincarnate, but reincarnation is totally
impossible without the support of vijnana. The vijnana without defilements
is fully capable of penetrating the womb of rebirth at will to accomplish
reincarnation.
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Punnadhammo <arcc@NOSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
>
> This is a question that has come up continually since the time of the
> Buddha and has often sparked long discussions right here. It is a bit of
an
> old chestnut in Buddhist philosophy, but it is an important question
> nonetheless and the resolution of the seeming paradox is a key pointer to
> the fundamental Buddhist idea.
>
> Beware of answers from those who say there is no paradox to be resolved
and
> that rebirth is a myth. There is very trendy form of neo-buddhism making
> the rounds that does just this. It is a philosophically lazy approach to a
> deep question.
Correct.
> Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" to avoid the implication that there is
> anything which reincarnates.
Rebirth already implies something being born again. If there is nothing
being reincarnate, it would not necessitate the term rebirth.
> It doesn't. The Buddhist idea of rebirth is that each successive moment of
> consciousness conditions the next.
This is a reference to conditioned truth, since the mental defilements which
is subject to decomposition cannot withstand perpetual rebirth.
>There is nothing which persists even
> from moment to moment within one life.
If nothing persist, the moment to moment (dhammata) would be blown out.
>The causal link is karma, each
> moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh from the void. And
> passes away into the void. At death, if there is still karma outstanding
> the consciousness will rise again afresh to a new physical base.
Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the vijnana,
that which reincarnate.
> Again, nothing does. The key is to understand how this is true even within
> the life.
This contradict your previous statement that the consciousness did arise
again to new physical base. That something did pass on from body to body
forever.
> It is a conventional way of identifying lifetimes that are karmically
> linked in a single stream of mind moments. It has no ultimate reality
> beyond that.
Therefore the ultimate reality is the single stream of mind moments
(dhammata) in each sentient beings. In other words, it is pure consciousness
which involved in successive transmigrations.
> It's like one candle flame lighting another ad infinitum. Is the flame
> eternal? Is the new flame the same or different?
The flame is the consciousness which transmigrate. Whether it blown out in
one life and glow again in the next, it is still the same stream of
consciousness.
> As I said, the seeming paradox has been noticed and commented on from the
> beginning. For a key early discussion see the questions of King Milinda
> (MilindaPanha) from which I took the candle analogy above. Another of his
> analogies is an echo across a chasm. Is the voice coming back the same or
> different?
The voice is the consciousness.
> This has been suggested from time to time but doesn't bear scrutiny. The
> Buddha was quite fearless in challenging other beloved concepts of the
time
> such as an immortal unchanging atman or the caste system. Also he put
great
> emphasis on speaking only the truth. Why would he make an exception for
> this one idea only?
Correct.
> If you look longer you will see that it comes up again and again and that
> in some places the Buddha is very categorical about it and even defines
> acceptance of the idea of karma, rebirth and other realms as part of Right
> View.
Correct.
> To traditional Buddhism, as taught by the Buddha and preserved in the
living
> tradition, yes definitely.
Correct.
Being the only one in this ng to scored 4 correct marks in a single post,
apart from the fact that you are in a tradition in which mahayana
prospective like this cannot be solve with a single, straight-forward
sentence or two, but compare to the majority, your presentation which
confirms the mahayana's
literal prospective of rebirth is excellent.
John Waterman
M. Riepl <mar...@uvic.ca> wrote in message news:3850765D...@uvic.ca...
> Punnadhammo,
>
> Thanks very much for your post. I found it extremely informative and
> interesting.
>
> To regard karma (and reincarnation) as the conditioning of consciousness
from
> moment to moment, even within the same life, is something I've never
considered
> before, and it squares nicely with the idea that there is no separate
> autonomous 'self'. This clears up alot of my questions surrounding this
issue.
> If I understand you correctly, 'rebirth' is a process that is occuring
> continuously, at every moment. Wonderful idea.
>
>
Hi,
I'm not entirely sure that Venerable Punnadhammo Bhikkhu meant this alone,
but I agree it is a wonderful idea. Each cycle of craving, grasping,
satiation conditions the next. Kamma. Each generous act conditions the
following rebirths. Kamma. There is no-thing in common between the me-now
and me 20 years, 6 months, 2 hours ago. Where is this self? This rebirth
process can be observed during meditation practice and gives insights into
dependent origination (well that's what it feels like to me anyway). Combine
this with vipassana meditation, contemplation on dukkha, anicca and anatta,
sprinkle with a little metta (to taste) and you've got yourself a pretty
effective practice, in my view.
Regards
John
Jigme Dorje
that there is anything which reincarnates. The causal link is karma, each
moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh from the void. And
passes away into the void. At death, if there is still karma outstanding the
consciousness will rise again afresh to a new physical base.
Maha>Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the
vijnana, that which reincarnate.
Jigme>False. Giving it a name doesn't make it any more true. The Buddha
argued against this concept which was perpetuated by "personalists" and
disputed by every credible Buddhist scholar, including Nagarjuna. It is
laziness, revisionism, and gullibility.
Maha>Being the only one in this ng to scored 4 correct marks in a single
post, apart from the fact that you are in a tradition in which mahayana
prospective like this cannot be solve with a single, straight-forward
sentence or two, but compare to the majority, your presentation which
confirms the mahayana's
literal prospective of rebirth is excellent.
Jigme>And Maha scores a zero, his unbridled ego again underscoring his
perpetual state of bewilderment with regard to traditional Buddhism.
lawrence day
Mahasanti wrote:
> --
> Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
> (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
> --
>
> lawrence day <ld...@pathcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3850021C...@pathcom.com...
> >
> >
> > "M. Riepl" wrote:
> >
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have a question for you Buddhists... WHAT, exactly, is reincarnated?
> > >
> >
> > a point of view.
>
> A point of view is mental composition, subject to disintegration, how could
> it survived in a reincarnation process?
Logically a point of view is not a mental composition, although your idea of
what a point of view is is a mental compositiion. Consider, a cube has 3
dimensions, a square has two, a line or linear thought has one, but a single
point by itself has no dimension. How then could it not 'survive in a
reincarnation process'?
--lawrence
> Mental defilements being the factors
> that lead the vijnana to reincarnate, but reincarnation is totally
> impossible without the support of vijnana. The vijnana without defilements
> is fully capable of penetrating the womb of rebirth at will to accomplish
> reincarnation.
>
Punnadhammo
<chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the vijnana,
> that which reincarnate.
This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha. When the monk Sati said
"I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata to be that it is just this
consciousness which transmigrates." The Buddha called him a foolish man.
Jigme Dorje
reincarnated?
Mahasanti>The consciousness.
Jigme>This is conjectural, I'm afraid, and proceeds, unfortunately, not from
the diologues but from the commentarial tradition. I urge one and all to
read Punnadhammo Bhikkhu's excellent reply which is possibly the closest to
the Buddha's actual teaching on rebirth than I have read in any forum.
Maha wrote> Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is
the vijnana,
that which reincarnate.
Punnadhammo Bhikkhu>This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha. When
the monk Sati said
"I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata to be that it is just this
consciousness which transmigrates." The Buddha called him a foolish man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Jigme>A quick rehash for the benefit of M. Reipl and others: Consciousness
is one of the 5 aggregates of which the human personality is composed. The
aggregates are physical form, consciousness, perception, conception, and
dispositional tendencies.
All of these are transient. For example, your body - form is not the same
one you had as a child, nor is it even the same from moment to moment. By
the same token, you no longer perceive things in the same way, your
conceptual processes are not the same and nor are your habits (dispositional
tendencies) or consciousness. (consciousness in Buddhist thought refers to
very discrete and specific moments of awareness.)
Conjecture about metaphysical is extremely rampant even though he Buddha
placed no credance in it. Maha's assertion that one must get sick and tired
of the enless rounds of rebirth before dukkha sets in is, I'm afraid,
laughable at best. If we cannot in fact recall our prior lifetimes and even
the Buddha had no such recollection until just prior to his awakening, did
the Buddha then lie in characterizing the basic human condition as one of
dukkha?
Whatever rebirth is, it is not the simple transmigration of a personality
(or even an aggregate) passing like an astronaut from form to form.
Does the teaching of the 5 aggregates mean that while the aggregates
themselves are not the "self", there is indeed a true "self" apart from
them ? The Buddha denied it and taught anatta (no soul) to counter this
notion. However, he also derided the annihilists who maintained that there
was no continuity at all.
The point is that self awareness - the concept of a discrete self - is a
delusion. The reality lines may in fact be more blurred than the human mind
may admit to. My own "understanding" of rebirth is based on the fact that
the Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical and ontological, but
rather, the psychological and epistemological. For me, the wheel of
becoming is a potent enough symbol of what happens within even one lifetime
to cause me to conjecture beyond it. I have no verifiable and veridical
knowledge of any lifetimes beyond this one, although I do not deny or
exclude the possibility. Why conjecture? Since dukkha is just too real to
ignore, why distract myself with even more unsupportable theory?
Do I deny rebirth simply because I admit that there are many possible
interpretations for it, none of them verifiable? No.
Geneticists, physicists, spiritualists - everyone is quick to offer their
own narrow interpretations of rebirth, but none of them can prove that they
are correct. So why look to me for the answer?
Here's what we do know. We can understand the grasping and craving for
becoming and ignorance; we can understand that they are the causes of it.
We can understand that the dukkha, the sense of existential angst, would not
exist without becoming or the craving for it.
We can understand that all acts lay down the preconditions for what follows
and that nothing exists on its own but rather as part of an endless chain of
co-dependent conditions.
We can understand that it is our responsibility to take control of our lives
here and now while and insofar as we are able.
So, actually, all we're capable of knowing is, coincidentally, all we
really need to know to follow the path to the cessation of dukkha.
Sincerely,
Jigme
Lee Dillion
This is a nice way of saying what the Buddha noted in Majjhima Nikaya 72
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (To Vacchagotta on Fire) at
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn72.html In this sutta,
the the Buddha, in answer to the question "Does Master Gotama have any
position at all [regarding issues such as the existence o a soul or the
beginning or end of the cosmos]?" replies:
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of
this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation,
renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations,
all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack
of sustenance/clinging, released."
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Punnadhammo <arcc@NOSPAM_baynet.net> wrote in message
news:arcc-ya02408000R...@news.baynet.net...
> In article <82rr57$ba$1...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
> <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
>
>
> > Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the
vijnana,
> > that which reincarnate.
>
> This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha. When the monk Sati said
> "I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata to be that it is just this
> consciousness which transmigrates." The Buddha called him a foolish man.
Excellence!
The last vijnana called alaya (storehouse) consciousness is the ground for
transmigration, therefore to implies consciousness which transmigrate
without having first distinguished the nature of this consciousness would
not be free from the error of this being the alaya vijnana which
transmigrate, this would result in a serious doctrinal error.
In other words, the alaya vijnana as the ground of transmigration cannot
itself become the transmigrated, what is transmigrated is the 7th vijnana,
which is defile-mind vijnana. But this vijnana do not exist without
mental-defilement which lead to transmigration, and mental defilements will
not constitute the 7th vijnana without the 6th vijnana which is the nature
of mind.i.e from the 6th vijnana, together with the rest of the 5 vijnanas
comprised of the 5 sense faculties are pure and do not accumulates
rebirth-linking kamma. The transmigration of the 7 vijnanas within the baby
in the womb of the mother occurred within the ground of the 8th vijnana.
It is from this prospective that I said mental defilements cannot withstand
transmigration since it is unsupported by the (6th) vijnana, therefore
mental defilements must be supported by the (6th) vijnana to form the 7th
vijnana, from which the (7th) consciousness is that which transmigrate.
Without this basis of understanding, it is indeed easy for fools who pretend
to be knowledgeable about transmigration to repeat the obvious. But him who
can reveal the underlying differences is no fool. Him who keep silence has
been cautious.
Lee
<chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:38546DC4...@micron.net...
> This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option
> for
> sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is
> rebirth in the
> 6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
No - my quote of the Vacchagotta Sutta is for those who wish to read
and understand the suttas. If a different approach or myth to
awakening works better for you, that is acceptable to me - but you make
the mistake of attempting to impose your approach on others.
-------
Lee Dillion
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Jigme Dorje
never understood them as you do? Could it be that, just as Manjushri is
always present when you compose your golden letters, that he is also present
when you read the sutras?
Seeing your picture on the web site, you appear so young and I think, "if
only my son were as wise."
How is it one so young can be so wise? Would you mind if I ask your age?
Mahasanti wrote>Wrong Jigme, I guess you are still not convinced that dukkha
is cause by the
>precipice of rebirth, thus let me refer to the Sacca Samyutta 56.5 (ii):
"On
>a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Rajagaha, on the hill
>Vulture's Peak. Then the Exalted One addressed the monks, saying: 'Monks,
>let us go to Splendid Spur for the noon day rest.'
>
>'So be it, lord,' replied those monks to the Exalted One.
>
>'So the Exalted One with a number of monks came to the Splendid Spur. Now a
>certain monk saw the great precipice and on seeing it said to the Exalted
>One:
>
>'Lord, this is indeed a great precipice! This is indeed a fearsome
>precipice, lord! Pray, lord, is there anywhere a precipice greater and more
>frightful?'
>
>'Yes, monk. There is indeed a precipice greater and more frightful. And
what
>is that?'
>
>'Monks, whatsoever recluses or brahmins understand not, as it really is,
the
>meaning of: This is ill (dukkha). this is the cause of ill (dukkha). ...
>Such persons delight in activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old
>age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus taking
>delight, they compose a compound of activities (sankhara) that conduce to
>rebirth...lamentation and despair. Thus composing a compound of activities
>that lead (to such ends), they fall down the precipice of rebirth, of old
>age, of death...they fall down the precipice of lamentation and despair.
>Such are not release from rebirth....lamentation and despair. They are not
>released from ill (dukkha), I declare.
>
>'But, monks, those recluses or brahmins who do understand, as it really is,
>the meaning of This is ill (dukkha). this is the cause of ill
>(dukkha)...such take not delight in activities that conduce to
>rebirth....lamentation and despair. Not taking delight therein they compose
>not a compound of activities that conduce to rebirth...lamentation and
>despair. Not composing a compound of activities that so lead, they fall not
>down the precipice of rebirth, old age, death...lamentation and despair.
>They are utterly released from rebirth....they are released from ill
>(dukkha), I declare.
>
>'Wherefore, monks, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
>(dukkha)....'
>
>Jigme, I guess you are still not convinced that dukkha is cause by the
>rarity of human birth while in the circle of transmigration. As such I
shall
>refer to the Sacca Samyutta 56.5 (viii): 'Suppose, monks, this mighty earth
>were one mass of water, and a man were to throw down thereon a yoke with
one
>hole. Then comes a man were to throw down thereon a yoke with one hole.
Then
>comes a wind from the east and wafts it west, and a wind from the west
wafts
>it east: a north wind wafts it south and a south wind wafts it north. Then
>once at the end of a hundred years a blind turtle pops up to the surface.
>Now what think ye, monks? Would that blind turtle push his neck through
that
>yoke with one hole whenever he popped up to the surface at the end of a
>hundred years?'
>
>'It is unlikely, lord, that the blind turtle would do that.'
>
>'It is just as unlikely, monks, that one will get birth in human form; just
>as unlikely that a Tathagata should arise in the world, an Arahant, a fully
>Enlightened One; just as unlikely, monks, that the Dhamma and discipline
>proclaimed by a Tathagata should be shown in the world.
>
>'But now indeed, monks, this state of human birth is won, and a Tathagata
>has arisen in the world, and the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the
>Tathagata is shown in the world.
>
>'Wherefore, monks, ye must make an effort to realize. This is ill (dukkha).
>This is the cause of ill (dukkha)...
>
>>
>> Whatever rebirth is, it is not the simple transmigration of a personality
>> (or even an aggregate) passing like an astronaut from form to form.
>
>Wrong Jigme, the 5 aggregates, including the aggregate of consciousness
did
>indeed descent into the womb of the future mother, in order to wipe out
your
>doubt, I have to refer to the sutta again:
>
>'In the previous kamma-process becoming there is delusion, which is
>ignorance; there is accumulation, which is formations; there is attachment,
>which is craving; there is embracing, which is clinging, there is volition,
>which is becoming; thus these five things in the previous kamma-process
>becoming are conditions for rebirth-linking here (in the present becoming)
>'here (in the previous becoming) there is rebirth-linking, which is
>consciousness; there is descent into the womb, which is
>mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is sense-base; there is
>what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling;
>thus these five things here in the (previous) rebirth-process becoming have
>their conditions in kamma done in the past.
>'Here (in the present becoming) with the maturing of the bases there is
>delusion, which is ignorance; there is accumulation, which is formations;
>there is attachment, which is craving; there is embracing, which is
>clinging, there is volition which is becoming; thus these five things in
the
>(present) kamma-process becoming are conditions for rebirth-linking here
(in
>the future becoming)
>'here (in the present becoming) there is rebirth-linking, which is
>consciousness; there is descent into the womb, which is
>mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is sense-base; there is
>what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling;
>thus these five things here in the (present) rebirth-process becoming have
>their conditions in kamma done in the past'
>'In the future kamma-process becoming there is delusion, which is
ignorance;
>there is accumulation, which is formations; there is attachment, which is
>craving; there is becoming; thus these five things in the previous
>kamma-process becoming are conditions for rebirth-linking here (in the
>present becoming)
>'here (in the future becoming) there is rebirth-linking, which is
>consciousness; there is descent into the womb, which is
>mentality-materiality; there is sensitivity, which is sense-base; there is
>what is touched, which is contact; there is what is felt, which is feeling;
>thus these five things here in the (future) rebirth-process becoming have
>their conditions in kamma done in the past' (Ps.i,52).
>
>>
>> Does the teaching of the 5 aggregates mean that while the aggregates
>> themselves are not the "self", there is indeed a true "self" apart from
>> them ?
>
>They can be purified, Jigme, not removed in the awakened. Because they the
>basis for emotivities in the deluded, and basis for wisdoms in the
awakened.
>If they are not to be called self, then they are not to be called true or
>false self, which is meaningless without a reference, since they are just
>the aggregates as such, it is not necessary to complicate them further by
>creating new name and designation.
>
>>The Buddha denied it and taught anatta (no soul) to counter this
>> notion. However, he also derided the annihilists who maintained that
>there
>> was no continuity at all.
>
>Therefore Jigme, to simply understand them as the aggregates and not as
some
>designation which have different meaning is very important to keep the
>meaning pure.
>>
>> The point is that self awareness - the concept of a discrete self - is a
>> delusion.
>
>Jigme. In order to label something as delusion, you have to understand
their
>definition. The same name with the right definition, even though it is
>called self, their meaning will still be correct.
>
>
>>The reality lines may in fact be more blurred than the human mind
>> may admit to. My own "understanding" of rebirth is based on the fact
that
>> the Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical and ontological, but
>> rather, the psychological and epistemological. For me, the wheel of
>> becoming is a potent enough symbol of what happens within even one
>lifetime
>> to cause me to conjecture beyond it. I have no verifiable and veridical
>> knowledge of any lifetimes beyond this one, although I do not deny or
>> exclude the possibility. Why conjecture? Since dukkha is just too real
>to
>> ignore, why distract myself with even more unsupportable theory?
>
>Jigme. There is enough to support this theory by reference to the the sutta
>and/or by analycal insight/logic.
>
>> Do I deny rebirth simply because I admit that there are many possible
>> interpretations for it, none of them verifiable? No.
>
>This is a good start, Jigme.
>
>> Geneticists, physicists, spiritualists - everyone is quick to offer their
>> own narrow interpretations of rebirth, but none of them can prove that
>they
>> are correct. So why look to me for the answer?
>
>They just haven't got the right questions for it, Jigme.
>
>> Here's what we do know. We can understand the grasping and craving for
>> becoming and ignorance; we can understand that they are the causes of it.
>
>Of course, Jigme.
>
>> We can understand that the dukkha, the sense of existential angst, would
>not
>> exist without becoming or the craving for it.
>
>It is obvious, Jigme.
>
>> We can understand that all acts lay down the preconditions for what
>follows
>> and that nothing exists on its own but rather as part of an endless chain
>of
>> co-dependent conditions.
>
>This is not a proper statement for ultmate truth, Jigme. For this would
>implies the uncompounded segment (rather than designation) which make up
>their co-dependent conditions as being capable of self-support.
>>
>> We can understand that it is our responsibility to take control of our
>lives
>> here and now while and insofar as we are able.
>
>Without attempting to penetrate reality, while only concerned about living
>is an act of selfishness, Jigme.
>>
>> So, actually, all we're capable of knowing is, coincidentally, all we
>> really need to know to follow the path to the cessation of dukkha.
>
>This is for people of small-minds, Jigme, to realize the reality of dukkha
>is more important than its cessation. For if you understand the nature of
>dukkha, dukkha without being eliminated, will simply be arise as the
>one-taste of raw sensation. Only at this point, Jigme, will you be able to
>benefit beings regardless of the hardship you will have to gone through.
Jigme Dorje
Tang Huyen
This passage occurs in Chinese at SA, 421, 111, and also occurs at SN, III, 87
(22, 79), SA, 46, 11c6-7: <<And why do you say "volitional compositions"
(sankhara, the fourth of the five aggregates)? Because they compose a compound
(sankhatam abhisankharonti), that is why the word "volitional composition"
(sankhara) is used. And what compound do they compose? It is form (rupa) that
they compose into a compound (sankhatam abhisankharonti) according to formness
(rupatta), feeling that they compose into a compound according to feelingness,
volitional compositions (sankhara) that they compose into a compound according
to volitional compositionness (sankharatta), consciousness that they compose
into a compound according to consciousnessness.>>
Astadasa, 1962, 194-195, Perfection, T, 25, 1509, 661b27-c3 (somewhat shorter),
Conze, Large Sutra, 546 have: "The Blessed One: ‘The notion of form is dual
(rupa-samjña dvayam); all notion and non-notion are dual (sarva-samjña yavac
ca-asamjña sarvam etad dvayam).’ As far as there is duality, there is existence
(yavad dvayam tavad bhavah), as far as there is existence there are the
compositions (yavad bhavas tavat samskaro), *as far as there are the
compositions, beings are not liberated* (yavat samskaras tavat sattva na
parimucyate)."
So both Vehicles admit that when one composes, one is bound, and when one stops
composing, one is free. That's all there is to Buddhism.
Jigme: <<Does the teaching of the 5 aggregates mean that while the aggregates
themselves are not the "self", there is indeed a true "self" apart from them
?>>
Mahasanti: <<They can be purified, Jigme, not removed in the awakened. Because
they the basis for emotivities in the deluded, and basis for wisdoms in the
awakened. If they are not to be called self, then they are not to be called true
or false self, which is meaningless without a reference, since they are just the
aggregates as such, it is not necessary to complicate them further by creating
new name and designation.>>
Jigme: <<The Buddha denied it and taught anatta (no soul) to counter this
notion. However, he also derided the annihilists who maintained that there was
no continuity at all.>>
Mahasanti: <<Therefore Jigme, to simply understand them as the aggregates and
not as some designation which have different meaning is very important to keep
the meaning pure.>>
At SA, 4-6, 1b-c, Turfanfunde, IV, 77, by "detaching from the desire for"
(chandam vi-ragayitva) each of the aggregates, "the mind is liberated from it"
(tatas cittam vimocayitva). See also SA, 10, 2a, 48, 12a, SN, III, 179 (22, 146)
("one is liberated from form [rupamha parimuccati]"), 66, 17c, 87, 22b (both
have: "one is liberated from form"), 290, 82a ("one is liberated from form,"
Nidana-samyukta, 121: "one is liberated from contact [sparsad api parimucyate],
from feeling to consciousness [vedanayah ... vijñanad api parimucyate]"). SA,
58, 14c23 (Scripture of the Ten Questions), MN, III, 18 (109) say: "The cutting
of desire and lust (chanda-raga-pahana), the transcending of desire and lust
(chanda-raga-vinaya) is the escape from form (rupe nissarana)." SA, 32, 7a, 354,
99b speak of "transcending form (and the other aggregates)" and of "transcending
contact" respectively.
So, to the Buddha, one can be liberated from the aggregates, the twelve
sense-fields, etc. However it has to be kept in mind that experience is unitary
and not divided, and the five aggregates, the twelve sense-fields, etc. are
merely useful methods of cutting-up and labelling that help in doing away with
cutting-up and labelling.
In the awakened, in sensation there is only sensation and nothing else, like any
thought or concept (the Buddha says: "in the seen there will be just the seen,
in the heard just the heard"), and sensation is left in its rawness, which is
the ultimate in the Buddha's Buddhism. The awakened does not mentate anything,
least of all the self. He does not cut up experience (which is raw sensation
received in pure consciousness) and label the parts, like the five aggregates,
the twelve sense-fields, this chair, that person, etc. Thus to say "to simply
understand them as the aggregates and not as some designation which have
different meaning is very important to keep the meaning pure" is already to say
too much, though during cultivation one may use such thought to keep the thought
of self out.
Jigme: <<So, actually, all we're capable of knowing is, coincidentally, all we
really need to know to follow the path to the cessation of dukkha.>>
Mahasanti: <<This is for people of small-minds, Jigme, to realize the reality of
dukkha is more important than its cessation. For if you understand the nature of
dukkha, dukkha without being eliminated, will simply be arise as the one-taste
of raw sensation. Only at this point, Jigme, will you be able to benefit beings
regardless of the hardship you will have to gone through.>>
When one attains to raw sensation, with all mentation removed, one will
experience the four joys mentioned by the Buddha: joy of desirelessness, joy of
aloofness, joy of calm, joy of awakening (nekkhama-sukha, paviveka-sukha,
upasama-sukha, sambodha-sukha). MA, 191, 738a, SA, 485, 124b, MN, I, 454 (66),
III, 110 (140), Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 353c1-2. Whatever one
chooses to do or not to do is entirely free and under no obligation. One can
perfectly choose *not* to share with others the path that led one to where one
is.
Tang Huyen
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Jigme Dorje <stev...@magiccarpet.com> wrote in message
news:s58fb9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Jigme>A quick rehash for the benefit of M. Reipl and others: Consciousness
> is one of the 5 aggregates of which the human personality is composed.
The
> aggregates are physical form, consciousness, perception, conception, and
> dispositional tendencies.
> All of these are transient. For example, your body - form is not the same
> one you had as a child, nor is it even the same from moment to moment. By
> the same token, you no longer perceive things in the same way, your
> conceptual processes are not the same and nor are your habits
(dispositional
> tendencies) or consciousness. (consciousness in Buddhist thought refers
to
> very discrete and specific moments of awareness.)
Wrong Jigme, the aggregate of consciousness is the uncompounded, the various
compounded characterics were arise and supported on it, because a separate
support is not established, with regards to the consciousness aggregate,
whatever has the characteristic of cognizing, all taken together, as the
consciousness aggregate. Consciousness (vinnana); according as it is said:
'It cognizes, friend, that is why "consciousness" is said' (M.i, 292). The
words vinnana (consciousness), citta (mind, consciousness), and mano (mind)
are one in meaning. That same consciousness, though one in its individual
essence with the characteristic of cognizing, is threefold according to
kind, namely, (I) profitable, (II) unprofitable, and (III) indeterminate.
(profitable in the sense of health, blamelessness, and pleasant result.
Unprofitable in the opposite sense. Indeterminate because not describable as
either profitable or unprofitable. This is the first of the 22 triads in the
Abhidhamma Matika (Dhs., p.I).)
I. Herein, the profitable is fourfold according to plane namely, (A) of the
sense sphere, (B) of the fine-material sphere, (C) of the immaterial sphere
and (D) supramundane. Where (A) has eightfold, according to joy, equanimity,
knowledge and prompting (B) has fivefold, according to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th jhana attainments, (C) has fourfold, according to Boundless space,
Boundless consciousness, Nothingness, and
Neither-perception-nor-non-perception attainments(D) has fourfold, according
to Path moment -- stream-entry, Once-return, Non-return, and Arahantship.
These totally 21 kinds.
II. The unprofitable is of one kind according to plane being only of the
sense sphere. It is of three kinds according to root, as (a) rooted in
greed, (b) rooted in hate, and (c) rooted in delusion.
II. (a) Herein, (22)-(29) that rooted in greed is of 8 kinds, being classed
according to joy, equanimity, (false) view, and prompting. They are
totalling 12 kinds.
III. the Indeterminate is of two kinds: (i) resultant, and (ii) functional.
Herein, III.i, resultant is of 4 kinds according to plane; namely (A) of
sense sphere, (B) of fine-material sphere, (C) of immaterial sphere, and (D)
supramundane. Totalling 36 kinds III.ii. The functional, however, is of
three kinds according to plane; (A) of sense sphere, (B) of fine-material
sphere, (C) of immaterial sphere. Herein, III.ii.A. that of the sense sphere
is of two kinds, namely (1) without root-cause, and (2) with root-cause.
Totalling 20 kinds.
> Conjecture about metaphysical is extremely rampant even though he Buddha
> placed no credance in it. Maha's assertion that one must get sick and
tired
> of the enless rounds of rebirth before dukkha sets in is, I'm afraid,
> laughable at best. If we cannot in fact recall our prior lifetimes and
even
> the Buddha had no such recollection until just prior to his awakening, did
> the Buddha then lie in characterizing the basic human condition as one of
> dukkha?
Wrong Jigme, I guess you are still not convinced that dukkha is cause by the
>
> Does the teaching of the 5 aggregates mean that while the aggregates
> themselves are not the "self", there is indeed a true "self" apart from
> them ?
They can be purified, Jigme, not removed in the awakened. Because they the
basis for emotivities in the deluded, and basis for wisdoms in the awakened.
If they are not to be called self, then they are not to be called true or
false self, which is meaningless without a reference, since they are just
the aggregates as such, it is not necessary to complicate them further by
creating new name and designation.
>The Buddha denied it and taught anatta (no soul) to counter this
> notion. However, he also derided the annihilists who maintained that
there
> was no continuity at all.
Therefore Jigme, to simply understand them as the aggregates and not as some
designation which have different meaning is very important to keep the
meaning pure.
>
Of course, Jigme.
It is obvious, Jigme.
> So, actually, all we're capable of knowing is, coincidentally, all we
> really need to know to follow the path to the cessation of dukkha.
This is for people of small-minds, Jigme, to realize the reality of dukkha
is more important than its cessation. For if you understand the nature of
dukkha, dukkha without being eliminated, will simply be arise as the
one-taste of raw sensation. Only at this point, Jigme, will you be able to
benefit beings regardless of the hardship you will have to gone through.
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:38546DC4...@micron.net...
>
> This is a nice way of saying what the Buddha noted in Majjhima Nikaya 72
> Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta (To Vacchagotta on Fire) at
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn72.html In this sutta,
> the the Buddha, in answer to the question "Does Master Gotama have any
> position at all [regarding issues such as the existence o a soul or the
> beginning or end of the cosmos]?" replies:
>
> "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
> What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
> disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
> such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
> consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of
> this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation,
> renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations,
> all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack
> of sustenance/clinging, released."
This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option for
sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is rebirth in the
6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
Jigme...@mindful.com
is one of the 5 aggregates of which the human personality is composed.
The aggregates are physical form, consciousness, perception, conception, and
to very discrete and specific moments of awareness.)
Mahasanti>Wrong Jigme, the aggregate of consciousness is the uncompounded, the
various
compounded characterics were arise and supported on it, because a separate
support is not established, with regards to the consciousness aggregate,
whatever has the characteristic of cognizing, all taken together, as the
consciousness aggregate.
Jigme>Wrong, Mahasanti. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59:
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness
would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be
possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus.
Let my consciousness not be thus.' But
precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to
dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with
regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness
not be thus.'
And Samyutta Nikaya XXII.95:
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick --
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
Jigme> Conjecture about metaphysical is extremely rampant even though he
Buddha
placed no credance in it. Maha's assertion that one must get sick and tired
of the enless rounds of rebirth before dukkha sets in is, I'm afraid,
laughable at best. If we cannot in fact recall our prior lifetimes and
even the Buddha had no such recollection until just prior to his awakening,
did
the Buddha then lie in characterizing the basic human condition as one of
dukkha?
Maha>Wrong Jigme, I guess you are still not convinced that dukkha is cause by
the
precipice of rebirth, thus let me refer to the Sacca Samyutta 56.5
"'Monks, whatsoever recluses or brahmins understand not, as it really is, the
meaning of: This is ill (dukkha). this is the cause of ill (dukkha). ...
Such persons delight in activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old
age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus taking
delight, they compose a compound of activities (sankhara) that conduce to
rebirth...lamentation and despair. Thus composing a compound of activities
that lead (to such ends), they fall down the precipice of rebirth, of old
age, of death...they fall down the precipice of lamentation and despair.
Such are not release from rebirth....lamentation and despair. They are not
released from ill (dukkha), I declare.
'But, monks, those recluses or brahmins who do understand, as it really is,
the meaning of This is ill (dukkha). this is the cause of ill
(dukkha)...such take not delight in activities that conduce to
rebirth....lamentation and despair. Not taking delight therein they compose
not a compound of activities that conduce to rebirth...lamentation and
despair. Not composing a compound of activities that so lead, they fall not
down the precipice of rebirth, old age, death...lamentation and despair.
They are utterly released from rebirth....they are released from ill
(dukkha), I declare.
Jigme>A Good start. Sacca Samyutta 56.5 clearly states that "activities that
conduce to rebirth....lamentation and despair" are the cause of dukha. Be
careful, however, not to efall into reductionism and narrowly equate dukkha
to rebirth. That misses the point entirely and reduces a profound teaching to
mere dogmaticism.
But dukkha is far more subtle than this. You are almost there but have not
fathomed. Samyutta Nikaya XII.31:
"And how is one a person who has fathomed the Dhamma? "One sees with right
discernment that 'this has come into being.' Seeing with right discernment
that 'this has come into
being,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack
of clinging/sustenance -- released from what
has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'it has come into
being from this nutriment.' Seeing with right
discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment,' one is --
through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation,
through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from the nutriment by which it
has come into being. One sees with right
discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into
being is subject to cessation.' Seeing with right
discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into
being is subject to cessation,' one is -- through
disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance --
released from what is subject to cessation.
This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma."
Jigme> Whatever rebirth is, it is not the simple transmigration of a
personality
or even an aggregate) passing like an astronaut from form to form.
Mahasanti>Wrong Jigme, the 5 aggregates, including the aggregate of
consciousness did
indeed descent into the womb of the future mother, in order to wipe out your
doubt, I have to refer to the sutta again:
'...here (in the future becoming) there is rebirth-linking, which is
consciousness..."
Jigme>Again a good start, Mahasanti. You are citing donsciousness in the sense
that it is described as a link in the causal chain of dependent co-arising
as, for example, in Samyutta Nikaya XII:"From consciousness as a requisite
condition comes name-&-form."
But while it may proliferate and link, and while there is continuum, all of
the 5 skandas are ephemeral and ever changing.
Thus, in Samyutta Nikaya XXII.93:
"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
Jigme>The point is that self awareness - the concept of a discrete self - is
a
delusion.
Mahasanti>Jigme. In order to label something as delusion, you have to
understand their definition. The same name with the right definition, even
though it is called self, their meaning will still be correct.
Jigme>Unfortunately, I cannot help you there. Discernment will come with
practice. What I would prescribe for you is a little less theorizing, a lot
more practice.
Jigme>The reality lines may in fact be more blurred than the human mind
may admit to. My own "understanding" of rebirth is based on the fact that
the Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical and ontological, but
ather, the psychological and epistemological. For me, the wheel of becoming
is a potent enough symbol of what happens within even one
lifetime to cause me to conjecture beyond it. I have no verifiable and
veridical
knowledge of any lifetimes beyond this one, although I do not deny or
exclude the possibility. Why conjecture? Since dukkha is just too real
to ignore, why distract myself with even more unsupportable theory?
Jigme. There is enough to support this theory by reference to the the sutta
and/or by analycal insight/logic.
Jigme>The proper use of sutra is not to support one's pet theories.
Jigme>We can understand that all acts lay down the preconditions for what
follows and that nothing exists on its own but rather as part of an endless
chain
of co-dependent conditions.
Mahasanti>This is not a proper statement for ultmate truth, Jigme. For this
would implies the uncompounded segment (rather than designation) which make
up their co-dependent conditions as being capable of self-support.
Jigme>I merely reiterate the Buddha's words as put forth in the Pali sutras.
Of course, you may dispute them, if you like.
Jigme> We can understand that it is our responsibility to take control of our
lives here and now while and insofar as we are able.
Mahasanti>Without attempting to penetrate reality, while only concerned about
living is an act of selfishness, Jigme.
Jigme>That was not implied. The subject of discussion, you will recall, is
dukkha.
Jigme> So, actually, all we're capable of knowing is, coincidentally, all we
really need to know to follow the path to the cessation of dukkha.
Mahasanti>This is for people of small-minds, Jigme, to realize the reality of
dukkha is more important than its cessation. For if you understand the nature
of dukkha, dukkha without being eliminated, will simply be arise as the
one-taste of raw sensation. Only at this point, Jigme, will you be able to
benefit beings regardless of the hardship you will have to gone through.
Jigme>While this is interesting, you again completely miss the point. The
Buddha may have been, as you imply, someone of small mind, but his primary
teaching was the cessation of dukkha.
Majjhima Nikaya 9: "And what is suffering, what is the origin of suffering,
what is the cessation of suffering, what is the way leading to the
cessation of suffering? Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is
suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation,
pain, grief and despair are suffering; not to obtain what one wants is
suffering; in short, the five aggregates affected by
clinging are suffering. This is called suffering.
"And what is the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of
being, is accompanied by delight and lust,
and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving
for being and craving for non-being. This is
called the origin of suffering.
"And what is the cessation of suffering? It is the remainderless fading away
and ceasing, the giving up, relinquishing,
letting go and rejecting of that same craving. This is called the cessation of
suffering.
"And what is the way leading to the cessation of suffering? It is just this
Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view...right
concentration. This is called the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
"When a noble disciple has thus understood suffering, the origin of suffering,
the cessation of suffering, and the way
leading to the cessation of suffering...he here and now makes an end of
suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of
right view...and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
DharmaTroll
arcc@NOSPAM_baynet.net (Punnadhammo) wrote:
> The Buddhist idea of rebirth is that each successive moment of
> consciousness conditions the next. There is nothing which persists
> even from moment to moment within one life. The causal link is
> karma, each moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh
> from the void. And passes away into the void.
Excellent. Well said, Punnadhammo. This is just what *rebirth* is,
as opposed to the self or the soul or the consciousness going
through time, as in the Hindu and New Age models.
No such further fact ever exists. There is just the present state of
the system at one moment conditioning the state of the system the next.
> At death, if there is still karma outstanding the consciousness will
OOPS! That's a soul view. Bhante Punnadhammo slipped in a soul again
with that sentence: "the consciousness". See how tricky this gets?
Don't let that sneaky old soulist Punnadhammo tell you that he goes
for the Buddhist teaching of anatta, as he adds the soul in every time.
As soon as you add a reified, substantantial thing "the..." whatever,
again you've missed the whole point of rebirth and anatta and how it
differs from reincarnation/transmigration of the Hindus and New Agers.
Someone wrote:
>> preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma
>> as an allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his
>> teachings in a manner comfortable to Hindus.
Of course. Remember that Westerners have it ass-backwards! Because
we don't have reincarnation of the soul as given in our culture.
Hindus did. So rebirth was a watered-down version, which was attacking
reincarnation. Whereas Westerners take it as if it were positing
reincarnation. The Buddha was working in a cultural setting, which
so many bozos so often forget.
Punnadhammo:
> This has been suggested from time to time but doesn't bear scrutiny.
That is, Punnadhammo won't scrutinize it. Instead, he takes rebirth
to be reincarnation of the soul, which he calls 'the consciousness'
into a new body, even though he pays lip service to the distinction
between rebirth and reincarnation.
And then the whole point is missed, which is that *now* there is no
self from moment to moment, but only the state of the system at this
moment conditioning the state of the system in the next moment.
So ignore the silly spookie going to another body story and remember:
> The Buddhist idea of rebirth is that each successive moment of
> consciousness conditions the next. There is nothing which persists
> even from moment to moment within one life. The causal link is
> karma, each moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh
> from the void. And passes away into the void.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried)
>
> In article <82rr57$ba$1...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
> <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
>
> > Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the vijnana,
> > that which reincarnate.
>
> This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha. When the monk Sati said
> "I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata to be that it is just this
> consciousness which transmigrates." The Buddha called him a foolish man.
Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness (viссв.na) that
fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)." He erred by saying
that it does so "without change of identity" (tadeva...anaссa.m) and
also in regarding it as the "speaker & experiencer." This is not the
same as to say that consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened
the door to the possiblity that consciousness while transmigrating is
mutable rather than immutable.
Best regards,
AvS
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Lee <dillionl...@micron.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:254d6108...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
> In article <833d58$sjn$7...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
> > This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option
> > for
> > sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is
> > rebirth in the
> > 6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
>
> No - my quote of the Vacchagotta Sutta is for those who wish to read
> and understand the suttas.
Then you are in the wrong thread, wrong subject. The topic is to prove the
existence of reincarnation, not the freedom from bondage, definitely not the
release of Tathagata.
>If a different approach or myth to
> awakening works better for you, that is acceptable to me - but you make
> the mistake of attempting to impose your approach on others.
This is not the right place to discussed any approach, but to reveal
reincarnation. Period.
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Correct. When one is bound, one is bound in cycling existence, where
reincarnation is the root cause of dukkha. While bondage is not dukkha but
the cause of reincarnation which itself is dukkha. To analyse further, even
rebirth is not dukkha, if not for the inevitable circles of the three lower
realms. By this connection, we say bondage is dukkha, not understanding that
even pureland arises from bondage, one even confused pure land as dukkha.
This is sad.
Indeed. However, one must not forget that these terms misses at least three
critical branches of analysis of mahayana, namely: (1) First the liberation
as absolute implies annihilation of the aggregates, which is the formless,
emptied aspect of dhammakaya, which is the term you presented, this term is
not to be refuted. (2) But its unannihilated aspects of the aggregates
(being purified) become causes of buddha wisdoms, the basis in which the
form (of appearances) of nibbana will be supported. (3) While the
unannihilated aspects of aggregates as defilements of the ground (alaya)
become support for vessels as well as nirmanakayas of impured samsara.
>In the awakened, in sensation there is only sensation and nothing else,
like any
>thought or concept (the Buddha says: "in the seen there will be just the
seen,
>in the heard just the heard"), and sensation is left in its rawness, which
is
>the ultimate in the Buddha's Buddhism. The awakened does not mentate
anything,
>least of all the self. He does not cut up experience (which is raw
sensation
>received in pure consciousness) and label the parts, like the five
aggregates,
>the twelve sense-fields, this chair, that person, etc. Thus to say "to
simply
>understand them as the aggregates and not as some designation which have
>different meaning is very important to keep the meaning pure" is already to
say
>too much, though during cultivation one may use such thought to keep the
thought
>of self out.
I agreed with the formal part. But the latter, the aggregates, and their
characteristics are realised and experienced as uncompounded reality, not as
mere designation (because of being the direct experience of the nature of
nonmentated wisdoms, from which form, feelings, and so forth, become the
mean for uncompounded insight). To ignored the aggregates, therefore is to
ignore form, feelings, and so forth, and by that suppression of cognizance
responsiveness arising from the (potential of) aggregates, there will be
absorption into the 4 formless attainments. Yet even these absorptions are
supported on the aggregate of consciousness in its Profitable characteristic
branch, and not as the result of the cessation, or annihilation (absence) of
the aggregate of consciousness.
>When one attains to raw sensation, with all mentation removed, one will
>experience the four joys mentioned by the Buddha: joy of desirelessness,
joy of
>aloofness, joy of calm, joy of awakening (nekkhama-sukha, paviveka-sukha,
>upasama-sukha, sambodha-sukha). MA, 191, 738a, SA, 485, 124b, MN, I, 454
(66),
>III, 110 (140), Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T, 32, 1646, 353c1-2. Whatever
one
>chooses to do or not to do is entirely free and under no obligation. One
can
>perfectly choose *not* to share with others the path that led one to where
one
>is.
These joys arises from the aggregates of feeling, consciousness, and so
forth, and are intimately supported on it. Thus if the aggregates are
liberated, ceased, or annihilated, these feeling of joy, equanimity, etc.
will also liberated, ceased, or annihilated.
Herein I repost:
'...the aggregate of consciousness is the uncompounded, the various
compounded characteristics were arise and supported on it, because a
separate
support is not established, with regards to the consciousness aggregate,
whatever has the characteristic of cognising, all taken together, as the
consciousness aggregate. Consciousness (vinnana); according as it is said:
'It cognizes, friend, that is why "consciousness" is said' (M.i, 292). The
words vinnana (consciousness), citta (mind, consciousness), and mano (mind)
are one in meaning. That same consciousness, though one in its individual
essence with the characteristic of cognising, is threefold according to
The Profitable and Unprofitable branches of the consciousness aggregate show
that the joy, equanimity, and so forth are qualities supported on it.
With regards to sharing with others. These others are also supported on the
aggregates, because they are appearances, which must be sustained by the
aggregate of form. By purifying this aggregates, all forms become purified
as well. Ultimately, all form-contents become the nirmanakaya of one's
nature. Intention and actions are spontaneously fulfilled by these
nirmanakaya, which are supported, as well as being the expression of the
potential of the aggregates.
Therefore, the question of whether to share with others, or not, is free
from the concepts of the four extremes.
Alex Wilding
DharmaTroll wrote in message <836f15$p9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Someone wrote:
>>> preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma
>>> as an allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his
>>> teachings in a manner comfortable to Hindus.
>
>Of course. Remember that Westerners have it ass-backwards! Because
>we don't have reincarnation of the soul as given in our culture.
>Hindus did. So rebirth was a watered-down version, which was attacking
>reincarnation. Whereas Westerners take it as if it were positing
>reincarnation. The Buddha was working in a cultural setting, which
>so many bozos so often forget.
I think you will find that many scholars (including the other person you
would like to be, DT) are of the opinion that in the Buddha's day, the
reincarnation/rebirth theory was one of several competing views. The Buddha,
as a result of his experiences (particularly under the bodhi tree) adopted
it, perhaps modiified it, and thereby promoted it. The great success
Buddhism had in India for one and a half thousand years probably contributed
to the wide acceptance of various forms of the doctrine.
At the time he chose to teach in those terms, howerver, the doctrine, while
not unknown, was not a cultural "given". The Buddha influenced his cultural
setting.
Alex W
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Jigme Dorje <stev...@magiccarpet.com> wrote in message
news:s5b4q6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Jigme>Maha, how is it I have read the same writings so many times and yet
> never understood them as you do?
Unless you read out of question, the answer would come out from the
writings.
>Could it be that, just as Manjushri is
> always present when you compose your golden letters, that he is also
present
> when you read the sutras?
He is always present.
>
> Seeing your picture on the web site, you appear so young and I think, "if
> only my son were as wise."
> How is it one so young can be so wise?
The brain declined with age.
Would you mind if I ask your age?
The age when Bruce Lee pass away.
All compounded things are impermanence, this body made of dust will return
to dust.
--
Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
(dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is the
practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
anarkissed
strife. Were we to adopt the idea that our being is only that of furthering
the whole, that nothing of *me* continues after all this, we would slack
off. In fact, as *me* is *us* and *us* is *me* we are indeed "returning"
though we do not necessarily cohere as the same *me* that was present
previously. But then, the *me* that began this post is not the one who
finishes it. Still, it is for vanity we seek enlightenment, nirvana,
completion, heaven, etc., only for vanity. Else hedonism would be our happy
path, to roll upon fur and silk drinking fine wine and tasting fine bodies
in warmth. The vain self only pretends to care for the health of the whole.
The enlightened knows how little importance his caring has in respect to
that whole, compassion is only important as a quality of self, it does
nothing for the whole which is all, save that when all parts have achieved
the goal, then all parts are in harmony and joy.
Please pardon if I have offended with my mindless prattle, it is late and my
conceit is high.
Alex Wilding <wil...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:837mjl$mb9$3...@scotty.tinet.ie...
Lee Dillion
>
> --
> Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
> (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
> --
>
> news:254d6108...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
> > In article <833d58$sjn$7...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
> > > This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option
> > > for
> > > sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is
> > > rebirth in the
> > > 6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
> >
> > No - my quote of the Vacchagotta Sutta is for those who wish to read
> > and understand the suttas.
>
> Then you are in the wrong thread, wrong subject. The topic is to prove the
> existence of reincarnation, not the freedom from bondage, definitely not the
> release of Tathagata.
Prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of reincarnation, God,
the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after
death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand the sutta
that was quoted.
While you waste time proving that your raft exists, you might watch for
leaks.
> >If a different approach or myth to
> > awakening works better for you, that is acceptable to me - but you make
> > the mistake of attempting to impose your approach on others.
>
> This is not the right place to discussed any approach, but to reveal
> reincarnation. Period.
You need to read and understand more - and write less. Period.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
spacejan
Lee Dillion wrote in message <38579065...@micron.net>...
>Mahasanti wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
>> (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
>> --
>>
>> Lee <dillionl...@micron.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:254d6108...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
>> > In article <833d58$sjn$7...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
>> > > This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option
>> > > for
>> > > sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is
>> > > rebirth in the
>> > > 6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
>> >
>> > No - my quote of the Vacchagotta Sutta is for those who wish to read
>> > and understand the suttas.
>>
>leaks.
>
>> >If a different approach or myth to
>> > awakening works better for you, that is acceptable to me - but you make
>> > the mistake of attempting to impose your approach on others.
>>
>> This is not the right place to discussed any approach, but to reveal
>> reincarnation. Period.
>
>You need to read and understand more - and write less. Period.
>
>--
>Lee Dillion
>dill...@micron.net
Yes! : )
anarkissed
Sean White <al...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:3857BC0B...@iname.com...
> Dobbs says "Give me SLACK"!
>
> Alaya (Sean)
Sean White
DharmaTroll
"Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
DT:
>> Of course. Remember that Westerners have it ass-backwards! Because
>> we don't have reincarnation of the soul as given in our culture.
>> Hindus did. So rebirth was a watered-down version, which was
>> attacking reincarnation. Whereas Westerners take it as if it were
>> positing reincarnation. The Buddha was working in a cultural
>> setting, which so many bozos so often forget.
> I think you will find that many scholars (including the other person
> you would like to be, DT) are of the opinion that in the Buddha's
> day, the reincarnation/rebirth theory was one of several competing
> views.
Really? I don't like to be wrong. I said that it was the predominant
one, not that it was unanimously accepted by everybody. In any case,
he goes against the grain in a direction away from reincarnation.
That's why Buddhism was often considered indistinguishable from
materialism by non-Buddhists in India.
> The Buddha, as a result of his experiences (particularly under the
> bodhi tree) adopted it, perhaps modiified it, and thereby promoted
You're talking about the story of the Buddha's enlightenment, which
is told as a legend. Right in the same paragraph as his seeing the
countless past-lives is the bit about his stretching his hand and
making it big enough to touch the sun and moon. What's your point?
We're back to quibbling about Noah's Ark again. Sure, if you take
the myths literally you can make the Buddha into a comic book hero
and posit all sorts of crazy stuff. If that turns you on, go for it.
I find treating mythology as scientific journal writing to be absurd
and not at all helpful in any way.
Finally, I don't even care if the Buddha believed in rebirth, or in
a flat earth, or in a 4 or 5 element chemistry. That's his cultural
background. I care about what he says about the ending of craving,
aversion, and delusion, and hence avoiding creating needless dukkha
for ourselves, so that we may experience fully and be present to
each new moment.
> At the time he chose to teach in those terms, howerver, the doctrine,
> while not unknown, was not a cultural "given".
Evidence, please.
DharmaTroll
"anarkissed" <anark...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
> Were we to adopt the idea that our being is only that of furthering
> the whole, that nothing of *me* continues after all this, we would
> slack off.
Nonsense. That is the fear that perpetuates our ego-struggle and
self-hatred. The fear that if we don't whip ourselves and force
ourselves we won't be able to find our way. Utter bullshit.
Without the idea of me continuing, there is a great freedom to
experience fully. This is what in Zen is called effortless effort.
That is, it is effort not at a future goal, but effort toward being
present to all that is experienced this moment.
> we are indeed "returning"
Nope. There is nothing to which to return. We never left.
> Still, it is for vanity we seek enlightenment,
Not at all. It is to end suffering. Nothing more.
> Else hedonism would be our happy path, to roll upon fur and silk
Not if we see clearly enought to realise that this only will bring
more pain in the long run and like cotton candy melts instantly and
leaves one unfulfilled.
Your argument for self-deception isn't very compelling and is based
on very dubious assumptions. Rather, all we need is to see clearly,
and then the fur and silk isn't much more than cotton candy to us.
Or pizza.
Tell me what you make of the quote below, from Buddhist Dharma teacher
Jack Kornfield.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< "One of the interesting things when you start to look at and work
with the hindrance of desire is to see that what relieves it, what
makes one finally happy about it, is not so much the thing that you
get, or the person, or the experience that you get at the end - this is
important, so listen to this - it's actually the fact that the state of
desiring has ended. I'll give you a simple example. Suppose you
have a craving for some food that you really want to have. It can be
pizza or ice cream or cannelloni, you name it, whatever it happens to
be. You go and you get it. You do all the things. You get in your
car, you go, you finally get it, you have it in your hand, and you take
the first bite of whatever it is. And usually the moment that you
taste it, there's this great sense of delight and release, and so
forth, and part of it may be because it tastes good and it's
pleasurable, if it's part of your fantasy -- but the main piece is, in
that moment, finally the wanting stops. Do you understand that? And
that a good deal of the joy of fulfilling desires is not so much of the
getting of the thing, because you have it for a little while and then
you want the next thing -- it's endless -- but rather that there's a
moment where the wanting itself stops. If you look closely in
yourself, if you let yourself look, you find that the very process of
wanting is painful; that the very state of not being complete or
content or present with what's here is what the pain is about."
-Jack Kornfield >>
anarkissed
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:839g67$ie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <UbK54.2$v9....@news1.sshe1.sk.home.com>,
> "anarkissed" <anark...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
>
> > Were we to adopt the idea that our being is only that of furthering
> > the whole, that nothing of *me* continues after all this, we would
> > slack off.
>
> Nonsense. That is the fear that perpetuates our ego-struggle and
> self-hatred. The fear that if we don't whip ourselves and force
> ourselves we won't be able to find our way. Utter bullshit.
I would like to develop such faith in the goodness and altruism of human
nature. How might I achieve this? To think that persons would strive for
higher attainment simply to better the whole. Such a fine image. I fear I
am somewhat less optimistic and gentle. To me, humans are selfish, greedy,
creatures who will not turn from moments pleasure for anything less than
promises of far greater pleasure at the finish of their effort. Probably
because I see this in myself. Self-aggrandisement, seeking of
moment-by-moment pleasure, deviousness and pride. I am fortunate only that
I am aware that there is more to be than that.
>
> Without the idea of me continuing, there is a great freedom to
> experience fully. This is what in Zen is called effortless effort.
> That is, it is effort not at a future goal, but effort toward being
> present to all that is experienced this moment.
Oh, what a fine image! I shall go now and make this moment my whole moment,
and it shall be a moment of Beer. I shall give no concern for the emptiness
of the bottle, nor whether it will later give a stomachache for that moment
does not exist. mmmmmm and it is a funny thing that I finally enjoy beer
after all these years of drinking it only to become drunk. And, what is
best, is that this beer is truly special for it was stolen.
>
> > we are indeed "returning"
>
> Nope. There is nothing to which to return. We never left.
no, nor did we ever right, nor even move, yet we have been and are being in
all those places, right now. I, however, find that much too full to hold,
so I prefer to arrange it upon a timeline and shift my awareness in an
organized fashion thereby. So, to me, I am going from here to there, aware
only of the moment in which I stand, speculating upon where I pretend I have
been and where I pretend I am going. It comforts me and gives me a
framework in which to suspend my lessons. I have never been to disney land
though. :-(
>
> > Still, it is for vanity we seek enlightenment,
>
> Not at all. It is to end suffering. Nothing more.
END SUFFERING!!!??!! Why on earth would I want to do that??? I cannot grow
without some pain. I cannot know what joy is if I have not known sorrow. I
cannot appreciate my food if I have never been hungry. I will not know my
fortune if I have never seen misfortune. Where would those who need to live
in hell find their place? When I need to learn compassion, from whence
would this lesson come? Do not end my suffering, please, it moves me and
informs me of being.
Oh, yes, it is my hope that all will arrive beyond suffering, and thereby
none will require it, but this will not end suffering, it will remain in our
history and memory and continue to wait for our carelessness. we simply
won't need to USE it anymore. that would be a joy, certainly.
>
> > Else hedonism would be our happy path, to roll upon fur and silk
>
> Not if we see clearly enought to realise that this only will bring
> more pain in the long run and like cotton candy melts instantly and
> leaves one unfulfilled.
Mmmmm, cotton candy. I like that stuff. I can live for several days on it.
My hedonistic ways have never brought pain, I must confess, but then, I know
when to stop and include some nutrition and exercise on occasion. Only
downside I can see to it is that sex produces children by the score unless
someone works very hard to produce contraceptives. And, children need more
food. There is a limit to the resources, to the quantity of humans that
earth will support. I got fixed.
Cotton candy is very fulfilling for me, one of the most enjoyable treats
I've had. Gives me a nice, relaxing rush. Frankly, of the people I've seen
living in pain from bad habits, each and everyone of them caused the pain
not by their bad habits, but by their desire to suffer. They often hide
this from themselves, but if you look very close, you can see that they
believe a person can DESERVE to suffer and that by their own rules, they
themselves qualify. These people often toss these rules about and judge
others by them, then attempt to share the suffering accordingly. They have
the bad habits as an excuse and a crutch "I can't get better, I have this
disease of addiction and don't have the strength to fight" When you
successfully heal their addiction, they find another way to suffer. They do
not heal untill they learn to forgive flaws. Then, they generally don't
feel like practicing bad habits, yet likely could indulge if the occasion
merited. Wish the store sold cotton candy, but I can only get it in the
summer. ~pout~
>
> Your argument for self-deception isn't very compelling and is based
> on very dubious assumptions. Rather, all we need is to see clearly,
> and then the fur and silk isn't much more than cotton candy to us.
> Or pizza.
Well, not surprising since I AM an idiot, after all.
Oh, yes, exactly how it feels when I have to pee and there is no place to
pee and I finally find a place to pee. Oh, that is the single most
pleasurable moment, that release from need. One might almost deliberately
hold even when not required, simply to enjoy that moment. Of course, ill
timing could result in wet pants.
Falling is pleasure, it's only hitting bottom that hurts, so if you fall
with great grace and vanish before the bottom arrives.....
You are a good wordsmith, thankyou.
Alex Wilding
DharmaTroll wrote in message <839ej3$vaq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> "Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> I think you will find that many scholars (including the other person
>> you would like to be, DT) are of the opinion that in the Buddha's
>> day, the reincarnation/rebirth theory was one of several competing
>> views.
>
>Really? I don't like to be wrong. I said that it was the predominant
>one, not that it was unanimously accepted by everybody.
Later, you say:
>Finally, I don't even care if the Buddha believed in rebirth, or in
>a flat earth, or in a 4 or 5 element chemistry. That's his cultural
>background.
You are trying to turn the tables. It was you that was trying to claim that
the Buddha, in your words "was attacking reincarnation", with the apparent
implication that therefore we should be more critical of it.
You ask:
>What's your point?
Simply that the version of the history of ideas that you propose is
unconventional. The Buddha promoted the idea of rebirth or reincarnation,
contributing to it's later very widespread acceptance.
To my:
>> At the time he chose to teach in those terms, howerver, the doctrine,
>> while not unknown, was not a cultural "given".
You challenge:
>Evidence, please.
You want a textual and historical analysis? I'm sorry, I'm not capable of
that. For a start, I don't know Sanskrit or any other Indian language. But
again, you are trying to turn the tables. It is you who is claiming that a)
reincarnation was a cultural given in the Buddha's culture, and b) that he
attacked it. The onus to provide evidence for these somewhat intriguing
views is on you.
Best wishes for overcoming your addiction to the net, by the way.
Alex W
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
At 23:07 14/12/1999 Jigme_Dorje, you wrote:
>
>Mahasanti>Wrong Jigme, the aggregate of consciousness is the uncompounded,
the
>various
>compounded characterics were arise and supported on it, because a separate
>support is not established, with regards to the consciousness aggregate,
>whatever has the characteristic of cognizing, all taken together, as the
>consciousness aggregate.
>
Wrong Jigme. Your argument against my statement that 'the aggregates are
uncompounded' is out of context here. That which is uncompounded, is the
unconditioned, supreme reality. Thus the buddha said in the Surangama:
"Therefore, you should know that the essential Bodhi is wondrous and bright,
being neither cause nor condition, neither self as such nor not self as
such, neither unreality nor not unreality, and neither reality nor not
reality, for it is beyond all forms and is identical with all things
(dhamma). How can you now think of it and use the frivolous terminology of
the world to express it? This is like trying to catch or touch the void with
your hand; you will only tire yourself, for how can you catch the void?".
Ananda asked: "World Honoured One, if the nature of Wonderful Enlightenment
has neither cause nor condition, why has the Buddha always told the bhiksus
about the nature of seeing which exists because of the four conditions of
voidness, light, mind and eye; what does all this mean?" The Buddha replied:
"I spoke of worldly cause and condition which have nothing to do with
Supreme Reality."
As to confirm my statement that 'the aggregates are uncompounded', the
Buddha in the Surangama said: "Ananda, why are the five aggregates
fundamentally the wondrous nature of the Absolute of the Tathagata store?"
This question has already answered the truth, and all subsequent answers the
buddha provides to Ananda is of conditioned reality, not absolute, as he has
already declared: "I spoke of worldly cause and condition which have nothing
to do with Supreme Reality." No ultimate reality is being directly revealed
in the Surangama, due to Ananda being a vessel of hinayana who is incapable
of being carrier of the his teaching of the unconditioned.
For example the following is a near, but still not direct, he said: 'Ananda,
you are still not clear about the illusory appearances of all passing
phenomena which vanish wherever they arise. These illusions in the shape of
forms spring from (their underlying nature which is) the substance of
wonderful Bodhi. So also are the six entrances (organs), the twelve ayatana
(six sense organs and six sense data), and the eighteen realms of senses
which falsely arise from the mixture and union of causes and conditions and
which falsely vanish when the same causes and conditions are disconnected.
They are but creation and destruction appearing and vanishing within the
permanent, wonderfully bright, immutable, all-embracing and profound
Bhutatathata (absolute) nature of the Tathagata store wherein neither coming
nor going, neither delusion nor enlightenment, and neither birth nor death
can be found." Incidentally, the five aggregates have not been mentioned at
this point, which he should. But then, as though I was reading his mind,
immediately, proceeding from this, the Buddha uttered a question: "Ananda,
why are the five aggregates fundamentally the wondrous nature of the
Absolute of the Tathagata store?" Thus confirmed my question, which is
already the answer in essence.
What he meant in that passage and the question proceeding, is that, the five
aggregates, including the six entrances (organs), the twelve ayatana (six
sense organs and six sense data), which although falsely arise from the
mixture and union of causes and conditions and which falsely vanish when the
same causes and conditions are disconnected. They are but creation and
destruction appearing and vanishing within the permanent, wonderfully
bright, immutable, all-embracing and profound Bhutatathata (absolute) nature
of the Tathagata store, since the five aggregates, including the six
entrances (organs), the twelve ayatana (six sense organs and six sense data)
which arises from the unconditioned, and then conditioned/supported by the
unconditioned, have neither coming, nor going (arising and vanishing), since
they arises and ceases within the unconditioned, which is permanent, which
have neither coming and going, thus that which arises within the
unconditioned which has not been arise, has not being arise, that which
ceases within the unconditioned, which has not been ceases, has not been
ceases. Since the five aggregates, including the six entrances (organs), the
twelve ayatana (six sense organs and six sense data), neither arises, nor
ceases, in reality, for example, when consciousness ceases at deep sleep,
there seems to be an arising in the morning, in reality, apart from the
false appearance of the conventional reality arises from the conditions of
the aggregates, the notion of this unconscious gap in sleep, will not be
composed, thus, consciousness had not, has not, and will not be departed
from reality, therefore, the six entrances (organs), the twelve ayatana (six
sense organs and six sense data), are in reality never depart from the
dhammata.
>
>Jigme>A Good start. Sacca Samyutta 56.5 clearly states that "activities
that
>conduce to rebirth....lamentation and despair" are the cause of dukha. Be
>careful, however, not to efall into reductionism and narrowly equate dukkha
>to rebirth. That misses the point entirely and reduces a profound teaching
to
>mere dogmaticism.
>But dukkha is far more subtle than this. You are almost there but have not
>fathomed. Samyutta Nikaya XII.31:
Wrong assumption Jigme. Activities that conduce to rebirth....lamentation
and despair are the cause of dukha. But I need not be careful, however, not
to be fallen into reductionism and narrowly equate dukkha to rebirth. That
misses the point entirely and reduces a profound teaching to
mere dogmaticism. Because to equate dukkha to rebirth is in accord with the
doctrinal truth. For rebirth is the root constitutional factor of dukkha,
activities that conduce to rebirth....lamentation and despair are the cause
of dukha, not the constitutional factor of dukkha. Period.
>"And how is one a person who has fathomed the Dhamma? "One sees with right
>discernment that 'this has come into being.' Seeing with right discernment
>that 'this has come into
>being,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through
lack
>of clinging/sustenance -- released from what
>has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'it has come into
>being from this nutriment.' Seeing with right
>discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment,' one is --
>through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation,
>through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from the nutriment by which
it
>has come into being. One sees with right
>discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into
>being is subject to cessation.' Seeing with right
>discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into
>being is subject to cessation,' one is -- through
>disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of
clinging/sustenance --
>released from what is subject to cessation.
>This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma."
Wrong Jigme. These are approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the
causes of rebirth, which lead to (1) rebirth, that lead to (2) old age, to
(3) death, (4) sorrow, (5) grief, (6) woe, (7) lamentation and (8) despair.
Take note that rebirth lead to old age, from which lead to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. If rebirth is ignored, from the Eight
Supporting Factors of dukkha (above) which has the sum of rebirth as the one
root, and the seven branches, their variations arises the Eight Wrong Views,
as follow:-
(1) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, is to
assume that these approaches lead to gradual elimination of the causes,
which lead to old age, which lead to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation
and despair. Then what are those causes that lead to old age without
rebirth? If there is no rebirth (of a body), nothing is there to lead to old
age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Then what are
those approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the causes of rebirth,
for?
(2) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, that which lead to old age, to
death, is to assume that these approaches lead to the gradual elimination of
the causes, which lead to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and
despair. Then what are those causes that lead to death, without old age? If
there is no rebirth, which lead to old age, nothing is there to lead to
death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Then what are those
approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the causes of old age, for?
(3) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, that which lead to old age, to
death, is to assume that these approaches lead to the gradual elimination of
the causes, which lead to sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Then
what are those causes that lead to sorrow, without death? If there is no
rebirth, which lead to death, nothing is there to lead to sorrow, grief,
woe, lamentation and despair. Then what are those approaches that lead to
gradual elimination of the causes of death for?
(4) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, which
lead to death, to sorrow, is to assume that these approaches lead to the
gradual elimination of the causes, which lead to grief, woe, lamentation and
despair. Then what are those causes which lead to grief, without sorrow? If
there is no rebirth (of a body), which lead to old age, which lead to death,
to sorrow, nothing is there to lead to grief, woe, lamentation and despair.
Then what are those approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the
causes of sorrow for?
(5) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, which
lead to death, to sorrow, grief, is to assume that these approaches lead to
the gradual elimination of the causes, which lead to woe, lamentation and
despair. Then what are those causes which lead to woe, without grief? If
there is no rebirth (of a body), which lead to old age, which lead to death,
to sorrow, grief, nothing is there to lead to woe, lamentation and despair.
Then what are those approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the
causes of grief for?
(6) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, which
lead to death, to sorrow, grief, woe, is to assume that these approaches
lead to the gradual elimination of the causes, which lead to lamentation and
despair. Then what are those causes which lead to lamentation, without woe?
If there is no rebirth (of a body), which lead to old age, which lead to
death, to sorrow, grief, woe, nothing is there to lead to lamentation and
despair. Then what are those approaches that lead to gradual elimination of
the causes of woe for?
(7) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, which
lead to death, to sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, is to assume that these
approaches lead to the gradual elimination of the causes, which lead to
despair. Then what are those causes which lead to despair, without
lamentation? If there is no rebirth (of a body), which lead to old age,
which lead to death, to sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, nothing is there to
lead to despair. Then what are those approaches that lead to gradual
elimination of the causes of lamentation for?
(8) To ignore rebirth as the root of dukkha, which lead to old age, which
lead to death, to sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation, despair, is to assume
that these approaches lead to the gradual elimination of the causes, which
lead to the unborn, deathless, sorrowless, griefless, woeless,
lamentationless . Then what are those causes which lead to the unborn,
deathless, sorrowless, griefless, woeless, lamentationless? If there is no
rebirth (of a body), which lead to old age, which lead to death, to sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation, despair, nothing is there to lead to the unborn,
deathless, sorrowless, griefless, woeless, lamentationless. Then what are
those approaches that lead to gradual elimination of the causes of the
unborn, deathless, sorrowless, griefless, woeless, lamentationless, for?
Take note that the Eight Supporting Factors of dukkha (above) are not the
causes of dukkha, but of factors that constitutes the definition of dukkha.
Thus the buddha said: "Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, disease is
suffering, death is suffering, to be united with the unpleasant is
suffering, and not to receive what one craves for is suffering, in brief the
five Aggregates of Attachment are suffering."
In other words, birth, old age, disease, death, including the five
Aggregates of Attachment arises as the factors that constitute sufferings,
all of them arise due to the existence of the body, which is due to rebirth
(reincarnation), which is due to dependent-arising. In other words, all the
Four Noble Truths are dependent on this body, this rebirth, this
incarnation. As the buddha states: "In this very one-fathom long body along
with perceptions and thoughts, do I proclaim the world, the origin of the
world, the end of the world and the path leading to the end of the world."
Here the term world (cycling existence, which implies the circle of rebirth
and their environments) is applied to the factors of suffering (hence
necessitate the cessation of this world).
Herein I conclude, the buddha did not say craving is dukkha, but instead he
said: (With regards to the causes of dukkha, the buddha said:) "It is the
craving which leads from rebirth to rebirth accompanied by lust of passion,
which delights now here now there; it is the craving for sensual pleasures
(Kamatanha), for existence (Bhavantanha, or craving associated with
"Eternalism") and for annihilation (Vibhavatanha, craving associated with
"Nihilism").
With regards to the causes (of the Noble Truth) that lead to the
annihilation of rebirth (the world), the buddha said: "It is the
remainderless, total annihilation of this very craving, the forsaking of it,
the breaking loose, fleeting, deliverance from it." Here misunderstanding
often arises with regards to the factors of dukkha, when this annihilation
of craving, which is the annihilation of the causes that lead to rebirth
(which lead to the annihilation of the factors of dukkha), was interpreted
as the annihilation of dukkha. Dukkha is just a designation, it has no
meaning without being supported by factors which is called the Eight
Supporting Factors of dukkha. When this false interpretation is being taking
root in his false logical base, the misinterpretor will further contrived
the cause of dukkha, which is craving, as the very factor of dukkha itself.
By causes lead to effect, this is their logic that obscured true and
critical understanding of dukkha. For although craving is the cause of
dukkha, it does not result in dukkha, without the factors that constitute
dukkha. Dukkha is not cause by its constitutional factors, but by
designation. Dukkha is not a fruit of craving, the cause, dukkha is dukkha,
a mere designation without meaning.
>'...here (in the future becoming) there is rebirth-linking, which is
>consciousness..."
>
>Jigme>Again a good start, Mahasanti. You are citing consciousness in the
sense
>that it is described as a link in the causal chain of dependent co-arising
>as, for example, in Samyutta Nikaya XII:"From consciousness as a requisite
>condition comes name-&-form."
Consciousness come in many mode, due to the skandas, and their
characteristic, from which arises composition of consciousness with these
characteristics, these compounded aspects of consciousness is mundane and
conditioned by their individual characteristic, thus impermanence. Buddhism
due to the call for critical analysis, different characterics of
consciousness which arises in the condition of meeting with the objects of
the skandas, which arises as their union, a composition, is being given name
attributing to their unique characteristics. But these names, resulting from
their characteristics, their identities, do not exist other than the meeting
of conditions of the skandas and their objects. For instant, in the 9
jhanas, consciousness is being given 9 names, with each considered as valid
on their own, where in reality, their characteristic are conditioned by the
9 jhana, which are in turn conditioned by the skandas and their objects,
thus whatever objects, and their combination, when meeting with
consciousness, arises a composition, was given a name for this
consciousness, they are therefore, conditioned, compounded, impermanent, and
false.
The same consciousness, which nature is cognizance, at the uncompounded
level of reality, is not called consciousness in buddhism, but are given
name as such Tathagata, Buddhahood, Cognizance, Awareness, and so forth.
Consciousness therefore, is a name for reality used by New Agers, Hinduism,
Brahmanism, but not in buddhism. Because like the name God, even when
interpreted as reality, arises confusion, therefore in buddhism which is
critical at precision of the choice of words, use the different definition
of cognizance, which in the mundane, as consciousness, while in the
supramundane, as awareness.
The inseparability of consciousness as cognizance both at mundane and
supramundane level, can be understood from the sutta I have presented to you
previously about the description of the consciousness aggregates. The
description evidently contained both mundane, and supramundane cognizance,
as within the component of the consciousness aggregate.
The same for the skandas themselves, the skandas exist both at mundane
level, which is compounded by attachment to mentation, and at the
supramundane level, which is uncompounded by attachment to mentation. Take
note that in the nonmentation level, the objects arises from the skandas,
including emotivities which arises dependent of forms and feelings, and so
forth, do not arises attachment, and the cause of attachment is not produced
in the absence of defile-mind consciousness, that which followed the
mentation of percepts and perceiver. Furthermore, the abiding of
nonmentation, where the three characteristic of bliss, luminosity and
nondividedness, will wipe up the defile-mind consciousness, and so appeared
to wipe up the skandas in terms of its mundane characteristic (of being
impediments), such as the aggregate of rupa, in mundane mode appeared as the
grasping at appearances as real entities, which is of course, false, and
non-existent in reality, but a person who abide in nonmentation, appearances
which arises from the skanda of rupa, has not been apprehended as objective
entities, but instead the appearances are arise as being the nature of
luminosity, which is therefore, pure, and in accord with the nature of (the
realization of) emptied illusion, of the supramundane characteristic of the
skanda of rupa. Furthermore, this purity of appearances which are dependent
on the skandas, is permanent, unconditioned and uncompounded (because
objective appearances are not recognised at dependent arising level, which
is conditioned, but at the level of luminosity). This recognition of
objective appearances of the skanda of rupa, which arises as luminosity, is
therefore, equivalent to having wipe out the delusion of objective
appearances of the skanda of rupa, which arises as the grasping at
appearances as (false) entities.
The same for the skanda of feeling, the skanda exist both at mundane level,
which is compounded by attachment to feeling (emotivities and sensation),
and at the supramundane level, which is uncompounded by attachment to
feeling and sensation. Take note that in the nonmentation level, the objects
arises from the skandas, including sensations and emotivities which arises
dependent of forms and feelings, and so forth, do not arises attachment, and
the cause of attachment is not produced in the absence of defile-mind
consciousness, that which followed the mentation of percepts and perceiver.
Furthermore, the abiding of nonmentation, where the three characteristic of
bliss, luminosity and nondividedness, will wipe up the defile-mind
consciousness, and so appeared to wipe up the skandas in terms of its
mundane characteristic (of being impediments), such as the aggregate of
feeling, in mundane mode appeared as the grasping at emotivities, which is
of course, false, and non-existent in reality, but a person who abide in
nonmentation, emotivities which arises from the skanda of feeling, has not
been apprehended as objective sensation and feeling, but instead the
feelings are arise as being the nature of bliss, which is therefore, pure,
and in accord with the nature of (the realization of) raw sensation, of the
supramundane characteristic of the skanda of feeling. Furthermore, this
purity of feeling which are dependent on the skandas, is permanent,
unconditioned and uncompounded (because objective feelings are not
recognised at dependent arising level, which is conditioned, but at the
level of bliss). This recognition of objective sensations and feelings of
the skanda of feeling, which arises as bliss, is therefore, equivalent to
having wipe out the delusion of objective sensations of the skanda of
feeling, which arises as the grasping at sensations as (false) entities.
The buddha, in the Surangama sutta, because of communicating this topics to
vessels who have yet to seen reality, and therefore, only reveal the skandas
as ultimate Tathagata Store as a form of question (never in an answer) once,
due to his consideration to prevent confusing the vessels with the subtle
and hard to distinguish distinctions, when in the absence of realization of
the uncompounded, between the view of the skandas from within conventional
and ultimate prospective.
>But while it may proliferate and link, and while there is continuum, all of
>the 5 skandas are ephemeral and ever changing.
>Thus, in Samyutta Nikaya XXII.93:
>"Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
>"Inconstant, lord."
This is the mundane, and conventional prospective of the skandas and
consciousness. The buddha, kept the ultimate prospective silent in front of
vessels of who have not yet realized the highest view, to them the buddha
only spoke to them the conditioned, the compounded, the inconstant, and ever
changing, and never the unconditioned, the uncompounded, the constant, and
changeless.
>Jigme>The point is that self awareness - the concept of a discrete self -
is
>a
>delusion.
This is also the buddha's teaching of the conditioned and compounded. Since
I'm also talking to vessels of the mundane level, there is no point to
refute it, to reveal the real.
>
>Jigme>Unfortunately, I cannot help you there. Discernment will come with
>practice. What I would prescribe for you is a little less theorizing, a
lot
>more practice.
All practices will lead to the mundane, the unconditioned is not attainable
by the condition of practice.
>Jigme>The reality lines may in fact be more blurred than the human mind
>may admit to. My own "understanding" of rebirth is based on the fact that
>the Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical and ontological, but
>ather, the psychological and epistemological.
The psychological and epistemological is the cause and antidote, but the
metaphysical and ontological is the foundation. To know the cause, is to
know the antidotes. To know the foundation is to have the cause. If the
foundation is not established, it does not necessitate the antidotes for the
cause.
>Jigme>The proper use of sutra is not to support one's pet theories.
The attachment to sutta without any real understanding is the real support
of one's pet theories. Who has seen the unconditioned has no theory.
>
>Mahasanti>This is not a proper statement for ultimate truth, Jigme. For
this
>would implies the uncompounded segment (rather than designation) which make
>up their co-dependent conditions as being capable of self-support.
>
>Jigme>I merely reiterate the Buddha's words as put forth in the Pali
sutras.
>Of course, you may dispute them, if you like.
I'm speaking about ultimate truth. Him who support the mundane, has the view
of the conditioned, which is not to be refuted.
>
>Mahasanti>Without attempting to penetrate reality, while only concerned
about
>living is an act of selfishness, Jigme.
>
>Jigme>That was not implied. The subject of discussion, you will recall, is
>dukkha.
Dukkha is rebirth, which is not master in the hinayana, become the
constitutional factors of dukkha. Rebirth in the mahayana is mastered, the
heights of cultivation of merit dispel dukkha of rebirth, as such the bliss
of rebirth is gained. By gaining of bliss, pureland is achieved.
This is the Four Noble Truths Jigme, that which dependent on this body,
which in turn is dependent on rebirth, and which constitutes the factor of
dukkha, when rebirth is mastered, when in the height of cultivation, merit
manifests as blissful rebirth, when pureland, the perfection of merit is
achieved, this dependence of the body, which is the Four Noble Truths, has
been mastered, and accomplished, herein this is not the origin of suffering,
this is not cause of suffering, this is not the liberation of suffering,
this is not the teaching that lead to the cessation of the blissful, this is
the teaching of nonabiding nibbana. This is the Supreme Mahayana, the
Supramundane truth, the Single Yana, which transcends duality, which
perfects, the Four Truths, the Eightfold Paths, which is independent of this
body, which is independent of rebirth, of aging, of death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. This is not the teaching for those
of the hinayana. Since their small-minds can neither apprehend it, nor
contain it. Therefore, to them this conditioned teaching has been taught:
Buddhists, whoever understand not, as it really is, the meaning of : This is
ill (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is
the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill. Such persons delight in the
activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Not composing a compound of activities
that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair. Thus taking delight in gratifying the activities
that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair. thus taking delight, they compose a compound of
activities (sankhara) that conduce to rebirth, that lead to old age, to
death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus composing a
compound of the activities that lead (to such ends), they fall down the
precipice of lamentation and despair. They are not release from ill, I
declare.
But buddhists, those who do understand, as it really is, the meaning of:
This is ill (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill.
This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill. As such take not
delight in activities that conduce to rebirth, that lead to old age, to
death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Not taking delight
therein they compose not a compound of activities that conduce to rebirth,
that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair.
Not composing a compound of activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to
old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. They are
utterly released from rebirth, from old age, from death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair, they are released from ill, I declare.
Him who has cut off sense desires, has cut off the motivation for sense
desires to arise, namely the passion for emotional gratification. Him who
has cut off sense desires, has cut off the motivation for passions to arise,
namely the passion for emotional gratification. Him who has cut off sense
desires, has cut off the linking kamma for becoming, namely the passion for
emotional gratification. Him who has cut off sense desires, has cut off the
passion for delighting in activities of sense gratification that conduce to
rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and
despair.
Not taking delight therein they compose not a compound of activities that
conduce to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair. Not composing a compound of activities that lead to
rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and
despair. They are utterly released from rebirth, from old age, from death,
sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair, they are released from ill, I
declare.
Dean Crabb
Warm regards,
Dean
Klaus Schmetterling
"Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
Alex Wilding wrote:
> Simply that the version of the history of ideas that you propose is
> unconventional. The Buddha promoted the idea of rebirth or
reincarnation,
> contributing to it's later very widespread acceptance.
I think it would be wrong to say that the Buddha promoted the idea of
rebirth or reincarnation (BTW I make a distinction between them which I
will explain below). Many instructions of Gotama were a reaction against
Upanisadic teachings or gave them a different twist. Also Gotama taught
by means of dialogue. His teaching is not a revelation, but built stone
by stone through questions and answers.
The main difference between his and the Upanisadic teachings consists in
the accent being laid on action rather than on essence. It is through
our actions that we can get rid of dukkha and not by following ritual
prescriptions or by realising a hidden Truth.
Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
ended through physical death. But what we take for our psycho-physical
aggregates evolve from one moment to another. Through our actions we can
have an influence on the way we are and feel the next moment. Every new
moment is like a new birth, hence the image of rebirth, which merely
stresses the fact that everything is done and undone in a moment's time.
This gives an enormous sense of freedom which the Upanisads with their
essence and hidden truth lack, since at every moment we can influence
the next one through our actions. Nothing is permanent, everything is
made and undone.
Some changes can be very dramatical like in Angulimala's life, which
stresses once again the power our actions and determination have.
In order to stop the cycle of rebirth, we have to stop resisting
rebirth. We have to stop resisting the fact that everything evolves
continuously and that our present psycho-physical aggregates will come
to an end and come to terms with this.
Gotama used the concept of rebirth in a different way, stressing its
impersonal side through anatta rather than its social aspect of
reincarnating in this or that cast, or in this or that life form. I
don't think it is fair to say that he *promoted* the idea of
reincarnation, certainly not in the way some Buddhists seem to promote
it.To see his whole cycle of teachings in the light of reincarnation and
to make it stand or fall through this interpretation would be a mistake.
> You want a textual and historical analysis? I'm sorry, I'm not capable
of
> that. For a start, I don't know Sanskrit or any other Indian language.
But
> again, you are trying to turn the tables. It is you who is claiming
that a)
> reincarnation was a cultural given in the Buddha's culture, and b)
that he
> attacked it.
He clearly was more into attacking the idea of an atman, a self and a
continuous essence than into *promoting* reincarnation. Figuring out how
those two concepts can go together is a vast enterprise which has
stimulated the imagination and creativity of Buddhist through the ages
and apparently can still keep them busy.
Klaus S.
Martin McKowen
Cheers
Marty
DharmaTroll wrote in message <839g67$ie$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <UbK54.2$v9....@news1.sshe1.sk.home.com>,
> "anarkissed" <anark...@nospamhome.com> wrote:
>
>> Were we to adopt the idea that our being is only that of furthering
>> the whole, that nothing of *me* continues after all this, we would
>> slack off.
>
>Nonsense. That is the fear that perpetuates our ego-struggle and
>self-hatred. The fear that if we don't whip ourselves and force
>ourselves we won't be able to find our way. Utter bullshit.
>
>Without the idea of me continuing, there is a great freedom to
>experience fully. This is what in Zen is called effortless effort.
>That is, it is effort not at a future goal, but effort toward being
>present to all that is experienced this moment.
>
>> we are indeed "returning"
>
>Nope. There is nothing to which to return. We never left.
>
>> Still, it is for vanity we seek enlightenment,
>
>Not at all. It is to end suffering. Nothing more.
>
>> Else hedonism would be our happy path, to roll upon fur and silk
>
>Not if we see clearly enought to realise that this only will bring
>more pain in the long run and like cotton candy melts instantly and
>leaves one unfulfilled.
>
>Your argument for self-deception isn't very compelling and is based
>on very dubious assumptions. Rather, all we need is to see clearly,
>and then the fur and silk isn't much more than cotton candy to us.
>Or pizza.
>
DharmaTroll
>> Finally, I don't even care if the Buddha believed in rebirth, or in
>> a flat earth, or in a 4 or 5 element chemistry. That's his cultural
>> background.
> You are trying to turn the tables. It was you that was trying to
> claim that the Buddha, in your words "was attacking reincarnation",
Yes, he was going against the accepted (by more than half, at least)
belief in reincarnation or transmigration of the soul, yes.
No turning tables. That's what I claimed in several posts.
> with the apparent implication that therefore we should be more
> critical of it.
With the implication that if we think he was speaking against a
background of views that you find in the West today, and think that
you are rebelling against your parents' views with rebirth, that
there is irony here, as rebirth was a watering down of reincarnation,
not a promoting it against a background of materialism.
> You challenge:
>> Evidence, please.
> You want a textual and historical analysis? I'm sorry, I'm not
> capable of that.
I figured you were just talkin' shit, Alex. Most do around here.
Then you simply go for the personal insult next. Also protocol.
Come back when you have something to say for which you can make a case.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
Alex Wilding
DharmaTroll wrote in message <83b40f$4is$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
(Me)>> You challenge:
(He)>>> Evidence, please.
>
(Me)>> You want a textual and historical analysis? I'm sorry, I'm
>>not capable of that.
>
>I figured you were just talkin' shit, Alex. Most do around here.
>Then you simply go for the personal insult next. Also protocol.
>Come back when you have something to say for which you can make a case.
Excuse me, I am trying to point out that you are the one making claims for a
particular version of history, and you are therefore the one whose duty it
is to provide evidence. I can only go by what scholars say. So I can only
say to you:
Evidence, please.
Did I insult you? I'm sorry, I didn't notice. How was that?
Alex W
Don James
Topic: Re: What is reincarnated???
Message: 2 of 2 (In response to Mahasanti)
Sent: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:20:55 +1100
See Also: Tibetan - Buddhism Religion, Buddhism
For some who's enlightened you sure talk a lot.
Warm regards, Dean
Mahasanti wrote:
Don: He's not enlightened. I've met many enlightened teachers and
he's not like them. He is "in process" however. He will get there
but he's not nuts enough yet. Got to go totally nuts in the worldly
sense so you can leave it behind. He still has to be right, a sure
sign of the competitive, separate self. Your clue. If you want to
see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the worldly
sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see Franco
Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Theravad
writes:
>This is for the released of Tathgata, Lee, this is not an option for
>sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is rebirth in the
>6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
>
have you forgotten the most im[portant option of all, not to be reborn?
Evelyn Ruut
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote in message >
If you want to
> see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the worldly
> sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see Franco
> Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
> Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
Hi Don,
Just remembered this piece snatched off the newsgroups a long, long time
ago, composed by St. Francis. There are actually 5 separate versions
included and it is quite lovely poetry. Here is the whole thing, all
five..... Enjoy.
Evelyn
************************
Canticle of Brother Sun Version 1 ( Total 5 versions)
"Most High Almighty Good Lord,
Yours are the praises, the glory, the honor, and all blessings!
To You alone, Most High, do they belong,
And no man is worthy to mention You.
Be praised, my Lord, with all Your creatures,
Especially Sir Brother Sun,
By whom You give us the light of day!
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendor.
Of You, Most High, he is a symbol!
Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Moon and the Stars!
In the sky You formed them bright and lovely and fair.
Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Wind
And for the Air and cloudy and clear and all Weather,
By which You give sustenance to Your creatures!
Be praised, my Lord, for Sister Water,
Who is very useful and humble and lovely and chaste!
Be praised, my Lord, for Brother Fire,
By whom You give us light at night,
And he is beautiful and merry and mighty and strong!
Be praised, my Lord, for our Sister Mother Earth,
Who sustains and governs us,
And produces fruits with colorful flowers and leaves!
Be praised, my Lord, for those who forgive for love of You
And endure infirmities and tribulations.
Blessed are those who shall endure them in peace,
For by You, Most High, they will be crowned!
Be praised, my Lord, for our Sister, Bodily Death,
From whom no living man can escape!
Woe to those who shall die in mortal sin!
Blessed are those whom she will find in Your most holy will,
For the Second Death will not harm them.
Praise and bless my Lord and thank Him And serve Him with great
humility!"
-St. Francis of Assisi
******************************************
Canticle of the Sun Version 2
O most high, almighty, good Lord God, to thee belong praise, glory, honor
and all blessing.
Praised be my Lord God with all his creatures and especially our brother the
sun, who brings us the day and who brings us the light: fair is he and
shines with a very great splendor: O Lord, he signifies to us Thee.
Praised be my Lord for our sister the moon, and for the stars, which he hath
set clear and lovely in the heavens.
Praised be my Lord for our brother the wind, and for the air and cloud,
calms and all weather by the which thou upholdest life in all creatures.
Praised be my Lord for our brother fire, through which thou givest us light
in the darkness; and he is bright and pleasant and very mighty and strong.
Praised be my Lord for our mother the earth, the which doth sustain us and
keep us, and bringeth forth divers fruits and flowers of many colors and
grass.
Praised be my Lord for all those who pardon one another for his love's sake,
and who endure weakness and tribulation: blessed are they who peaceably
shall endure, for thou, O most Highest, shalt give them a crown.
Praise ye and bless the Lord and give thanks unto him and serve him with
great humility.
*************************************
Canticle of the Sun Version 3
The heavens are telling the glory of God,
and all creation is shouting for joy.
Come, dance in the forst, come, play in the field,
and sing, sing to the glory of the Lord.
Sing to the sun, the bringer of day,
He carries the light of the Lord in his rays;
The moon and the stars who light up the way
Unto your throne.
Praise to the wind that blows through the trees,
The sea's mighty storms, the gentlest breeze;
They blow where they will, they blow where they please
To please the Lord.
Praise to the rain that waters our fields,
And blesses our crops so all the earth yields;
From death unto life her mystery revealed
Springs forth in joy.
Praise to the fire who gives us his light,
The warmth of the sun to brighten our night;
He dances with joy, his spirit so bright,
He sings of you.
Sing to the earth who makes life to grow,
The creatures you made to let your life show;
The flowers and trees that help us to know
The heart of love.
Praise to our death that makes our life real,
The knowledge of loss that helps us to feel;
The gift of yourself, your presence revealed
To lead us home.
************************************
*
Canticle of Brother Sun Version 4
Most high, all-powerful, all good, Lord!
All praise is yours, all glory, all honor And all blessing.
To you alone, Most high, do they belong.
No Mortal lips are worthy To pronounce your name.
All praise be yours, my Lord, though all that you have made,
And first my Brother Sun, Who brings the day; and the light you give to us
through him.
How beautiful is he, how radiant in all his splendour!
Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness,
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Moon and Stars;
In the heavens you made them, bright
And precious and fair.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
By which you cherish all that you have made.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Water,
So useful, lowly, precious and pure.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
Through whom you brighten up the night.
How beautiful is he, how gay! Full of power and strength.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Earth, our mother,
Who feeds us in her sovereignty and produces
Various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through those who grant pardon
For love of you; through those who endure
Sickness and trial.
Happy those who endure in peace,
By you, Most High, they will be crowned.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Death,
From whom embrace no mortal can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those She finds doing your will!
The second death can do no harm to them.
Praise and bless my Lord, and give him thanks,
And serve him with great humility.
***********************************
*
The Canticle of Brother Sun Version 5
Most High Almighty Good Lord, Yours are praise, glory, honor and
all blessings; To You alone! Most High, do they belong, and no man
is worthy of speaking Your Name!
Be praised, Lord, with all Your creatures, and above all our
Brother Sun, who gives us the day by which You light our way, and
who is beautiful, radiant and with his great splendor is a symbol
to us of You, O Most High!
And be praised, Lord, for our Sister Moon and the Stars. You
created them in the heavens bright, precious and beautiful!
And be praised, Lord, for our Brother the Wind and for the air and
the clouds and for fair weather and for all other through which You
sustain Your creatures.
And be praised, Lord, for our Sister Water, so useful, and humble,
and chaste!
And be praised, my Lord, for our Brother Fire, through whom You
light up the night and who is handsome, joyful, robust, and strong!
And be praised, my Lord, for our Sister, Mother Earth, who supports
and carries us and produces the diverse fruits and colorful flowers
and trees!
Praise and bless the Lord and give thanks to Him and serve Him with
great humility!
Be praised, my Lord, for our Sister, bodily Death from whom no
living man can escape!
Woe only to those who die in mortal sin; but blessed are those who
have done Your most holy will; for the second death can cause them
no harm!
**********************************
About this Canticle;
The composition of this Canticle came about in the following way: during the
summer of 1225, St. Francis was living in a hut in San Damiano, Italy. He
was suffering very much from an eye ailment which practically blinded him.
His sufferings grew so intense that he prayed, "Lord, come and help me, that
I may patiently endure my sickness." Immediately St. Francis heard God
answer him deep within his soul. "Tell me, Brother, wouldn't you be very
happy if, in exchange for the pain you now suffer, you were given a treasure
compared to which the whole earth would have no value?" St. Francis
responded with a "Yes." The voice continued, "Well then, Francis, rejoice
and sing. Sing while you are there, weak and sick, for you are earning
nothing less than the kingdom of heaven." The next day St. Francis
recounted the incident to the brothers who were taking care of him. He was
filled with thanksgiving for God's goodness to him. So he told his brothers
he wished to compose a new hymn of praise to God for His creation which we
use every day and which keeps us alive. The final stanza about Sister Death
was added to the Canticle by St. Francis a year later when told by the
doctor that he was going to die.
Brother John Raymond
Febuary 14, 1993
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:38579065...@micron.net...
> Mahasanti wrote:
> > Then you are in the wrong thread, wrong subject. The topic is to prove
the
> > existence of reincarnation, not the freedom from bondage, definitely not
the
> > release of Tathagata.
>
> Prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of reincarnation, God,
> the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after
> death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand the sutta
> that was quoted.
The prove is in the sutta. Disproval is in the doubt. It is because of the
conditioned existence of the world, that the Buddha taught the cessation of
the world. Those who refute the conditioned existence of the world, have
refuted the world as suffering, have refuted the origin of suffering, have
refuted the cessation of suffering, they are said to have strayed to one of
the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha.
>
> While you waste time proving that your raft exists, you might watch for
> leaks.
There is no doubt about the conditioned existence as conventional, this
truth is not to be refuted, him who refute conditioned dhamma, have strayed
to one of the 62 wrong views.
> >
> > This is not the right place to discussed any approach, but to reveal
> > reincarnation. Period.
>
> You need to read and understand more - and write less. Period.
Until you read the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha, do not assume
others are less learnt than you.
--
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
AvS (Ardie Von Störenfried) <ard...@idt.net> wrote in message
news:3856C0...@idt.net...
> Punnadhammo wrote:
> >
> > In article <82rr57$ba$1...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
> > <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> >
> > > Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting basis is the
vijnana,
> > > that which reincarnate.
> >
> > This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha. When the monk Sati
said
> > "I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata to be that it is just this
> > consciousness which transmigrates." The Buddha called him a foolish man.
>
> Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness (viññâ.na) that
> fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)." He erred by saying
> that it does so "without change of identity" (tadeva...anañña.m) and
> also in regarding it as the "speaker & experiencer." This is not the
> same as to say that consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened
> the door to the possiblity that consciousness while transmigrating is
> mutable rather than immutable.
>
> Best regards,
>
> AvS
Excellent, Ardie.
--
Dan Pixley
If there is one thing I have learned, don't try to win an argument with Maha.
dan
p.s. lighten up Maha! Let someone else win once.
Don James wrote:
> From: Dean Crabb
> Topic: Re: What is reincarnated???
> Message: 2 of 2 (In response to Mahasanti)
> Sent: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 23:20:55 +1100
> See Also: Tibetan - Buddhism Religion, Buddhism
>
> For some who's enlightened you sure talk a lot.
>
> Warm regards, Dean
>
> Mahasanti wrote:
>
> Don: He's not enlightened. I've met many enlightened teachers and
> he's not like them. He is "in process" however. He will get there
> but he's not nuts enough yet. Got to go totally nuts in the worldly
> sense so you can leave it behind. He still has to be right, a sure
> sign of the competitive, separate self. Your clue. If you want to
> see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the worldly
> sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see Franco
> Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
> Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
While Eeyore frets...
...and Piglet hesitates
...and Rabbit calculates
....and Owl pontificates
...Pooh just is.
-"The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:839ej3$vaq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <837mjl$mb9$3...@scotty.tinet.ie>,
> "Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> DT:
> >> Of course. Remember that Westerners have it ass-backwards! Because
> >> we don't have reincarnation of the soul as given in our culture.
> >> Hindus did. So rebirth was a watered-down version, which was
> >> attacking reincarnation. Whereas Westerners take it as if it were
> >> positing reincarnation. The Buddha was working in a cultural
> >> setting, which so many bozos so often forget.
Rebirth is reincarnation.
> Finally, I don't even care if the Buddha believed in rebirth, or in
> a flat earth, or in a 4 or 5 element chemistry. That's his cultural
> background. I care about what he says about the ending of craving,
> aversion, and delusion, and hence avoiding creating needless dukkha
> for ourselves, so that we may experience fully and be present to
> each new moment.
There is no dukkha without rebirth. Having believing in the view of the
causes of the cessation of dukkha, without knowing the factors of dukkha, is
a blind believer.
>
> > At the time he chose to teach in those terms, however, the doctrine,
> > while not unknown, was not a cultural "given".
>
> Evidence, please.
The evidence is in the 'Buddha Speaks of the Kamma Sutta': Once upon a
gathering at Lin-Shan Assembly, where 1,250 followers attended, Ananda, one
of the chief disciples, after circling thrice with folded hands around
Sakyamuni Buddha, bowing in respect, humbly asked:"In the present dark age,
where the majority of our people are indulgent in unrighteousness,
disrespectful to Buddha's teaching, unfilial to their parents, immoral,
miserable and sordid, among them some are deaf, some blind, some mute, some
idiotic, some handicapped in other aspects, and most people inured to
killing...how could we understand the cryptic and fundamental principle or
cases that have brought about this reality and what consequences each
individual is to suffer eventually for his deeds. My Lord, would you kindly
explain these to us?'
'Sakyamuni Buddha told Ananda and the rest of the disciples to listen
carefully: "I will now expound the law of karma. Because of karmic effects
inherited from previous lives, some people are poor, some rich, some happy
and some miserable. There are four rules inseparable in obtaining happiness
and prosperity for your next life."
''There are: to be filial to parents; to be respectful to Buddhas, to
Buddha's teaching, and to Buddhist monks; to abstain from eating meat and be
charitable."'
'Then the Buddha proceeded on the Kamma Sutta:
'"Destiny is the aggregate Kammic effects from past life.
Past kamma determined your present destiny.
Present kammas are to mould your next life.
Learn the law of kamma expounded as follows.
For kammas are consequential and my words truthful."
As for the some of the consequences in the Kamma Sutta states:
"...Why in this life you are so intelligent and wise? Because you were a
devout Buddhist and a sober vegetarian in your previous life...Why in this
life husband and wife are faithful to each other? Because you have decorated
the temple with scrolls and tapestries to Buddha in your previous life...Why
in this life you have many children? because you have printed and
distributed suttas in your previous life...Why in this life you have no
spouse? Because you have committed adultery in your previous life...Why in
this life you are a widow? Because you have ill treated your husband in your
previous life...Why in this life you have clear and good sighted eyes?
Because you have donated oil to light up the Buddha's altar in your previous
life...Why in this life you suffer from blindness? Because you have
distorted truths and misled others in your previous life...Why in this life
you have wry mouth? Because you have intentionally blown out candles before
the Buddha's altar in your previous life...Why in this life you are hunch
back? Because you jeered at Buddha's followers (those who worship the Buddha
statue) in your previous life....Why in this life you are deaf? Because you
have attended Buddhist instructions with levity in your previous life...Why
in this life you are afflicted with ulcers? Because you have offered flesh
before the Buddha's altar in your previous life...If you in this life recite
the Kamma Sutta. You will be respected by many people in your next life...If
you in this life print and distribute the Kamma Sutta free to all. You will
become a leader to humanity in your next life...If you doubt that eating
vegetarian is cultivating charity. Witness the happy and prosperous people
around you. It is good to cultivate giving to the Triple Gems. You will be
rewarded in return...If you carry the Kamma Sutta...You will be free from
disaster and calamity. Do not think that the cause and effect (kamma) is
fallacious. It will manifest either immediately or later in your life...If
you spread the truth of the kamma Sutta. You will be wise and intelligent in
life after life...If you in this life insult the Kamma Sutta. You are no
longer a human being in your next life...If in this life you transcribe the
Kamma Sutta. The generations will be smart scholars and lived happily. If
you recite and act according to the Kamma Sutta. Whatever you do will be
witnessed by the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. It is impossible to exhaust the
speaking of the law of kamma. The fruit of good deed will (by devas and
nagas) come in due course...The good cause you have accomplished in your
previous life will be the foundation of your good fortune. The good seeds
you have planted in this life will give you good fruits in your next life.
If you doubt the efficacy of Kamma. See how maugalyayana could save his
mother from suffering. the kamma must not be treated as a small matter. the
Buddha's words are truthful, you must not slight. if people deeply believe
in the Kamma Sutta... This will bring them together to the land of Ultimate
Bliss.'"
May the merit and virtue accrued from this work,
Adorn the Buddhas' Pure lands,
Repaying four kinds of kindness above,
And aiding those suffering in the paths below.
May those who see and hear of this,
All bring forth the resolve for Bodhi,
And when this retribution body is over,
Be born together in the land of ultimate bliss.
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:38579065...@micron.net...
> > Prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of reincarnation, God,
> > the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after
> > death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand the sutta
> > that was quoted.
>
> The prove is in the sutta. Disproval is in the doubt. It is because of the
> conditioned existence of the world, that the Buddha taught the cessation of
> the world. Those who refute the conditioned existence of the world, have
> refuted the world as suffering, have refuted the origin of suffering, have
> refuted the cessation of suffering, they are said to have strayed to one of
> the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha.
Again, you need to read before you write. At no point have I suggested
that the world is not conditioned, yet you misunderstand my post, then
launch into a refutation of other than what I stated. Since you do not
wish to read and understand my words, I will repeat the words attributed
to the Buddha as follows:
-----
"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of
views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of
views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress,
despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding.
"The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...
"...'the cosmos is finite'...
"...'the cosmos is infinite'...
"...'the soul & the body are the same'...
"...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...
"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...does
not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct
knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding."
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of
this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation,
renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations,
all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack
of sustenance/clinging, released."
from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn72.html#thicket
-----
If you dislike the words of the Buddha, how about some Nagarjuna who
states in the final chapter of the MULAMADHYAMAKAKARIKA as follows:
21. If the world were limited,
How could there be another world?
If the world were unlimited,
How could there be another world?
22. Since the continuum of the aggregates
Is like the flame of a butterlamp,
It follows that neither its finitude
Nor its infinitude makes sense.
23. If the previous were disintegrating
And these aggregates, which depend
Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
Then the world would be finite.
24. If the previous were not disintegrating
And these aggregates, which depend
Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
Then the world would be infinite.
25. If one part were finite and
One part were infinite,
Then the world would be finite and infinite.
This would make no sense.
26. How could one think that
One part of the appropriator is destroyed
And one part is not destroyed?
This position makes no sense.
27. How could one think that
One part of the appropriation is destroyed
And one part is not destroyed?
This position makes no sense.
28. If it could be established that
It is both finite and infinite,
Then it could be established that
It is neither finite nor infinite.
29. So, because all entities are empty,
Which views of permanence, etc., would occur,
And to whom, when, why, and about what
Would they occur at all?
30. I prostrate to Gautama
Who through compassion
Taught the true doctrine,
Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.
-----
Now you can attempt to understand the subtle lessons of both the Buddha
and Nagarjuna regarding views (both right and wrong) or you can once
again launch into a rambling refutation of assertions made only by the
wind. And as with our prior discussion of the Bodhisatvva path, you
will find that your unfamiliarity with early Buddhist suttas is a
handicap for you.
> > While you waste time proving that your raft exists, you might watch for
> > leaks.
>
> There is no doubt about the conditioned existence as conventional, this
> truth is not to be refuted, him who refute conditioned dhamma, have strayed
> to one of the 62 wrong views.
Who are you talking to? You imagine opponents that do not exist.
> > > This is not the right place to discussed any approach, but to reveal
> > > reincarnation. Period.
> > You need to read and understand more - and write less. Period.
> Until you read the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha, do not assume
> others are less learnt than you.
I have no real idea about the extent of your learning - I do know you
have little familiarity with the early suttas and that you have not
begun to understand the purpose of my reference to the Aggi-Vacchagotta
Sutta in my prior post in this thread. And finally, you incorrectly
assume that I have not read the 62 wrong views.
Now if you wish to go back, understand the purpose of my reference and
then discuss it in an intelligent fashion, I am willing to talk. But if
you wish to misconstrue my words and the words of the Buddha, then I
have other things to do.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Jigme...@mindful.com
Punnadhammo> This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha.
When the monk Sati said "I undertand the teaching of the Tathagata
to be that it is just this consciousness which transmigrates."
The Buddha called him a foolish man.
Ardie> Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness
(viссв.na) that fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)."
He erred by saying that it does so "without change of identity"
(tadeva...anaссa.m) and also in regarding it as the "speaker
& experiencer." This is not the same as to say that
consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened the door
to the possiblity that consciousness while transmigrating is
mutable rather than immutable.
Mahsanti>Excellent, Ardie.
Jigme>Yes, Ardie, now fetch me the slippers.
So Ardie brings us back precisely to where we started out.
As before, we all agree that there is continuity. We also all
agree that there is no immutable substance that transmigrates.
Reincarnation, defined as the transmigration of some immutable
essence, is thereby disproven.
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
DharmaTroll
"Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> Rebirth is reincarnation.
No, it is not. The Buddhist concept of rebirth is distinct from
reincarnation or transmigration, as there is no self or spirit to
be reincarnated; in the Buddhist version, only dharmas occur.
DT:
>> Evidence, please.
>
> The evidence is in the 'Buddha Speaks of the Kamma Sutta':
I was asking Alex, who didn't have any. In fact, you only here recite
moralistic sutras explaining rebirth. What I claimed was that Buddhism
developed in a culture where reincarnation was a cultural given to the
mainstream religious crowd, and that Buddhism was pushing off of that,
as rebirth takes most of the wind out of the sails of reincarnation.
Hence, conflating rebirth with reincarnation, as you do, and placing
it against a background of materialism ruins the whole point of the
concept of rebirth which the Buddha invented against a background of
existing reincarnation belief. Alex questioned that background, which
would go against everything I've ever read, so I asked him for some
evidence, and he had none but instead whined and insulted me, which
is what I've come to expect from Alex and most other blind faithers.
> 'Sakyamuni Buddha told Ananda and the rest of the disciples to listen
> carefully: "I will now expound the law of karma. Because of karmic
> effects inherited from previous lives, some people are poor, some
> rich, some happy and some miserable.
Utter nonsense. A nice way of keeping the caste system in place, and
fulfilling our compulsive need to explain everything that doesn't make
sense to us. We feel good if we get to feed our idealistic fantasies
about cosmic justice, and suppose that sexy rich people are that way
because they earned it, and ugly poor people are also that way because
they earned it. There is no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
Again, it is only the Hindu/Buddhist version of the excuse, "God works
in mysterious ways," or "It's all part of God's plan". Why not instead
consider the obvious, that there just is no "plan" and that people are
sexy and rich because, and only because, sexy rich people had sex and
got pregnant? Why add more to it than that? There is no evidence or
any reason to add more, only our irrational need for cosmic justice.
Again, as an excellent study on how we interpret tells us: "What the
legitimate studies of such phenomena have demonstrated over and over
is that people are prone to all sorts of common fallacies, and tend
to conjure up all sorts of wild explanations and dismiss simple
statistical laws and logical reasoning, and deny the obvious."
That describes you to a tee, Mahasanti. And half the bozos on this ng.
Better to be honest and admit that the universe is simply an unfair
place, and sometimes shit happens, and so accept it and deal with it.
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
DT wrote:
<< A 1977 Psychological Review article, "On telling more than we
can know", (something of which Peter and others are quite guilty)
by Nisbett, R., and Wilson, T., discussed the 'positional effect'.
When 52 subjects were asked to choose among four pairs of socks
laid out from left to right, (the pairs were identical, but this
was not told to the subjects) they overwhelmingly chose the
right-most pair, by about four to one over the other pairs.
Though everything about the socks were the same, the subjects
tended to deny the obvious (analogous to the 'mundane' physicalist)
explanation that they chose that pair because of its postion at the
far right. As the authors tell us:
"When asked directly about a possible effect of the position of the
article, virtually all subjects denied it, usually with a worried
glance at the interviever suggesting that they felt either that they
had misunderstood the question or were dealing with a madman."
What the legitimate studies of such phenomena have demonstrated over
and over is that people are prone to all sorts of common fallacies, and
tend to conjure up all sorts of wild explanations and dismiss simple
statisical laws and logical reasoning, and deny the obvious. The four
most common errors we tend to make in such anecdotal evidence fall in
the following four categories:
(1) disregarding background frequencies
(2) bias toward recent experiences
(3) inconsistent reactions to different descriptions of same situation
(4) favouring positive instances in confirming a generalisation
For a detailed account of this and how it is so easy to make these
errors and to come to conclusions about the paranormal, the mystical,
and/or the magical, take a look at the following references:
(1) Wason, P. and Johnson-Laird, (1972) _Psychology of Reasoning:
Structure and Content_, Batsford; and
(2) Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982) _Judgement
Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases_, Cambridge University Press.
These are two excellent references which thoroughly examine the very
type of distortions, fallacious reasoning, and mistaken inferences
frequently committed by Buddhist Bozos in their interpretations. >>
Mahasanti
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
news:3858D926...@abol.net...
> For some who's enlightened you sure talk a lot.
Who's enlightened, you? Him who want words I give him words.
--
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Evelyn Ruut <pud...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:83bq3n$10gg$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
>
> Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote in message >
>
> If you want to
> > see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the worldly
> > sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see Franco
> > Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
> > Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
>
> Hi Don,
>
> Just remembered this piece snatched off the newsgroups a long, long time
> ago, composed by St. Francis. There are actually 5 separate versions
> included and it is quite lovely poetry. Here is the whole thing, all
> five..... Enjoy.
I have turned it into Buddhist Prayers. The following is:
========================================================
The Supplications for Rebirth into the Pureland of Sri Bhagavan Tathagata
Amitabha
========================================================
By Mahasanti.
"Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!
Sri Bhagavan Tathagata Sakyamuni, and the Eighteen Arahants!
Yours are the praises, the glory, the honor, and all blessings!
To You alone, Most Exalted, do they belong,
And no man is worthy to mention You.
Be praised, my refuge, my protection,
Sri Bhagavan Tathagata Amitabha,
With all the Tathagatas,
Especially Sir Brother Sun (deva),
By whom You give us the light of day!
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour.
Of You, the Exalted One, he is a symbol!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, for Sister Moon and the Stars!
In the sky You formed them bright and lovely and fair.
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, for Brother Wind
And for the Air and cloudy and clear and all Weather,
By which You give sustenance to Your creatures!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, for Sister Water,
Who is very useful and humble and lovely and chaste!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for Brother Fire (Agni),
By whom You give us light at night,
And he is beautiful and merry and mighty and strong!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Sister Mother Earth (Bhumipadi, Lokapala),
Who sustains and governs us,
And produces fruits with colourful flowers and leaves!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for those who forgive for love of You
And endure infirmities and tribulations.
Blessed are those who shall endure them in peace,
For by You, Most High, they will be crowned!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Sister (Camundi), Bodily Death (Yamaraja),
From whom no living man can escape!
Woe to those who shall die in mortal sin!
Blessed are those whom she will find in Your most holy will,
For the rebirth in your pureland will not harm them.
Praise and bless my Lord Buddha Amitabha and thank Him And serve Him
with great
humility!"
-Mahasanti
******************************************
Canticle of the Sun Version 2
O most high, almighty,
Bhagavan Tathagata Amitabha,
to thee belong praise, glory, honor
and all blessing.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
with all his eighteen Arahants,
Bodhisattva Vajrapani, Bodhisattva Avalokitesrava,
and especially our brother the
sun (deva), who brings us the day
and who brings us the light: fair is he and
shines with a very great splendour: O Lord Buddha Amitabha, he signifies to
us Thee.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha for our sister the moon (devi),
and for the stars (devas), which he hath
set clear and lovely in the heavens.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha for our brother the wind,
and for the air and cloud,
calms and all weather by the which thou upholdest life in all creatures.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha for our brother fire (Agni),
through which thou givest us light
in the darkness; and he is bright and pleasant and very mighty and strong.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha for our mother the earth (Bhumipadi,
Lokapala),
the which doth sustain us and
keep us, and bringeth forth divers fruits and flowers of many colors and
grass.
Praised be my Lord Buddha Amitabha for all those who pardon one another for
his love's sake,
and who endure weakness and tribulation: blessed are they who peaceably
shall endure, for thou, O most Highest, shalt give them a crown.
Praise ye and bless the Lord Buddha Amitabha and give thanks unto him and
serve him with
great humility.
*************************************
Canticle of the Sun Version 3
The heavens are telling the glory of the Tathagata,
and all creation is shouting for joy.
Come, dance in the forest, come, play in the field,
and sing, sing to the glory of the Lord Buddha Amitabha .
Sing to the sun, the bringer of day,
He carries the light of the Lord Buddha Amitabha in his rays;
The moon and the stars who light up the way
Unto your throne.
Praise to the wind that blows through the trees,
The sea's mighty storms, the gentlest breeze;
They blow where they will, they blow where they please
To please the Lord Buddha Amitabha .
Praise to the rain that waters our fields,
And blesses our crops so all the earth yields;
From death unto life her mystery revealed
Springs forth in joy.
Praise to the fire (Agni) who gives us his light,
The warmth of the sun (deva) to brighten our night;
He dances with joy, his spirit so bright,
He sings of you.
Sing to the earth (Bhumipadi, Lokapala) who makes life to grow,
The creatures you made to let your life show;
The flowers and trees that help us to know
The heart of love.
Praise to our death that makes our life real,
The knowledge of loss that helps us to feel;
The gift of yourself, your presence revealed
To lead us home.
************************************
*
Canticle of Brother Sun Version 4
Most high, all-powerful, all good, Lord Buddha Amitabha !
All praise is yours, all glory, all honor And all blessing.
To you alone, Most high, do they belong.
No Mortal lips are worthy To pronounce your name.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , though all that you have
made,
And first my Brother Sun, Who brings the day; and the light you give to us
through him.
How beautiful is he, how radiant in all his splendour!
Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness,
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , through Sister Moon and
Stars;
In the heavens you made them, bright
And precious and fair.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , through Brothers Wind and
Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather's moods,
By which you cherish all that you have made.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , through Sister Water,
So useful, lowly, precious and pure.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , through Brother Fire (Agni),
Through whom you brighten up the night.
How beautiful is he, how gay! Full of power and strength.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha , through Sister Earth
(Bhumipadi, Lokapala), our mother,
Who feeds us in her sovereignty and produces
Various fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, through those who grant pardon
For love of you; through those who endure
Sickness and trial.
Happy those who endure in peace,
By you, Most High, they will be crowned.
All praise be yours, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, through Sister Death,
From whom embrace no mortal can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Happy those She finds doing your will!
The rebirth in pureland can do no harm to them.
Praise and bless my Lord Buddha Amitabha, and give him thanks,
And serve him with great humility.
***********************************
*
The Canticle of Brother Sun Version 5
Most High Almighty Bhagavan Tathagata Amitabha,
Yours are praise, glory, honor and
all blessings; To You alone!
Most High, do they belong, and no man
is worthy of speaking Your Name!
Be praised, Lord Buddha Amitabha,
with all Your disciples, and above all our
Brother Sun, who gives us the day by which You light our way, and
who is beautiful, radiant and with his great splendour is a symbol
to us of You, O Most High!
And be praised, Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Sister Moon and the Stars. You
created them in the heavens bright,
precious and beautiful!
And be praised, Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Brother the Wind and for the air and
the clouds and for fair weather and for all other through which You
sustain Your creatures.
And be praised, Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Sister Water, so useful, and humble,
and chaste!
And be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Brother Fire, through whom You
light up the night and who is handsome, joyful, robust, and strong!
And be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha, for our Sister,
Mother Earth (Bhumipadi, Lokapala), who supports
and carries us and produces the diverse fruits and colourful flowers
and trees!
Praise and bless the Lord Buddha Amitabha
and give thanks to Him and serve Him with great humility!
Be praised, my Lord Buddha Amitabha,
for our Sister (Camundi), bodily Death (Yamaraja) from whom no
living man can escape!
Woe only to those who die in mortal sin; but blessed are those who
have done Your most holy will; for the rebirth in your pureland can cause
them
no harm!
Namo Amitabha Buddhaya... Namo Amitabha Buddhaya ....Namo Amitabha
Buddhaya....
(Recite 7, 21, 49 or 108 times, according to the sutta states that whoever
recite the name of Buddha Amitabha for seven times prior to his death, he
will surely be reborn in the pureland of Amitabha. The sutta's words are
truthful).
May the merit and virtue accrued from this work,
Adorn the Buddhas' Pure lands,
Repaying four kinds of kindness above,
And aiding those suffering in the paths below.
May those who see and hear of this,
All bring forth the resolve for Bodhi,
And when this retribution body is over,
Be born together in the land of ultimate bliss.
sarvamangalam
(may all be virtue/auspicious)
****supplications ended****
--
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote in message
news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> Don: He's not enlightened.
He has succeeded in the conditioned.
>I've met many enlightened teachers and
> he's not like them.
They have not succeeded in the conditioned.
>He is "in process" however.
He is in this process and will always in the state of truth (the victory) of
the conditioned.
>He will get there
> but he's not nuts enough yet.
To get there is too easy for him, a bodhisattva has no desire for suchness,
he only desires the challenge of victory in the conditioned.
>Got to go totally nuts in the worldly
> sense so you can leave it behind.
You have been struggling hard, haven't you? But this is too easy for a
bodhisattva. He desires the hardest afflictions which no men can take. He
desires the extreme stresses of hell situation.
>He still has to be right, a sure
> sign of the competitive, separate self. Your clue.
This is stressful, this is a situation which the competitive strives, but
this is still not enough.
>If you want to
> see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the worldly
> sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see Franco
> Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
> Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
Thank you. He has just turn that into a prayer for buddhists.
--
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Theravad <ther...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991216173346...@ngol04.aol.com...
> In article <833d58$sjn$7...@news6.jaring.my>, "Mahasanti"
<chi...@pd.jaring.my>
> writes:
>
> >This is for the released of Tathagata, Lee, this is not an option for
> >sentient beings, for them there is only one option, which is rebirth in
the
> >6 lokas. Thus the cause of ill (dukkha).
> >
>
> have you forgotten the most im[portant option of all, not to be reborn?
Therefore I have stated above: 'Thus the cause of ill'. In released,
therefore, is to release the cause of ill, then this teaching of kamma
(rebirth-linking) cannot be taught. Then those who are not release, to whom
this teaching of kamma is to be taught, due to the disclose of the doctrine
of release at the wrong time, will become the cause that arises wrong views,
such as: 'there is no rebirth, no kamma, we can kill, we can steal, there is
no life after death', and so forth. Therefore, I said the teaching of kamma,
of rebirth, of Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Paths and other conventional
dhamma is not to be refuted.
--
Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
(dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is the
practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
Alex Wilding
>>> Evidence, please.
>>
>> The evidence is in the 'Buddha Speaks of the Kamma Sutta':
>
>I was asking Alex, who didn't have any.
your strange view that the Buddha attacked the view of reincarnation and or
rebirth.
AW: Evidence, please.
While you are about it, what about the evidence for your assertion that
reincarnation was a cultural "given" in the Buddhas's day, rather than one
of a number of known views.
Evidence, please.
Oh yes, what's this about:
>Alex questioned that background, which
>would go against everything I've ever read,
>so I asked him for some evidence, and he
>had none but instead whined and insulted me, which
>is what I've come to expect from Alex and most
>other blind faithers.
?
I'm also waiting for you to tell me where I insulted you, but now that you
also say I was whining, I'd be curious to know which words you interpret
that way.
Alex W
GK
<klaus_sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
>to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
>ended through physical death.
<snip>
What is the Bardo?
Theravad
<ard...@idt.net> writes:
>Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness (viññâ.na) that
>fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)." He erred by saying
>that it does so "without change of identity" (tadeva...anañña.m) and
>also in regarding it as the "speaker & experiencer." This is not the
>same as to say that consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened
>the door to the possiblity that consciousness while transmigrating is
>mutable rather than immutable.
>
Who gives a shit?
Don James
"Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> --
> Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
> (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
> --
>
Maha, straighten him out and tell him you're not enlightened and
never have claimed to be. You are definitely "on the path", but you're
not in permanent samadhi. Right? Enlightenment by my definition is
permanent samadhi.
>
> --
> Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
> (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This
is the
> practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
>
> Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
> Punnaantan amumoditiva, ciram rakkhantu sasanam
> (Celestial deities, earth deities, powerful dragon-like deities,
> and god-like deities, with honour receive this merit, always
> protect the flourishing of sacred doctrine)
>
> Mahasanti
> URL: http://mahasantisangha.jumptunes.com/mara_disciples.htm
> Home: http://www.angelfire.com/ia/mahasanti/index.html
>
>
--
See your favorite poster at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
Don James
"Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
>
>
> --
> Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
> (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
> --
>
> news:000b8d9b...@usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com...
> > Don: He's not enlightened.
>
> He has succeeded in the conditioned.
"He"? You mean you. You have not transcended enough yet, in my
opinion.
>
> >I've met many enlightened teachers and
> > he's not like them.
>
> They have not succeeded in the conditioned.
Yes. Yes they have. They have transcended it.
>
> >He is "in process" however.
>
> He is in this process and will always in the state of truth (the
victory) of
> the conditioned.
I agree that you are firmly on the path of truth.
>
> >He will get there
> > but he's not nuts enough yet.
>
> To get there is too easy for him, a bodhisattva has no desire for
suchness,
> he only desires the challenge of victory in the conditioned.
Yes, we do have to battle the duality, to try to convince those who
are deceived by the illusions.
>
> >Got to go totally nuts in the worldly
> > sense so you can leave it behind.
>
> You have been struggling hard, haven't you?
Yes until I was your age. My way has had a lot of grace since then.
But this is too easy for a
> bodhisattva. He desires the hardest afflictions which no men can
take. He
> desires the extreme stresses of hell situation.
Well, I found out that if you really try to help a spirit who is
anchored in duality, it won't be easy :-) Like Clarence the Angel
says in "It's a wonderful life", "Lord! Isn't there an easier way
for me to earn my wings?"
>
> >He still has to be right, a sure
> > sign of the competitive, separate self. Your clue.
>
> This is stressful, this is a situation which the competitive strives,
but this is still not enough.
Did you realize that sometimes you seem to even have to defeat those
who agree with you? Like me, for example.
>
> >If you want to
> > see a graphically illustrated example of this going nuts in the
worldly
> > sense and imprinting on spirit to complete the journey works, see
Franco
> > Zeferelli's "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" the story of Saint Francis.
> > Lovely, lovely movie. Music by Cat Stevens, another dharma bro.
>
> Thank you. He has just turn that into a prayer for buddhists.
What's with this talking in the 2nd person, Maha? We spiritual types
are sooooooo weird hahahahgogogogohogohohohoho
>
> --
>
> Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
> Punnaantan amumoditiva, ciram rakkhantu sasanam
> (Celestial deities, earth deities, powerful dragon-like deities,
> and god-like deities, with honour receive this merit, always
> protect the flourishing of sacred doctrine)
>
> Mahasanti
> URL: http://mahasantisangha.jumptunes.com/mara_disciples.htm
> Home: http://www.angelfire.com/ia/mahasanti/index.html
>
>
--
DharmaTroll
"Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> was asking Alex, who didn't have any evidence.
Alex:
> That is true. It is because the onus is still on you to provide
> evidence for your strange view that the Buddha attacked the view
> of reincarnation and or rebirth.
He attacked reincarnation *with* rebirth, which he substituted for it,
I claimed. I claimed that the Buddha attacked reincarnation, and denied
it, yes, by replacing it with his new watered-down concept 'rebirth'.
> AW: Evidence, please.
Sure. Look up the term "anatta" in just about any intro to Buddhism.
The principle of which I speak is called "anatta" which is the denial
of reincarnation. Rebirth in Buddhism denies reincarnation, and only
claims that dharmas recur, never that an eternal spirit transmigrates.
For example, see Peter Harvey's excellent _Introduction to Budddhism_,
page 52: "The not-self (anatta) teaching does not deny that there is
*continuity* of character in life, and to some extent from life to
life. But persistent character-traits are merely due to the repeated
occurrence of certain cittas, or 'mind-sets'....while such character
traits may be long-lasting, they acn and do change, and are thus
impermanent, and so 'not-self-, insubstantial. A 'person' is a
collection of rapidly changing and interactiong mental and physical
processes, with character-patterns re-occurring over some time."
As you can see, this radically diverges from the idea of an eternal
spirit or self or soul which reincarnates or transmigrates. The
emphasis is not on *identity* of the same consciousness or spirit
or soul, but rather on *continuity* of traits.
Anyway, Alex, I can provide you with a dozen more references, and I'll
find some stuff on the Hindu soul or atman which reincarnates until it
is purified and then may merge again with the One, or Brahma, or Self.
So, as always, I can back up my claims with evidence. Your turn, bozo.
> I'm also waiting for you to tell me where I insulted you,
Ok:
>>> Best wishes for overcoming your addiction to the net, by the way.
Attacking my character instead of providing evidence. I.e., insult.
Not that I mind. I enjoy being ribbed. I was only making an observation
that there was no substance or evidence dealing with the issue in your
post, just the wisecracks. That tells me you got nothin' in your hand.
Now quit whining and provide evidence for your claims. Don't worry,
your pals like Ardie von Stirfried and Theravad will probably pop up
and try to claim that the Buddha went for souls and a Big Self, but
I'll rip their perennial poppycock to shreds if they try.
--My Divine Grace Yabba Dabba Dukkha Dharmakaya Trollpa
anarkissed
Mahasanti <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote in message
news:83dmp0$evv$4...@news6.jaring.my...
This is ill
> (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is
the
> practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
Okay, this has been trod out enough to attract attention. so, like what the
hell does it mean anyway? Seems like a fun mouthing of words meaning
nothing. Definition in plain speak?
Are you able to speak that those in need of education can grasp, or are you
only meant to be understood by those who already know?
Bill
>
>Mahasanti <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote in message
>news:83dmp0$evv$4...@news6.jaring.my...
>This is ill
>> (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is
>the
>> practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
>
>Okay, this has been trod out enough to attract attention. so, like what the
>hell does it mean anyway? Seems like a fun mouthing of words meaning
>nothing. Definition in plain speak?
I think he's asking whether there is the production of ill.
Correct me if I am wrong, Maha.
>Are you able to speak that those in need of education can grasp, or are you
>only meant to be understood by those who already know?
>
The answer lies in whether he understands himself, no?
--
It's alright if your head's in the clouds as
long as your feet are still on the ground.
Peter Da Costa
<geo...@mindspring.com> writes
This is a Tibetan term which I am not familiar with, but I think it
refers to an intermediate state between rebirths and as such if the
aggregates of consciousness are sufficiently developed in skilful means
this can influence the next rebirth. Or more simply, the being can
influence his rebirth but DT will say that this is slipping into self
view.
Peter
pet...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk
http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0dwe/bsa.shtml
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/
http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/
"Introduction to Buddhism" P Harvey, Cambridge
Peter Da Costa
deja.com> writes
>In article <arcc-ya02408000R...@news.baynet.net>,
> arcc@NOSPAM_baynet.net (Punnadhammo) wrote:
>
>> The Buddhist idea of rebirth is that each successive moment of
>> consciousness conditions the next. There is nothing which persists
>> even from moment to moment within one life. The causal link is
>> karma, each moment conditioning the next but each arises afresh
>> from the void. And passes away into the void.
>
>Excellent. Well said, Punnadhammo. This is just what *rebirth* is,
>as opposed to the self or the soul or the consciousness going
>through time, as in the Hindu and New Age models.
>
>No such further fact ever exists. There is just the present state of
>the system at one moment conditioning the state of the system the next.
>
>> At death, if there is still karma outstanding the consciousness will
>
>OOPS! That's a soul view. Bhante Punnadhammo slipped in a soul again
>with that sentence: "the consciousness". See how tricky this gets?
Hi DT
You still haven't got it, have you.
Bhante is quite at liberty to talk of conscious in this context as a
conventional short hand. What happens at the death of an enlightened
being is that there is no more Kamma to be plaid out so there is no more
rebirth. In an unenlightened being there is a residue of Kammic force
and this conditions the next consciousness arising in the next being.
This to is a shorthand. Let me give you some of the details according
to Dependent Origination.
With the total elimination of ignorance and the complete cultivation of
wisdom there are no more Kamma formations generated, hence no more
rebirth. Be careful this is not annihilation, but it is entirely beyond
our comprehension because it is not like anything that we are
conditioned by and hence know about.
While there is ignorance, and wisdom not fully developed, Kamma
formations are still unknowingly created. These accumulate to give rise
to the tendencies for becoming. These are responsible for conditioning
the future arising of consciousness in a new embryo where they appear as
the biases or taints in that life. There is no self here and I
confidently expect that Bhante, Tang and others could give this in
greater clarity than I have. The only one who sees a self view here is
you.
>
>Don't let that sneaky old soulist Punnadhammo tell you that he goes
>for the Buddhist teaching of anatta, as he adds the soul in every time.
No DT, this is just your own reading of it.
>As soon as you add a reified, substantantial thing "the..." whatever,
>again you've missed the whole point of rebirth and anatta and how it
>differs from reincarnation/transmigration of the Hindus and New Agers.
It is OK to use shorthand conventions if you are clear about what is
meant. However, you still seem to get confused and mistake the one for
the other.
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
Theravad
<pet...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Be careful this is not annihilation, but it is entirely beyond
>our comprehension because it is not like anything that we are
>conditioned by and hence know about.
You finally got to the point, DT is defeated!
Theravad
<pet...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Or more simply, the being can
>influence his rebirth but DT will say that this is slipping into self
>view.
It is but it is also true. Those who have permanently transcended the view of
self do not go to the Bardo, IMO.
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:385A287A...@micron.net...
> Mahasanti wrote:
> > The prove is in the sutta. Disproval is in the doubt. It is because of
the
> > conditioned existence of the world, that the Buddha taught the cessation
of
> > the world. Those who refute the conditioned existence of the world, have
> > refuted the world as suffering, have refuted the origin of suffering,
have
> > refuted the cessation of suffering, they are said to have strayed to one
of
> > the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha.
>
> Again, you need to read before you write. At no point have I suggested
> that the world is not conditioned, yet you misunderstand my post, then
> launch into a refutation of other than what I stated. Since you do not
> wish to read and understand my words, I will repeat the words attributed
> to the Buddha as follows:
Here you admit the existence of the conditioned world. In your previous post
you said:
"Prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of reincarnation, God,
the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after
death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand the sutta
that was quoted."
In this statement, you apparently admit the existence of the conditioned
world, while at the same time refute the existence of the conditioned world,
this is where the fault in your logic arises. Just as you do not have two
heads, so you cannot have two conditioned truths, that which is conditioned
is existing as conditioned, there is no truth that the conditioned does not
exist as conditioned, which implies two conditioned truths, one which exist
as conditioned, another inexist as conditioned (which is to be forced within
the context of the conditioned). This is evidently a duality, one which is
valid, another unsupported by logic.
Take note that the term reincarnation, God, cosmos, and Buddhas, belongs to
the appearances of the conditioned world, which you have admitted to be
existing as conditioned existence. That which you admitted is free from the
need to be proven, or be disproved. For to admit the conditioned existence
is to have proven conditioned existence. In other words to admit the
conditioned existence is to have disproved the refutation of conditioned
existence.
In your previous post, you give this remark: "While you waste time proving
that your raft exists, you might watch for leaks."
Here you have apparently contradict the fact that you have admitted that the
existence of the conditioned raft of compounded phenomena. You have
evidently being ignored of your conditioning, while at the same
time motivated by another part of your conditioning to arises
the contradictory views within a single statement. For one of these two of
your conditioning is ignorant of the fact that which you have
admitted to be conditioned existence is self-proven to be existing as such,
therefore to prove that which is already proven, there will result in
settlement of the doubt which motivate the action to prove it.
But to disprove that which is already proven, there will result in the
unsettlement of the doubt which motivate the action to disprove it.
Therefore, this option contradict your statement which implied: "Prove (not
disprove) the existence or nonexistence of (the conditioned phenomena of)
reincarnation, God, the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the
Buddha after death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand
the sutta that was quoted." Since the existence, not the nonexistence of
conditioned phenomena can indeed be proven in the context of the
conditioned, conventional, compounded reality.
The truth only contradict this part of your statement which is incorrect in
term of faultless logic: "Disprove (not prove) the existence or nonexistence
of (the conditioned phenomena of) incarnation, God, the beginning of the
cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after death, etc. These are traps
for those who do not understand the sutta that was quoted." Since the
nonexistence, not the existence of conditioned phenomena can indeed be
disproved in the context of the conditioned, conventional, compounded
reality.
>
> "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of
> views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of
> views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress,
> despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
> cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding.
Here the cosmos as composition, will be subjected to disintegration, thus
not eternal. This is in accord with truth.
>
> "The position that 'the cosmos is not eternal'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'the cosmos is finite'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'the cosmos is infinite'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'the soul & the body are the same'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'the soul is one thing and the body another'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
This is conventional truth.
>
> "...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...does
> not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct
> knowledge, full awakening, Unbinding."
This is in accord with the prospective of the unity of two truths, which are
free from the four extremes, because the confusion arising from attachment
to the conventional truth (in those views above) with the ultimate truth
(because the issues contained mixture of conventional facts and supramundane
truth of the dhammata, and including the Tathagata), leads to wrong views,
which leads to a compound of activities (sankhara) that conduce to rebirth,
that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair.
Thus composing a compound of the activities that lead (to such ends), they
fall down the precipice of lamentation and despair. Therefore the Tathagata
declared that those who hold such wrong views does not lead to
disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full
awakening, Unbinding.
>
> "Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
>
> "A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
> What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
> disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
> such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
> consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of
> this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation,
> renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations,
> all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack
> of sustenance/clinging, released."
> from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn72.html#thicket
Tathagata is the absolute, unconditioned and uncompounded, therefore that
cannot be established in any comparison to a mundane, conventional position.
Even so, the conventional world of compounded phenomena arises in the
Tathagata's experience as dependent-arising, from which arises kamma,
rebirth of sentient beings, the 6 lokas and their consequence sufferings of
the lower realms. Therefore, the latter is not to be refuted, and they are
established as the foundation for the Four Noble Truths. Take note that the
Four Noble Truths do not applied to the unconditioned, uncompounded,
Tathagata's state of being, the Four Noble Truths applied only to the fact
of the proven dependent arising, from which arises kamma, rebirth of
sentient beings, the 6 lokas (the world) and their consequence sufferings of
the lower realms. Therefore, the latter is not to be refuted. Since rebirth
is not to be refuted, when requests have been make with regards to what is
reincarnated, or what is transmigrated, all the answers to this question
should be applied in the context of the relative, conditioned truth of
depending arising, and not on the ultimate, unconditioned truth of dhammata,
and Tathagata.
>
> -----
>
> If you dislike the words of the Buddha, how about some Nagarjuna who
> states in the final chapter of the MULAMADHYAMAKAKARIKA as follows:
>
> 21. If the world were limited,
> How could there be another world?
This is a conventional truth.
> If the world were unlimited,
> How could there be another world?
This is a conventional truth.
>
> 22. Since the continuum of the aggregates
> Is like the flame of a butterlamp,
> It follows that neither its finitude
> Nor its infinitude makes sense.
This is a conventional truth.
>
> 23. If the previous were disintegrating
> And these aggregates, which depend
> Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
> Then the world would be finite.
No, the world will disintegrates, since the aggregates were disintegrated
and ceased (did not arise). The world being disintegrated lead to
annihilism, finite implies existence of one world, but this world after
disintegration is no more. Thus nihilism put to nil even the finite.
>
> 24. If the previous were not disintegrating
> And these aggregates, which depend
> Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
> Then the world would be infinite.
No, the world which is not subject to disintegrating, implies it as an
uncompounded whole, free from fragmentation, since it is whole and single,
it is not an infinity of worlds.
>
> 25. If one part were finite and
> One part were infinite,
> Then the world would be finite and infinite.
> This would make no sense.
The world is not define as infinity nor finite. Because the three times is
not established. In the absence of past and future, the notion of the
present which are dependence of the past and future events, is not
established. Finite is not established in the formless, for the formless
does not possess a border. Infinity is not established in the formless, for
in the absence of objects, infinity is not possible. Since reality
transcends the formness of thing-events, the unconditioned, and unsupported
reality is unsupported by a border of finite and unsupported by the objects
of infinity.
> 26. How could one think that
> One part of the appropriator is destroyed
> And one part is not destroyed?
> This position makes no sense.
It will make sense when both the conditioned and unconditioned is
understood.
>
> 27. How could one think that
> One part of the appropriation is destroyed
> And one part is not destroyed?
> This position makes no sense.
It will make sense when both the conditioned and unconditioned is
understood.
> 28. If it could be established that
> It is both finite and infinite,
Finite implies space, infinite implies objects, their unity is conventional
reality.
> Then it could be established that
> It is neither finite nor infinite.
That which is neither finite nor infinite, is neither space, nor objects,
their unity is the ultimate reality.
>
> 29. So, because all entities are empty,
> Which views of permanence, etc., would occur,
> And to whom, when, why, and about what
> Would they occur at all?
If all entities are empty, they all not self-supported, accordingly they
will dissolved out of existence. This is a view of permanence annihilism.
Who would implies to whom, when, why and about what would they occur in
reality of annihilism?
>
> 30. I prostrate to Gautama
> Who through compassion
> Taught the true doctrine,
> Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.
What the Gautama taught is conditioned antidotes for conditioned diseases,
if you have no diseases, the Tathagata will not taught conditioned
antidotes. If you have no diseases, the Tathagata in the past had not, the
Tathagata in the present has not, and the Tathagata of the future will not,
taught that which is unconditioned, uncompounded, which is beyond mentation
and languages.
>
> Now you can attempt to understand the subtle lessons of both the Buddha
> and Nagarjuna regarding views (both right and wrong) or you can once
> again launch into a rambling refutation of assertions made only by the
> wind. And as with our prior discussion of the Bodhisattva path, you
> will find that your unfamiliarity with early Buddhist suttas is a
> handicap for you.
I did not find any substantial points in the Nagarjuna's views you have
presented as support for the contradictions that you have presented, and in
which I have revealed for all to witness.
> > There is no doubt about the conditioned existence as conventional, this
> > truth is not to be refuted, him who refute conditioned dhamma, have
strayed
> > to one of the 62 wrong views.
>
> Who are you talking to? You imagine opponents that do not exist.
Thus I take it that you have accepted conditioned dhamma, and have not
strayed to wrong view, but then your previous statements have become a
contradiction which contradict logic and truth, because of this fact.
>
> > Until you read the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha, do not assume
> > others are less learnt than you.
>
> I have no real idea about the extent of your learning - I do know you
> have little familiarity with the early suttas and that you have not
> begun to understand the purpose of my reference to the Aggi-Vacchagotta
> Sutta in my prior post in this thread.
I fully understand your motive of presenting the Aggi-Vacchagotta, the
motive which labelled as the futile attempt to insist the ultimate
prospective of the unconditioned Tathagata principal with the conditioned
dhamma.
>And finally, you incorrectly
> assume that I have not read the 62 wrong views.
Then you have attempt to claim that you have read the 62 wrong views, herein
I dare challenged you to present the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha.
>
> Now if you wish to go back, understand the purpose of my reference and
> then discuss it in an intelligent fashion, I am willing to talk. But if
> you wish to misconstrue my words and the words of the Buddha, then I
> have other things to do.
Your reference has started from the prospective of wrong views, there is
nothing intelligent I can make out of it, except to present the analytical
truth which directly crushed your self-contradictory, and incompetent logic.
--
Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
(dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is the
practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
GK <geo...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:385a67a1...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:15:33 GMT, Klaus Schmetterling
> <klaus_sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
> >to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
> >ended through physical death.
Since there is an essence, there is an essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
ended through physical death.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> What is the Bardo?
Are you living? If so, you are in the bardo of the living.
--
DharmaTroll
Peter Da Costa <peterd@NO_SPAMpdacosta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Punnadhammo:
>>> At death, if there is still karma outstanding the consciousness
>>> will rise again afresh to a new physical base.
DT:
>> OOPS! That's a soul view. Bhante Punnadhammo slipped in a soul again
>> with that sentence: "the consciousness". See how tricky this gets?
Peter:
> Hi DT
> Bhante is quite at liberty to talk of conscious in this context as a
> conventional short hand.
Oh, cut the crap. He said that the soul rises out of the body and into
a new "physical base". No shorthand about it: it's the paridigm case
of a substantial soul view. Claiming that the self/soul is made out
of spook stuff instead of physical stuff doesn't change anything.
It's still just as much a substantial self view either way, Peteski.
> What happens at the death of an enlightened being is that there is
> no more Kamma to be plaid out so there is no more rebirth.
Right. When you get enlightened, you finally get to die.
So it is a one-tailed eternalism: you have a soul which has existed
infinitely in the past but then which finally dies. The Christians
say the same thing, except they are one-tailed the other way.
> It is OK to use shorthand conventions if you are clear about what is
> meant. However, you still seem to get confused and mistake the one
No, Peter. I am not confused. I am very familiar with the practise
of positing a soul and then hiding it behind terminology such as
'the mindstream' or 'the consciousness' or 'the spirit'.
Now you go on and on with myths about why the soul continues to exist
or under what circumstances it ceases to exist. That isn't important.
What's important is that this was *not* shorthand. That is, there is
no way that the Bhante can, in principle, make the claim he is making
without invoking a substantial self/soul/spookie. I could care less
what particular words he is using.
Again, what would it *mean* for you to be 'reborn' as one particular
future person and not as all the other co-existing persons?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
GK
<pet...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <385a67a1...@news.mindspring.com>, GK
><geo...@mindspring.com> writes
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:15:33 GMT, Klaus Schmetterling
>><klaus_sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
>>>to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
>>>ended through physical death.
>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>What is the Bardo?
>
>This is a Tibetan term which I am not familiar with, but I think it
>refers to an intermediate state between rebirths and as such if the
>aggregates of consciousness are sufficiently developed in skilful means
>this can influence the next rebirth. Or more simply, the being can
>influence his rebirth but DT will say that this is slipping into self
>view.
>
>Peter
That's what made me curious. If I am reading some of the posts
correctly, some are saying there is no consciousness that can
have any awareness after death.
DharmaTroll
>
> This is a Tibetan term which I am not familiar with, but I think it
> refers to an intermediate state between rebirths and as such if the
> aggregates of consciousness are sufficiently developed in skilful
> means this can influence the next rebirth. Or more simply, the being
> can influence his rebirth but DT will say that this is slipping into
> self view.
If you look at yourself at being reborn every moment, then you can
indeed influence future rebirths. How can you be not familiar with
that term, Peter? The Bardo is a sort of astral plane where you hang
out for 40 days or something like that, before you are reborn as
another person. It's a Tibetan term. I'm surprised Peter isn't
familiar with it, as the famous "Tibetan Book of the Dead" is about
the trip through the Bardo.
I think it was Carl Jung that pointed out that really it is a metaphor
for developmental psychology, as the stages of the Bardo are about
growing up and developing, except in reverse order.
The self or soul view which is held by some of the sects is that a soul
or spookie, called a "gandhabba", must float into the womb when people
are screwing for a woman to get pregnant. Some people, such as good old
Bhante Punnadhammo, literally think that the eggie and spermie need to
have a threesome with the spookie for a woman to get pregnant! heh heh
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote in message
news:83e3ta$7hf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <83dmp0$evv$4...@news6.jaring.my>,
> "Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> > --
> > Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
> > (Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
> > --
> > Dean Crabb <dean....@abol.net> wrote in message
> > news:3858D926...@abol.net...
> > > For some who's enlightened you sure talk a lot.
> >
> > Who's enlightened, you? Him who want words I give him words.
>
> Maha, straighten him out
That's something a third party like me cannot do anything about, you have to
settle your own problem.
>and tell him you're not enlightened and
> never have claimed to be.
I don't owe him any explanation. If you feel the need, you can explained
that to him.
>You are definitely "on the path", but you're
> not in permanent samadhi. Right?
There is no two truths, if you have to implied definite, there is no 'not'.
>Enlightenment by my definition is
> permanent samadhi.
Did you claimed enlightenment? Do not tempt me, I would not want to insult a
man your age. There is no personal definition in enlightenment.
--
Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
(dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is the
practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> wrote in message
news:83e6k1$9nn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <83dmp5$evv$7...@news6.jaring.my>,
> "Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> > He has succeeded in the conditioned.
>
> "He"? You mean you. You have not transcended enough yet, in my
> opinion.
He don't need to.
> > They have not succeeded in the conditioned.
>
> Yes. Yes they have. They have transcended it.
They don't stand a chance on this ng.
> >
> > He is in this process and will always in the state of truth (the
> victory) of
> > the conditioned.
>
> I agree that you are firmly on the path of truth.
He is stable.
>
> Yes, we do have to battle the duality, to try to convince those who
> are deceived by the illusions.
He just play with words..
> >
> > You have been struggling hard, haven't you?
>
> Yes until I was your age. My way has had a lot of grace since then.
His way knows no grace.
> Well, I found out that if you really try to help a spirit who is
> anchored in duality, it won't be easy :-) Like Clarence the Angel
> says in "It's a wonderful life", "Lord! Isn't there an easier way
> for me to earn my wings?"
The fishermen has no desire in the fish, but he catches and releases.
>
> Did you realize that sometimes you seem to even have to defeat those
> who agree with you? Like me, for example.
He can't agreed with your new age philosophy. And he does not insult a man
your age. This is your greatest advantage. But he will endures the
unendurable..
--
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
DharmaTroll <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:83dj98$qmt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <83chmd$ok6$4...@news6.jaring.my>,
> "Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
>
> > Rebirth is reincarnation.
>
> No, it is not. The Buddhist concept of rebirth is distinct from
> reincarnation or transmigration, as there is no self or spirit to
> be reincarnated; in the Buddhist version, only dharmas occur.
The buddhist concept in Chinese and Sanskrit do not distinguished between
rebirth, reincarnation or transmigration, only the Buddhism translated in
English bears the three different words which essentially meant the same by
the translators' definition. The self or spirit cannot be supported on the
conditioned doctrine. Therefore this topics is not open to discussion even
now. But rebirth do exists, and this is sufficient.
> > The evidence is in the 'Buddha Speaks of the Kamma Sutta':
>
> I was asking Alex, who didn't have any. In fact, you only here recite
> moralistic sutras explaining rebirth. What I claimed was that Buddhism
> developed in a culture where reincarnation was a cultural given to the
> mainstream religious crowd, and that Buddhism was pushing off of that,
> as rebirth takes most of the wind out of the sails of reincarnation.
> Hence, conflating rebirth with reincarnation, as you do, and placing
> it against a background of materialism ruins the whole point of the
> concept of rebirth which the Buddha invented against a background of
> existing reincarnation belief.
The Buddha is aware of the countless reincarnations beliefs of that time,
but the four Noble Truths was still constructed after he obtain direct
experience of them. In order words, he is not in any way conditioned by
them, because if he did, he would not need to go through the experience
himself.. Furthermore, you cannot judge the Buddha on the basis of ordinary
human, the sutta clearly states that the Tathagata possessed ten powers
lacking in humans as well as all other sentient beings. The sutta is the
only authority in this justification, but if you are as usual, reject the
sutta integrity on this, then this topics of discussion can no longer
continue.
> 'Sakyamuni Buddha told Ananda and the rest of the disciples to listen
> carefully: "I will now expound the law of karma. Because of karmic
> effects inherited from previous lives, some people are poor, some
> rich, some happy and some miserable.
>Utter nonsense.
Yours is not nonsense?
>A nice way of keeping the caste system in place, and
>fulfilling our compulsive need to explain everything that doesn't make
>sense to us.
Yours is a nice way of keeping the caste system in place, and
fulfilling our compulsive need to explain everything that doesn't make
sense to us?
>We feel good if we get to feed our idealistic fantasies
>about cosmic justice,
But I don't feel good if we get to feed our idealistic fantasies
about cosmic justice, because I don't have fantasies, only the knowledge of
the cool facts of dependent arising, not randomness, not fate.
>and suppose that sexy rich people are that way
>because they earned it, and ugly poor people are also that way because
>they earned it.
I do suppose that sexy rich people are that way
because they earned it, and ugly poor people are also that way because
they earned it. This I fully agreed with the Buddha. As the Buddha said:
"According to the seed that's sown,
So is the fruit ye reap there from,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps.
Sown is the seed, and thou shalt taste
The fruit thereof."
(Samyutta Nikaya Vol.I, P.227)
When the Buddha said this, the seed or deeds he refer to is not just about
our thoughts, but also our bodily actions and our speech which has origins
rooted in mental volition. As he said:
"Mental volition, O Bhikkhus, is what I call action (Kamma).
Having volition one acts by body, speech and thought"
(Anguttara Nikaya III.415)
> There is no reason to rationalise like that. And the
> claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
There is no reason for you to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
There is reason for me to be critical like that (according to the Buddha's
explanation). And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains. As the Buddha
said:
"According to the seed that's sown,
So is the fruit ye reap there from,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps.
Sown is the seed, and thou shalt taste
The fruit thereof."
(Samyutta Nikaya Vol.I, P.227)
Thus what ever you do, become seeds that will reap as kammic fruit. There is
no fate in randomness, which does not recognize the cause which is the seed,
and the fruit which is the ripening of kamma. thus the teaching of kamma is
irrefutable and the words of the Buddha is truthful. This is therefore a
right view.
This is a wrong view, which assume that what ever you do, does not become
seeds that will reap as kammic fruit. There is fate in randomness, which
does not recognize the cause which is the seed, and the fruit which is the
ripening of kamma. thus the teaching of kamma as refutable and the words of
the Buddha as falsehood. This is why I said:
This is ill (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill.
This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill. Such persons delight
in the activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death,
sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Not composing a compound of
activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus taking delight in gratifying the
activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. thus taking delight, they compose a
compound of activities (sankhara) that conduce to rebirth, that lead to old
age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus composing a
compound of the activities that lead (to such ends), they fall down the
precipice of lamentation and despair. They are not release from ill, I
declare.
> Again, it is only the Hindu/Buddhist version of the excuse,
Hindu is Hindu, Buddhist is Buddhist, like oil and water, the two don't mix.
>"God works
> in mysterious ways," or "It's all part of God's plan".
The Buddha is fully against the God of Hindu, as well as all other God that
claimed supreme.
One of the three divergent views (Veda/Hinduism/Brahmanism) that prevailed
at the time of the Buddha was:
"Whatsoever happiness or pain or neutral feeling the person experiences all
that is due to the creation of a Supreme Deity". (Gradual Saying, I.158).
Commenting on this fatalistic view the Buddha said:
"So, then, owing to the creation of a Supreme Deity men will become
murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, abusive, babblers,
covetous, malicious, and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on
the creation of a God as the essential reason, there is neither the desire
to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed." (ibid.)
Referring to the naked ascetics who practised self-mortification, the Buddha
said: "If O Bhikkhus, beings experience pain and happiness as the result of
God's creation, then certainly these naked ascetics must have been created
by a wicked God, since they are at present experiencing such terrible pain",
(Devadaha Sutta, No.101. Majjhima Nikaya, II.222)
According to Buddhism the inequalities that exist in the work are due, to
some extent, to heredity and environment and to a greater extent, to a cause
or causes (Kamma) which are not only present but proximate or remote past.
Man himself is responsible for his own happiness and misery. He creates his
own heaven and hell. He is master of his own destiny child of his past and
parent of his future. This is the law of Kamma, which the use to refute the
false views of Hinduism, Brahmanism, and the Veda which claimed
reincarnation as the soul evolves from lower states to a higher states, and
then finally reached union with the Supreme Deity (God). This reincarnation
is not the Kamma of Rebirth claimed by the Buddha, for the Buddha has use
Kamma to refute these heredicts' false views.
Although Buddhism teaches that Kamma is the chief cause of the inequalities
in the world (as opposed to randomness) yet it does not teach fatalism or
the doctrine of predestination, for it (fate) does not hold the view that
everything is due to past actions. The law of cause and effect (Kamma) is
only one of the twenty-four causes described in Buddhist teaching, or one of
the five orders (Nyiyamas) which are laws in themselves and operate in the
universe. They are:-
1. Utu Niyama, physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds
and rains. The inerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes
and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc. belong to this
group.
2. Bija Niyama, order to germs and seed (physical organic order) e.g., rice
produced from rice seed, sugary taste from sugarcane or honey, peculiar
characteristic of certain fruits, etc. The scientific Theory of cells and
genes and physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
3. Kamma Biyama, order of act and result, e.g. , desirable and undesirable
acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks
its own level so does Kamma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable
result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence.
This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of
the moon and stars.
4. Dhamma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g. the natural phenomena occurring at
the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar
lawa of the nature, the reason for being good and so forth may be included
in this group.
5. Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic law, e.g. processes of
consciousness
as, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness,
power of mind, etc. Telepathy, telesthesia, retrocohnitin, premonition,
clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading, all psychic phenomena (iddhi
vidya) which are inexplicable to modern science are included in this class.
(Abhidhmma-vatara p.54).
These five orders embrace everything in the world and every mental or
physical phenomenon could be explained by them (thus explained away
everything, and it is still explaining something). they being laws in
themselves, require no lawgiver and Kamma as such is only one of them.
>Why not instead
> consider the obvious, that there just is no "plan" and that people are
> sexy and rich because, and only because, sexy rich people had sex and
> got pregnant?
There is no fate, this I agreed. But they are causes which result from
their past actions as seed, which when nurtured by suitable conditions will
produce the result of future destiny. One's future is not determined by
fate, but by one's present actions, period.
>Why add more to it than that?
Nothing superstitious such as the idea of fate, or randomness have been
added, but you did add the latter which is randomness to explain everything.
This is a wrong view. According to the Buddha, there is no randomness, but
the coming together of conditions which are the result of deeds of past
action, which is Kamma, which is only one of the twenty-four causes
described in Buddhist teaching, or one of the five orders (Nyiyamas) which
are laws in themselves and operate in the universe (dhammadhatu), added all
together.
The Buddha occasionally employed randomness only to justify the difficulties
of meeting the right conditions, which is a metaphor, but even that still
does not come close to randomness, because of the possibility of meeting
such condition, in the condition of the randomness such as given a limited
number of duration and a limited number of factors. This is given with the
assumption, that understanding of kamma, and the conscious mindful
application of it, is lacking (and so the individual is drifting along with
the currents of kamma without knowledge of it, being slave to it, and not as
its master). This randomness occurrence of events when being investigated,
none of the occurrence of events possessed a constitutional factors which
escapes being the causes or seeds, that lead to the next occurrence, which
is the fruition of the formal. because if the formal causes or seeds is
lacking, the future occurrence will ceased at that very spot. In other
words, none of the constitutional factors of an events escaped being the
dependent arising of kamma, and therefore cannot be established as an
occurrence of randomness (which implied the lack of causes and results).
But Kamma if understood and applied with conscious application of
mindfulness and diligence, the fruit of Kamma will be ripened within
certainty. In order words, once Kamma and its application are understood,
and one engaged in the action of mastering it, one has attained certainty in
the mastery of one's future destiny, and so the ultimate goal of nibbana,
can definitely be attained with certainty. Dependent arising, Kamma
therefore, is the teaching of Buddha, whereas any other teaching of worldly
philosophy, psychology and randomness are the teaching of Mara.
This is the basic foundation upon which the Buddha declared the Four Noble
Truths, which is:
"The truth of suffering is to be compared with a disease, the truth of the
origin of suffering with the cause of the disease, the truth of the
extinction of suffering with the cure of the disease, the truth of the
extinction of suffering with the cure of the disease, the truth of the path
with the medicine." (Visuddhi Magga).
>There is no evidence or
> any reason to add more,
You have added randomness, and that's already too much. There is only
dependent arising which is kamma. And yet you rationalize it away with your
claimed of randomness which cannot exist as much as an instant within
phenomena of dependent arising. There is no reason to rationalise like that.
And use the claim of randomness to explains everything, and therefore really
explains nothing (only unsupported logic and wrong views).
>only our irrational need for cosmic justice.
You have already the need to rationalize cosmic justice with randomness in
attempt to do away with the law of cause and effect (Kamma). There is no
reason to rationalise like that. And use the claim of randomness to explains
everything, and therefore really explains nothing (only unsupported logic
and wrong views).
> Again, as an excellent study on how we interpret tells us: "What the
> legitimate studies of such phenomena have demonstrated over and over
> is that people are prone to all sorts of common fallacies, and tend
> to conjure up all sorts of wild explanations and dismiss simple
> statistical laws and logical reasoning, and deny the obvious."
There is no wilder explanation for phenomena than the randomness which you
used. And use the claim of randomness to explains everything, and therefore
really explains nothing (only unsupported logic and wrong views).
> That describes you to a tee, Mahasanti. And half the bozos on this ng.
> Better to be honest and admit that the universe is simply an unfair
> place, and sometimes shit happens, and so accept it and deal with it.
You claimed the universe as unfair because you thought everything occurred
randomly, this is not true, every fruit you taste now have its causes rooted
in your past actions. Therefore the universe is fair and just, because there
is no randomness or fate which determined your future destiny. As the Buddha
said:
"According to the seed that's sown,
So is the fruit ye reap there from,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps.
Sown is the seed, and thou shalt taste
The fruit thereof."
(Samyutta Nikaya Vol.I, P.227)
There is also no reason to rationalise that the universe is unfair. And use
the claim of randomness to explains everything, and therefore really
explains nothing.
>
> DT wrote:
> << A 1977 Psychological Review article, "On telling more than we
> can know", (something of which Peter and others are quite guilty)
> by Nisbett, R., and Wilson, T., discussed the 'positional effect'.
> When 52 subjects were asked to choose among four pairs of socks
> laid out from left to right, (the pairs were identical, but this
> was not told to the subjects) they overwhelmingly chose the
> right-most pair, by about four to one over the other pairs.
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> Though everything about the socks were the same, the subjects
> tended to deny the obvious (analogous to the 'mundane' physicalist)
> explanation that they chose that pair because of its postion at the
> far right. As the authors tell us:
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> "When asked directly about a possible effect of the position of the
> article, virtually all subjects denied it, usually with a worried
> glance at the interviever suggesting that they felt either that they
> had misunderstood the question or were dealing with a madman."
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> What the legitimate studies of such phenomena have demonstrated over
> and over is that people are prone to all sorts of common fallacies, and
> tend to conjure up all sorts of wild explanations and dismiss simple
> statisical laws and logical reasoning, and deny the obvious. The four
> most common errors we tend to make in such anecdotal evidence fall in
> the following four categories:
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> (1) disregarding background frequencies
> (2) bias toward recent experiences
> (3) inconsistent reactions to different descriptions of same situation
> (4) favouring positive instances in confirming a generalisation
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> For a detailed account of this and how it is so easy to make these
> errors and to come to conclusions about the paranormal, the mystical,
> and/or the magical, take a look at the following references:
> (1) Wason, P. and Johnson-Laird, (1972) _Psychology of Reasoning:
> Structure and Content_, Batsford; and
> (2) Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (1982) _Judgement
> Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases_, Cambridge University Press.
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
>
> These are two excellent references which thoroughly examine the very
> type of distortions, fallacious reasoning, and mistaken inferences
> frequently committed by Buddhist Bozos in their interpretations. >>
There is also no reason to rationalise like that. And the
claim explains everything, and therefore really explains nothing.
Due to this rationalisation, which explains everything, which really
explains nothing, therefore I said:
This is ill (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill.
This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill. Such persons delight
in the activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death,
sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Not composing a compound of
activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus taking delight in gratifying the
activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow,
grief, woe, lamentation and despair. thus taking delight, they compose a
compound of activities (sankhara) that conduce to rebirth, that lead to old
age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Thus composing a
compound of the activities that lead (to such ends), they fall down the
precipice of lamentation and despair. They are not release from ill, I
declare.
But buddhists, those who do understand, as it really is, the meaning of:
This is ill (dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill.
This is the practice that leads to the ceasing of ill. As such take not
delight in activities that conduce to rebirth, that lead to old age, to
death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. Not taking delight
therein they compose not a compound of activities that conduce to rebirth,
that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair.
Not composing a compound of activities that lead to rebirth, that lead to
old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair. They are
utterly released from rebirth, from old age, from death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair, they are released from ill, I declare.
Him who has cut off sense desires, has cut off the motivation for sense
desires to arise, namely the passion for emotional gratification. Him who
has cut off sense desires, has cut off the motivation for passions to arise,
namely the passion for emotional gratification. Him who has cut off sense
desires, has cut off the linking kamma for becoming, namely the passion for
emotional gratification. Him who has cut off sense desires, has cut off the
passion for delighting in activities of sense gratification that conduce to
rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and
despair.
Not taking delight therein they compose not a compound of activities that
conduce to rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe,
lamentation and despair. Not composing a compound of activities that lead to
rebirth, that lead to old age, to death, sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and
despair. They are utterly released from rebirth, from old age, from death,
sorrow, grief, woe, lamentation and despair, they are released from ill, I
declare.
--
Wherefore, buddhists, an effort must be made to realize: This is ill
(dukkha). This is the cause of ill. This is the ceasing of ill. This is the
practice that leads to the ceasing of ill.
Akasattha ca bhumma ttha dera haga mahiddhika,
Mahasanti
--
Namo tassa Bhagavato Arahato Samma Sambuddhassa!
(Homage to Him, the Exalted, the Worthy, the Fully Enlightened One!)
--
<Jigme...@mindful.com> wrote in message
news:83ddkr$csf$1...@news.netmar.com...
> "Mahasanti">Kamma does not exist without support, the supporting
> basis is the vijnana, that which reincarnate.
>
> Punnadhammo> This view was specifically rejected by the Buddha.
> When the monk Sati said "I understand the teaching of the Tathagata
> to be that it is just this consciousness which transmigrates."
> The Buddha called him a foolish man.
>
> Ardie> Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness
> (viссв.na) that fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)."
> He erred by saying that it does so "without change of identity"
> (tadeva...anaссa.m) and also in regarding it as the "speaker
> & experiencer." This is not the same as to say that
> consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened the door
> to the possibility that consciousness while transmigrating is
> mutable rather than immutable.
>
> Mahsanti>Excellent, Ardie.
>
> Jigme>Yes, Ardie, now fetch me the slippers.
Henry Chia is more worthy of that task, Jigme.
> So Ardie brings us back precisely to where we started out.
> As before, we all agree that there is continuity.
Not at all, he concluded what needs to be concluded.
>We also all
> agree that there is no immutable substance that transmigrates.
This is only an agreement to conditioned truth.
> Reincarnation, defined as the transmigration of some immutable
> essence, is thereby disproved.
What is being disproved is within context of the conditioned, not the
unconditioned. This is the conclusion. The Buddha refute the view of the
fishermen's son, and called him as a misguided man (not as a foolish man),
one who is misguided on the conditioned truth understood by the Buddha
disciples. As in the Surangama sutta demonstrated no realization of Ananda
and the rest of the disciples with regards to the unconditioned, despite the
Buddha's numerous direct attempts. Therefore, since the view of the
fishermen's son contradict the disciples, he has been misguided by them,
thus the Buddha has declared.
Klaus Schmetterling
geo...@mindspring.com (GK) wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 13:15:33 GMT, Klaus Schmetterling
> <klaus_sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated,
i.e.
> >to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one
is
> >ended through physical death.
>
> <snip>
>
> What is the Bardo?
A nice set of teachings and practices to help the dying and the bereaved
to cope with death.
Klaus s.
--
Wer ein Übel los sein will, der weiss immer was er will - wer was Besser
- Goethe -
DharmaTroll
in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be
satisfied with bad ones." -Bertrand Russell >>
In article <83hu8q$ss$9...@news6.jaring.my>,
"Mahasanti" <chi...@pd.jaring.my> wrote:
> Man himself is responsible for his own happiness and misery.
Right. However, people don't cause earthquakes and can't choose
who their parents are. Rather, they are responsible for how they
choose to play the hand which they are dealt, not the hand itself.
(By hand, I am using the metaphor of the 'poker hand' dealt to them.)
Anyway, that was the one reasonable comment in your long post, M.
> you cannot judge the Buddha on the basis of ordinary human, the
> sutta clearly states that the Tathagata possessed ten powers
Yeah, and the Bible says God created the world in six days. So what?
> if you are as usual, reject the sutta integrity on this, then this
> topics of discussion can no longer continue.
I don't care what mythological stories claim. I'm talking about what
actually is going on. To say "it says so in the Bible/Sutta" does,
as you say, end discussion.
As I said, your story fulfils a sociological function:
>> A nice way of keeping the caste system in place, and
>> fulfilling our compulsive need to explain everything that doesn't
>> make sense to us.
> But I don't feel good if we get to feed our idealistic fantasies
> about cosmic justice, because I don't have fantasies, only the
> knowledge of the cool facts
That's called triumphalism. Like Jerry Falwell, you claim your own
superstitions are facts and appeal to the particular authority or
holy book with which you have been conditioned. No 'cool facts'.
> I do suppose that sexy rich people are that way because they earned
> it, and ugly poor people are also that way because they earned it.
My point exactly. Not only are you bigoted against women, homosexuals,
and god knows who else, but now you think the idle rich deserve it,
and the poor are being punished for past sins. How convenient.
> And the claim explains everything, and therefore really explains.
No. When your claim simply adds excuses and explains anything, then
it isn't an explanation at all. It must be falsifiable to have any
explanatory power. The Creationists claim that the Christian God
created the universe 6000 years ago. Faced with evidence, such as
fossils dating back millions of years and light from stars dating
back billions of years, make up excuses, such as that god put the
light and fossils there to test our faith in the bible, etc. Hence,
the story is not a theory at all, and in the end explains nothing,
because it explains away everything. Same with reincarnation stories.
So, Mahasanti, got any more rattles to shake or magic mantras to chant?
--Dharmakaya Trollpa
<< "My whole religion is this: do every duty, and expect no reward
for it, either here or hereafter." -Bertrand Russell >>
Anders Honore
Don James <dja...@raychem.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:83e6k1$9nn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > To get there is too easy for him, a bodhisattva has no desire for
> suchness,
> > he only desires the challenge of victory in the conditioned.
>
> Yes, we do have to battle the duality, to try to convince those who
> are deceived by the illusions.
> >
I don't see why one must battle duality. The way that I perceive duality,
the dualities are that which completes the other. Thus making the whole. Why
battle the whole? (or the One as some people like to put it.).
Don James
Arjuna had to face. To battle illusion is just a way of thinking about
it, not that you have to really wage war or anything. Perhaps a better
way of thinking about it is that there are dualistic agreements on earth
and within us, non-productive tendencies of thinking and feeling that we
have to make efforts to not do, such as being selfish or reactive or
angry. We have to love everyone and this is so very hard.
--
See your favorite poster at:
http://www.ntr.net/~oak/altzen/altzen.html
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:385A287A...@micron.net...
> > Again, you need to read before you write. At no point have I suggested
> > that the world is not conditioned, yet you misunderstand my post, then
> > launch into a refutation of other than what I stated. Since you do not
> > wish to read and understand my words, I will repeat the words attributed
> > to the Buddha as follows:
>
> Here you admit the existence of the conditioned world. In your previous post
> you said:
>
> "Prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of reincarnation, God,
> the beginning of the cosmos, the end of the cosmos, the Buddha after
> death, etc. These are traps for those who do not understand the sutta
> that was quoted."
>
> In this statement, you apparently admit the existence of the conditioned
> world, while at the same time refute the existence of the conditioned world,
> this is where the fault in your logic arises.
You imagine what was not said and fail to read and understand what was.
I will repeat once more - at no point have I refuted or rejected the
idea that the world is conditioned. How you conclude that I did is
puzzling since my only evidence cited was the Buddha's own words
regarding views.
Just so you have a chance to understand this point, I will repeat the
Buddha's words:
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.
What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance;
such is perception...such are mental fabrications...such is
consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of
this, I say, a Tathagata -- with the ending, fading out, cessation,
renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations,
all I-making & mine-making & tendencies to conceits -- is, through lack
of sustenance/clinging, released."
If you recall the discussion, I cited these words in the context of
Jigme stating that the "Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical
and ontological, but
rather, the psychological and epistemological." This is one of the
standard understandings (though not the only) of the silence of the
Buddha. This understanding not only does not refute dependent arising,
but relies on it.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:385A287A...@micron.net...
After confusing my citation to the words of the Buddha with a refutation
of dependent rising, you then at least make an attempt to understand the
silence of the Buddha using the two truths paradigm. For those who are
interested in further reading on this, see
Further developments of the two truths theory in China: the
Ch'eng-shih-lun(a) Tradition and Chou Yung's San-tsung-lun(b) By Whalen
W. Lai
http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/whalenw.htm
and
DEPENDENT ARISING AND THE EMPTINESS OF EMPTINESS
http://pears2.lib.ohio-state.edu/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/garfild3.htm
But nothing within your standard analysis is contrary to the original
point of my post that is now long buried under your misperceptions. My
point, again, was tactical agreement with Jigme's statement that the
"Buddha was concerned not with the metaphysical and ontological, but
rather, the psychological and epistemological." In support of Jigme's
observation, I cited to the no views position of the Buddha. Now you
can disagree with this point if you like, but all you have done is
incorrectly think I am refuting dependent origination with this
observation. I am not.
But on to Nagarjuna . . .
> > If you dislike the words of the Buddha, how about some Nagarjuna who
> > states in the final chapter of the MULAMADHYAMAKAKARIKA as follows:
> >
> > 21. If the world were limited,
> > How could there be another world?
> This is a conventional truth.
No. This is a question designed to lead the reader way from looking at
phenomenon as inherently existent or non-existent entities.
> > If the world were unlimited,
> > How could there be another world?
> This is a conventional truth.
No. This is a question designed to lead the reader way from looking at
phenomenon as inherently existent or non-existent entities.
> > 22. Since the continuum of the aggregates
> > Is like the flame of a butterlamp,
> > It follows that neither its finitude
> > Nor its infinitude makes sense.
>
> This is a conventional truth.
No. This is an observation by Nagarjuna grounded in both truths,
conventional and ultimate.
> > 23. If the previous were disintegrating
> > And these aggregates, which depend
> > Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
> > Then the world would be finite.
>
> No, the world will disintegrates, since the aggregates were disintegrated
> and ceased (did not arise). The world being disintegrated lead to
> annihilism, finite implies existence of one world, but this world after
> disintegration is no more. Thus nihilism put to nil even the finite.
The point that Nagarjuna is making is that, with the truth of dependent
arising, there is no basis for positing the end of the world in time.
> > 24. If the previous were not disintegrating
> > And these aggregates, which depend
> > Upon those aggregates, did not arise,
> > Then the world would be infinite.
>
> No, the world which is not subject to disintegrating, implies it as an
> uncompounded whole, free from fragmentation, since it is whole and single,
> it is not an infinity of worlds.
The point is that the world, being dependently arisen, is not permanent.
> > 25. If one part were finite and
> > One part were infinite,
> > Then the world would be finite and infinite.
> > This would make no sense.
>
> The world is not define as infinity nor finite. Because the three times is
> not established. In the absence of past and future, the notion of the
> present which are dependence of the past and future events, is not
> established. Finite is not established in the formless, for the formless
> does not possess a border. Infinity is not established in the formless, for
> in the absence of objects, infinity is not possible. Since reality
> transcends the formness of thing-events, the unconditioned, and unsupported
> reality is unsupported by a border of finite and unsupported by the objects
> of infinity.
This is simply the continuation of the four negations.
>
> > 26. How could one think that
> > One part of the appropriator is destroyed
> > And one part is not destroyed?
> > This position makes no sense.
>
> It will make sense when both the conditioned and unconditioned is
> understood.
It makes sense if you accept the assumptions of the two truth theory and
when Nagarjuna's idea of the emptiness of emptiness is understood.
> > 27. How could one think that
> > One part of the appropriation is destroyed
> > And one part is not destroyed?
> > This position makes no sense.
> It will make sense when both the conditioned and unconditioned is
> understood.
No. It will be clear that the nonsense is nonsense.
> > 28. If it could be established that
> > It is both finite and infinite,
> Finite implies space, infinite implies objects, their unity is conventional
> reality.
>
> > Then it could be established that
> > It is neither finite nor infinite.
>
> That which is neither finite nor infinite, is neither space, nor objects,
> their unity is the ultimate reality.
If we accept the idea of dependent arising, we need speculate no
further. Finite, infinite, both, neither . . . all are to be rejected
as not conducive to the path of awakening.
> > 29. So, because all entities are empty,
> > Which views of permanence, etc., would occur,
> > And to whom, when, why, and about what
> > Would they occur at all?
>
> If all entities are empty, they all not self-supported, accordingly they
> will dissolved out of existence. This is a view of permanence annihilism.
> Who would implies to whom, when, why and about what would they occur in
> reality of annihilism?
Incorrect. As Nagarjuna correctly observes, how can something that is
dependently arisen cease to exist permanently? You have grabbed the
snake incorrectly and failed to see that the emptiness of all
phenomenon, even of emptiness, is the path between eternalism and
annihilism.
> > 30. I prostrate to Gautama
> > Who through compassion
> > Taught the true doctrine,
> > Which leads to the relinquishing of all views.
>
> What the Gautama taught is conditioned antidotes for conditioned diseases,
> if you have no diseases, the Tathagata will not taught conditioned
> antidotes. If you have no diseases, the Tathagata in the past had not, the
> Tathagata in the present has not, and the Tathagata of the future will not,
> taught that which is unconditioned, uncompounded, which is beyond mentation
> and languages.
With this final paragraph, Nagarjuna puts a wonderful mahayana spin on
the Buddha's thoughts in the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. Here is Garfield's
take on Nagarjuna's intent:
"For the practitioner who directly realizes emptiness, nothing is
present to consciousness but emptiness itself. For such a
consciousness, there literally is no object since there is in such a
consciousness no reification of the kind that gives rise to
subject/object duality. Moreover, since such a consciousness is
directed only upon what can be found ultimately to exist and since
nothing can be so found, there is literally nothing toward which such a
consciousness can be directed. But this very fact is what is ostended
by the dictum that emptiness is itself empty: Emptiness is not the real
object as opposed to the unreal objects of ordinary perception, not the
object that appears when false appearance is shed. In fact, to the
extent that it appears as an object at all, it does so as falsely as any
table. If so, the best we can then say is that from such a standpoint
the words "emptiness is empty" ascribe no property to any object at
all. From that standpoint, there is no view to be expressed, where a
view is something that can be given assertoric voice. For a view is
possible only if, (1) there is something to view, and (2) there is some
way in which it is viewed.
To put this point another way, true predication is always predication
from a perspective in which the subject of the predicate exists and
within which the predicate can be instantiated. For conventional
entities, the conventional standpoint provides such a perspective. But
for emptiness, neither the conventional nor the ultimate standpoint can
do the job: In the conventional standpoint, there is no emptiness; in
the ultimate standpoint there are no entities at all."
From Garfield's "Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle way."
> > Now you can attempt to understand the subtle lessons of both the Buddha
> > and Nagarjuna regarding views (both right and wrong) or you can once
> > again launch into a rambling refutation of assertions made only by the
> > wind. And as with our prior discussion of the Bodhisattva path, you
> > will find that your unfamiliarity with early Buddhist suttas is a
> > handicap for you.
>
> I did not find any substantial points in the Nagarjuna's views you have
> presented as support for the contradictions that you have presented, and in
> which I have revealed for all to witness.
That is because you were arguing against a point never made or defended
by me.
> I fully understand your motive of presenting the Aggi-Vacchagotta, the
> motive which labelled as the futile attempt to insist the ultimate
> prospective of the unconditioned Tathagata principal with the conditioned
> dhamma.
That is one acceptable understanding of the sutta. I am pleased to see
that we have reached some level of agreement.
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Lee Dillion
> Lee Dillion <dill...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:385A287A...@micron.net...
> >And finally, you incorrectly
> > assume that I have not read the 62 wrong views.
>
> Then you have attempt to claim that you have read the 62 wrong views, herein
> I dare challenged you to present the 62 wrong views described by the Buddha.
It is difficult to know how to interpret the preceding paragraph. I
could read it as you suggesting that I would make such a claim without
it being so. But this would make your words a rather bold insult - not
an attractive quality for one who claims to be a bodhisattva. As such,
I can only conclude that your temporary state of non-mentation has
resulted in you forgetting the 62 wrong views and this is your way of
asking to be reminded.
With such a pleasant request, I am happy to comply. The following is
one of only a number of sources in my possession that discuss the 62
wrong views. I am happy to provide more if it can assist your memory.
The following is from Cabezon's "Buddhism and Language."
----
III. The Enumeration of the Fourteen Undeclared Points
Before discussing these two approaches in greater detail let us examine
the enumeration of the fourteen views as they occur in our two different
sources, the Abhisamayalamkara (AA) and the MMK. The subject of the
fourteen undeclared points occurs within the AA as part of a more
general discussion of the ****sixty-two wrong views****. In general,
the sixty-two are condensed into six major categories.
1. Causal: referring to an incorrect view of the self.
2. Preliminary: hearing or teaching doctrines that are lowly.
3. Basic: relating to the teachings and to logic.
4. Temporal: conceptions in terms of an anterior extreme (perceiving the
past) and conceptions in terms of a posterior extreme (perceiving the
future)."
5. Relating to views: the views of eternalism and nihilism, and those
related to nirvana.
6. Birthplace: explanations relating to birth in the different
absorptions etc.
The MMK it is claimed, subsumes these sixty-two into two groups of eight
subcategories: "eight views related to a previous extreme and eight
views related to a later extreme."19 These are expressed in a catuskoti
framework that deals with the four main theses:
1-4. The self's existence in the past
5-8. The world's permanence
9-12. The self's existence in the future
13-16. The world's having an end'O
Again, there is the division into the fourteen undeclared views listed
previously. In MMK (XXV,21) we find these grouped into a series of
four:
1-4. Related to the anterior extreme
5-8. Related to the posterior extreme
9-12. Related to nirvana
13-14. Related to the body and life2l
These can be otherwise expressed as the four extreme views of each of
the following subjects:
1-4. The self and the world as (truly) permanent (anterior extreme)
5-8. The self and the world as (truly) having an end (posterior
extreme)
9-12. The liberated being's existence after death
13-14. The body and life as (truly) different substances or as (truly)
the same substance"
Whereas our original listing organized these fourteen according to the
subject of the view (that is, according to whether the self, the world,
etc., was being considered) this latter classification stresses the
predicate ("permanence," "having an end," etc.) and groups them (at
least 1-8) according to the predicate, making combinations of multiple
subjects to this end. Be that as it may, it is clear from the preceding
discussion that a number of classification schemes are found in the
tradition. Each stresses something different.
----
> > Now if you wish to go back, understand the purpose of my reference and
> > then discuss it in an intelligent fashion, I am willing to talk. But if
> > you wish to misconstrue my words and the words of the Buddha, then I
> > have other things to do.
> Your reference has started from the prospective of wrong views, there is
> nothing intelligent I can make out of it, except to present the analytical
> truth which directly crushed your self-contradictory, and incompetent logic.
Your ego imagines victory over that which was never asserted. You
crushed the horns of the rabbit and the coiled snake in the dark - as
far as addressing any views of mine, how could you since I have no views
to defend?
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion wrote: <<Your ego imagines victory over that which was never
asserted. You crushed the horns of the rabbit and the coiled snake in the dark -
as far as addressing any views of mine, how could you since I have no views to
defend?>>
Congratulations, Lee, you must be an arhat! Which is also what Mahasanti claims
for himself.
Two arhats in one NG: what luck! That they fight each other is all the more reason
to celebrate, for others will learn from their debates between awakeneds.
Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
Hi sweetie. Thanks for the supposed compliment, but I make no such
claim, as you well know. I hear the stream, but my feet are not yet
wet. But that can't keep you and me from dreaming, can it?
--
Lee Dillion
dill...@micron.net
Alex Wilding
DharmaTroll wrote in message <83f3jh$tgo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <83do48$l9u$1...@scotty.tinet.ie>,
> "Alex Wilding" <wil...@eircom.net> wrote:
>> I'm also waiting for you to tell me where I insulted you,
>
>Ok:
>>>> Best wishes for overcoming your addiction to the net, by the way.
>
>Attacking my character instead of providing evidence. I.e., insult.
>Not that I mind. I enjoy being ribbed.
don't change), grating and occasionally given to bad language as yourself
would be up for some gentle irony, even if it doesn't come from one of your
heroes.
I don't see anything you wrote that suggests that the Buddha attacked the
idea of continuity of some sort from life to life.
Nor do I see anything that suggests that in his day it was a cultural
"given" rather than one of a number of ideas current at the time.
Do you mean you *don't* have an addiction to the net??!*
Alex W
(PS I won't be here much over the next two weeks.)
Peter Da Costa
<geo...@mindspring.com> writes
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 19:27:54 +0000, Peter Da Costa
><pet...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <385a67a1...@news.mindspring.com>, GK
>><geo...@mindspring.com> writes
>>><klaus_sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since there is no essence, there is no essence to be reincarnated, i.e.
>>>>to transmigrate from one body/life to another after the previous one is
>>>>ended through physical death.
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>What is the Bardo?
>>
>>refers to an intermediate state between rebirths and as such if the
>>aggregates of consciousness are sufficiently developed in skilful means
>>this can influence the next rebirth. Or more simply, the being can
>>influence his rebirth but DT will say that this is slipping into self
>>view.
>>
>
>
>That's what made me curious. If I am reading some of the posts
>correctly, some are saying there is no consciousness that can
>have any awareness after death.
Hi GK
You may well be reading other posts quite correctly, but there is the
distinct possibility that the post itself is inaccurate. This is only
too common in a subject which is profoundly subtle, which is why it is
so popular a topic for discussion.
By definition consciousness is aware, or else it isn't consciousness.
The Dependent Origination doctrine (promulgated by the Buddha so that we
may investigate for ourselves) states that not only does such
consciousness arise but it is conditioned by the last thought volition
of the deceased and in turns conditions the first conscious moment of
the new embryo.
Hence consciousness does not pass from one being to the other, but
rather is more of a Kammic knock on effect, rather like sound waves
where no air molecule moves in the direction of the sound, though the
sound impulse travels as many hundreds of miles per hour and over great
distances.
It is quite OK to be confused about such things. It provides an
excellent opportunity to investigate confusion.
Cheers
Jigme Dorje
When the monk Sati said "I understand the teaching of the Tathagata
to be that it is just this consciousness which transmigrates."
The Buddha called him a foolish man.
Ardie wrote> Sati is reported to have said that it is "Consciousness
(viссв.na) that fares on and continues (sandhaavati sa.msarati)."
He erred by saying that it does so "without change of identity"
(tadeva...anaссa.m) and also in regarding it as the "speaker
& experiencer." This is not the same as to say that
consciousness does not wander on. The Buddha opened the door
to the possibility that consciousness while transmigrating is
mutable rather than immutable.
Mahsanti wrote>Excellent, Ardie.
Jigme wrote>Yes, Ardie, now fetch me the slippers.
Mahasanti wrote>Henry Chia is more worthy of that task, Jigme.
Jigme>HUMOR! Mahasanti, you never fail to amaze me!
Jigme wrote>So Ardie brings us back precisely to where we started out.
As before, we all agree that there is continuity. We also all
agree that there is no immutable substance that transmigrates.
Mahasanti wrote>This is only an agreement to conditioned truth.
Jigme>Naturally, and what else is there to agree on?
Jigme wrote> Reincarnation, defined as the transmigration of some immutable
essence, is thereby disproved.
Mahasanti wrote>What is being disproved is within context of the
conditioned, not the
unconditioned. This is the conclusion. The Buddha refute the view of the
fishermen's son, and called him as a misguided man (not as a foolish man),
one who is misguided on the conditioned truth understood by the Buddha
disciples. As in the Surangama sutta demonstrated no realization of Ananda
and the rest of the disciples with regards to the unconditioned, despite the
Buddha's numerous direct attempts. Therefore, since the view of the
fishermen's son contradict the disciples, he has been misguided by them,
thus the Buddha has declared.
Jigme>Alright, Mahasanti, I'll call your bluff. While you begrudingly admit
that we are undeniably correct in representing the Buddha's teaching, you
nontheless assert that our understanding is limitied, ie. that it only
extends
to the realm of conditioned and that none of us but yourself are privy
to the truth of the unconditioned realm. You claim that even Ananda and the
other disciples who have been represented as so advanced were not privy
to the ultimate truth of the Buddha's teachings as you yourself are.
Now considering the fact that Buddhism has been around for 25 centuries,
it astounds me that you could have a better grasp of the Buddha dharma
than his disciples. I am not questioning your attainment, if that's what
you are claiming, but I wonder about one question:
Should we disregard all of the Pali scriptures as flawed either because they
were passed down by disciples who did not understand him or because
they were "provisional" teachings, dumbed down to an audience that
was too thick to understand what he really intended to teach?
Since we are all correct, but only only as regards conditioned truth, what,
then
is unconditioned truth? If the Buddha's teachings in the Pali do not
address it,
then how is it you are privy to it?
Sincerely,
Jigme
Evelyn Ruut
I replied to you and have had the email returned from your address again.
(apologies to the group for posting this here, but we have some tech
problems)
Evelyn
Peter Da Costa
deja.com> writes
>
>If you look at yourself at being reborn every moment, then you can
>indeed influence future rebirths. How can you be not familiar with
>that term, Peter?
It is only too easily done. Even-Wentz's (spell?) book left me cold,
but Chogyam Trungpa's was brilliant. Trouble was, I read it very early
on in my Dhammic career and for some reason have not since returned to
it.
>The Bardo is a sort of astral plane where you hang
>out for 40 days or something like that, before you are reborn as
>another person. It's a Tibetan term. I'm surprised Peter isn't
>familiar with it, as the famous "Tibetan Book of the Dead" is about
>the trip through the Bardo.
As above Trungpa's book, up to his usual excellent standards, is perfect
if still in print: there could well be others brought out since.
>
>I think it was Carl Jung that pointed out that really it is a metaphor
>for developmental psychology, as the stages of the Bardo are about
>growing up and developing, except in reverse order.
>
>The self or soul view which is held by some of the sects is that a soul
>or spookie, called a "gandhabba", must float into the womb when people
>are screwing for a woman to get pregnant. Some people, such as good old
>Bhante Punnadhammo, literally think that the eggie and spermie need to
>have a threesome with the spookie for a woman to get pregnant! heh heh
It is not for me to speak up for Bhante, he is much more able to do this
than I could ever be, but his line on this is consistent with his web
page section on Abhidhamma, highly recommended for anyone new to this
challenging topic.
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/abhi1.html
If I have got it right, don't quote me on this, but for a woman to get
pregnant she only needs a willing male and ideally be willing herself!
But according to naive Buddhist cosmology, for the embryo to have
consciousness, ie life, it needs consciousness to arise in it. This
will be conditioned by a dying person with a suitable or matching Kammic
configuration. The sole value of this view is that it enables us to let
go of other self referencing views and thus contributes to our progress
to final enlightenment.
Such views include the God or spirits of other religions and the
'detached observer' of the scientific disciplines. If and when science
evolves to the point where it can abandon the detached observer and
instead go for pure consciousness in its dealings with the phenomenal
world then, I would imagine, this would cease to be an impediment for
developing the path.
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
Peter Da Costa
deja.com> writes
>In article <t3FgHiAG...@pdacosta.demon.co.uk>,
>> Bhante is quite at liberty to talk of conscious in this context as a
>> conventional short hand.
>
>Oh, cut the crap. He said that the soul rises out of the body and into
>a new "physical base". No shorthand about it: it's the paridigm case
>of a substantial soul view. Claiming that the self/soul is made out
>of spook stuff instead of physical stuff doesn't change anything.
>It's still just as much a substantial self view either way, Peteski.
DT old boy, the name DharmaTroll is exactly synonymous with and
equivalent to an expression of near mathematical precision and rigour in
the form of:- "...that collection of Khandhas conditioned by the state
of the previous moment and conditioning the state of following moment,
etc. etc..."
These two terms are completely interchangeable. The only problem is in
the confusion of who ever is reading it. They may well be projecting
some kind of a self into DharmaTroll: too easily done. The value of the
long winded but deadly accurate description is that this is much less
likely to happen.
However, if no such confusion arises it makes much sense to use the
conventional short hand form purely for convenience and in no way
implies some kind of doctrinal commitment. There is no way a reader can
tell if a clear minded author is confused (though a confused one sticks
out a mile), all he can do is request further clarification from him,
which in the case of most posters on trb would almost always be happily
complied with.
>
snip
>
>> It is OK to use shorthand conventions if you are clear about what is
>> meant. However, you still seem to get confused and mistake the one
>
>No, Peter. I am not confused. I am very familiar with the practise
>of positing a soul and then hiding it behind terminology such as
>'the mindstream' or 'the consciousness' or 'the spirit'.
This sounds not only confused but quite contorted too. The causal
continuum is an exact description of the 'apparent personality'. Hence
it is perfectly meaningful to interchange them, just keep in mind that
the 'apparent personality' is just a causal continuum.
>
>Now you go on and on with myths about why the soul continues to exist
>or under what circumstances it ceases to exist. That isn't important.
>
I do not talk about souls existing. Get your facts right.
>What's important is that this was *not* shorthand. That is, there is
>no way that the Bhante can, in principle, make the claim he is making
>without invoking a substantial self/soul/spookie.
He makes no such claim as far as what he writes is concerned. It is up
to him to correct me on this, but his web page on introductory
Abhidhamma compels me to take the view that he has no confusion on this
matter.
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/abhi1.html
It is purely your own insistence on how you intend to interpret it.
>I could care less
>what particular words he is using.
This is only too apparent.
>
>Again, what would it *mean* for you to be 'reborn' as one particular
>future person and not as all the other co-existing persons?
It would mean that I inherit all the crap from posting on this news
group.
It is easy for us Westerners to laugh at MahaSanti but he does come up
with a few useful gems for us. His insistence that randomness, or in
this case Kammic dispersal, by explaining everything does not explain
anything. To get enlightened one needs the right balance of effort and
confidence in the way. The view of direct inheritance aka rebirth goes
a long way in promoting this kind of balance. After you finally make it
you no longer need it, jut see it as a tool and support others who do
and who use it as such.
Peter Da Costa
deja.com> writes
>
>Someone wrote:
>>> preached to Hindus... perhaps he used Reincarnation and Karma
>>> as an allegorical discourse device - a way of putting his
>>> teachings in a manner comfortable to Hindus.
>
>Of course. Remember that Westerners have it ass-backwards! Because
>we don't have reincarnation of the soul as given in our culture.
>Hindus did. So rebirth was a watered-down version, which was attacking
>reincarnation. Whereas Westerners take it as if it were positing
>reincarnation. The Buddha was working in a cultural setting, which
>so many bozos so often forget.
DT, you are perfectly entitled to your opinions. What you are not
entitled to do is force them down our throats. His discourse describing
the night of his enlightenment completely contradicts your view as
expressed above. Please see below for extract.
>
>Punnadhammo:
>> This has been suggested from time to time but doesn't bear scrutiny.
>
>That is, Punnadhammo won't scrutinize it.
Ven. Punnadhammo does in fact scrutinize it very carefully. Please see
his web page at:-
http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/abhi1.html
snip
>
> --Dharmakaya Trollpa
>
Cheers
Peter
Majjhima Nikaaya # 4 Bhayabherava Sutta. Pls. see extract below.
"Fear and Dread"
"... Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome
states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhaana, which is
accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure
born of seclusion.
"With the stilling of applied and sustained thought, I entered upon and
abided in the second jhaana, which has self confidence and singleness of
mind without applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure
born of concentration.
"With the fading away as well of rapture, I abided in equanimity, and
mindful and fully aware, still feeling pleasure with the body, I entered
upon and bided in the third jhaana, on account of which noble ones
announce: 'He has a pleasant abiding who has equanimity and is mindful.'
"With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the previous
disappearance of joy and grief, I entered upon and abided in the fourth
jhaana, which has neither-pain-nor-pleasure and purity of mindfulness
due to equanimity.
"When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of past
lives. (For details see VisuddhiMagga XIII 13 - 71) I recollected my
manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four
births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty
births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred
thousand births, many many aeons of world-contraction and expansion:
'There I was so named , of such a clan, with such an appearance, such
was my life-term; and passing away from their, I reappeared here.' Thus
with their aspects and particulars I recollected my manifold past lives.
"This was the first true knowledge attained by me in the first watch of
the night. Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness
was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent,
ardent and resolute.
"When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the passing away and
reappearance of beings. (For details see VisuddhiMagga XIII 72 - 101)
With the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw
beings passing away and reappear, inferior and superior, fair and ugly,
fortunate and unfortunate. I understood how beings pass on according to
their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body,
speech, and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving
effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body,
after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad
destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who
were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble
ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their
actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in
a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine
eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing
away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate
and unfortunate, and I understood how beings pass on according to their
actions.
"This was the second true knowledge attained by me in the second watch
of the night. Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness
was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent,
ardent, and resolute.
"When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the destruction of the
taints. I directly knew as it actually is: 'This is suffering'; I
directly knew as it actually is: 'This is the origin of suffering'; I
directly knew as it actually is: 'This is the cessation of suffering'; I
directly knew as it actually is: 'This is the way leading to the
cessation of suffering.' I directly knew as it actually is: 'These are
the taints'; I directly new as it actually is: 'This is the origin of
taints'; I directly knew as it actually is: 'This is the cessation of
the taints'; I directly knew as it actually is: 'this is the way leading
to the cessation of the taints.'
"When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of
sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of
ignorance. When it was liberated, there came the knowledge: 'It is
liberated.' I directly knew: 'Birth is destroyed, the holy life has
been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming
to any state of being.'
"This was the third true knowledge attained by me in the third watch of
the night. Ignorance was banished and true knowledge arose, darkness
was banished and light arose, as happens in one who abides diligent,
ardent, and resolute.
"Now, brahmin, it might be that you think: 'Perhaps the recluse Gotama
is not free from lust, hate and delusion even today, which is why he
still resorts to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.'
But you should not think thus. It is because I see two benefits that I
still resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest: I
see a pleasant abiding for myself here and now, and I have compassion
for those that follow in latter times..."
For anyone who's curious or interested, the 'fear and dread' refers to
an earlier section of this sutta not included here. The watches of the
night were indicated by the gate keeper of any nearby town that the
recluse would walk to for his daily alms round. They would be 6:00pm to
10:00pm for the first watch; 10:00pm to 2:00am for the middle watch; and
2:00am to 6:00am for the third watch.