That which was never born can never die, therefore deathless. Is this "awareness"?

[rockyysdt]

In the teachings of the Buddha, there are a number of high level elements.

 

If I am incorrect in these, please correct me.

 

• That which was never born can never die (deathless).
• As our ego is an accumulation of conditioning over our life/lives, it is impermanent.
• Death is followed by endless cycles of re birth into future lives, driven by attachment to craving.
• The cycle of re birth continues, until one is awakened as a result of practice resulting in the quenching of craving.

 

Is the process of deep meditation (awareness without thought) the path to becoming aware of the unconditioned or deathless state (this state already exists, but we are unaware of it)?

 

If so, is this that which is common to the re born states? Is this that which "awakens"?

 

If there is nothing beyond the cessation of re birth, isn't this annihilation, as at least re birth gives you future cycles of life, all be it, good ones as well as bad ones?

 

Or, if pure unconditioned awareness is that which continues, why are we unaware of it during the unconscious state?

 

 

 

 

 

[khaowong1]

I think there are a lot of the Buddha's teaching's that are always going to be confusion for us.  Since the Buddha didn't speak English and it was a hundred years or so after he died before anyone thought to write down these teachings, I'm sure a lot of them were misconstrued.  Same as the teachings of Jesus.  

[save the frogs]

Trick question.

If there's a Buddhist teaching that doesn't seem to make any sense, is it because you're too stupid to understand it or is it because it's bullcrap?

Here is a Buddhist book I recommend to everyone. It's not written by a monk in a cave that has nothing to do all day except masturbate mentally and come up with flowery language.

 

It's written by a humble taxi driver who is reflecting on his own life and trying to apply some basic Buddhist principles to his own life. 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

Hi Rocky,
Your questions require complex answers, so it's not surprising you have had few replies. However, I'll delve into them because I have been thinking about these issues for some time.
1. That which was never born can never die. 
Basic logic would imply 'that which is never born' doesn't exist. However, the process of being 'born' has many stages. The first stage is the fertilized egg know as the embryo, which travels through the fallopian tube to the uterus. The next stage is the development of the fetus which is the unborn child in the mother's womb. The final stage is the actual birth of the child.
As we should all know, the unborn, developing child can die at any time, therefore the statement 'That which was never born can never die'  is clearly not true. 
2. As our ego is an accumulation of conditioning over our life/lives, it is impermanent.
This would appear to be logically true since nothing, in the environment we normally observe, is permanent. Everything is changing or degrading at different rates. However, there might be microscopic things that most people don't normally observe, which are permanent, such as fundamental particles that are subatomic particles which are not composed of other particles. Science is not certain about the permanence of such particles.
3. Death is followed by endless cycles of re birth into future lives, driven by attachment to craving.
Rebirth in Buddhism is a rather confusing issue. On the one hand, the Buddha claims that there is no permanent soul and no permanent Creator God, and that what is reborn are just the 'characteristics' of one's behaviour in this life. On the other hand, there is a detailed description in the Pali Canon of the night under the Bodhi tree when the Buddha reached enlightenment, recalling dozens of his previous lives in great detail, including his name and activities. This is more than just characteristics.
The questions we should ask ourselves is, 'How can rebirth of behaviour and characteristics be reborn?' 'Is there some magical spirit, outside the realms of science, that floats around, waiting to inject itself into a female's womb at the time of conception?'
In Buddhism, karma is the idea that our actions, especially those driven by intention, have consequences that affect us in the present and future.

 

How does this happen? Well, I think it's not too difficult to understand how it happens in the present. If you steal or murder, there will be dire consequences if you are caught. If you over-eat unwholesome food and don't bother exercising, you will likely become obese and suffer from many ailments.
However, how our intentional actions affect the future with regard to rebirth, is more complicated. Physical rebirth can only take place through the process of copulation, with regard to animals and humans, and usually through the process of seed germination with regard to plants, although some plants can grow without seeds through a process called 'asexual propagation' which involves a part of the plant, such as a stem or root regenerating into a new plant, with nutrition from the soil.

 

During the times of the Buddha, there was no knowledge of genes. Why apparently good people could somtimes suffer and die unexpectedly, was a puzzle. An explanation was Karma. The apparently good person died prematurely as a result of bad actions in a previous life. This is merely a speculative hypothesis.

 

Modern science reveals not only that genetic defects can be transmitted from the parents to the children, but there is also a process called 'epigentics' which can transmit the 'behaviour' of the parents to their children. Epigenetics is the study of the heritable changes in the genome that are independent of variations in DNA sequences.

 

Another example of how our actions in the present, 'Karma', can affect future generations, are the consequences of War. Even when the war has ended, future generations often feel, and pass on, the hatred towards the enemy. The most obvious examples are the current wars in Ukraine, Palestine, Jordan and Syria. These never-ending conflicts are the effects of Karma, passed down through generations.
4.The cycle of re birth continues, until one is awakened as a result of practice resulting in the quenching of craving.
When a living organism dies, the rotting carcass, animal or vegetable, provides nutrients for future growth. Anyone who does not have children achieves Nirvana on their death. There is no rebirth of any characteristics, without successful copulation.

[Brucenkhamen]

Quote

Or, if pure unconditioned awareness is that which continues, why are we unaware of it during the unconscious state?

 

You've hit the nail on the head, awareness aka consciousness is just a mental process, one of the five aggregates, subject to impermanence and arising and passing away according to causes and conditions.

 

Spiritual traditions that get fascinated with and deify awareness because it seems so profound and ever present to a spiritual seeker who discovers it (except when its not) fall short of the liberation that the Buddha recommended.

[rockyysdt]

On 12/10/2024 at 7:07 AM, Brucenkhamen said:

Spiritual traditions that get fascinated with and deify awareness because it seems so profound and ever present to a spiritual seeker who discovers it (except when its not) fall short of the liberation that the Buddha recommended.

Thanks Bruce.

 

Can you expound a little?

Are you saying "some deify pure unconditioned awareness but that this state is also simply part of the aggregates and therefore impermanent?"

 

If so, what is there beyond, and/or was beyond never part of the teaching?

[Brucenkhamen]

On 12/23/2024 at 12:56 AM, rockyysdt said:

Are you saying "some deify pure unconditioned awareness but that this state is also simply part of the aggregates and therefore impermanent?"

 

If so, what is there beyond, and/or was beyond never part of the teaching?

 

Kind of, I'm saying awareness is a mental process therefore is conditioned and impermanent, there is no such thing as "pure unconditioned awareness".

 

Clinging and craving such ideas is just clinging and craving for permanence.

 

The Buddha taught the understanding of the nature of suffering and the ending of suffering, through among other things the acceptance of impermanence, the idea of there being "something beyond" crept back in later mostly the re-integration of pre-Buddhist philosophies.

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, Brucenkhamen said:

 

there is no such thing as "pure unconditioned awareness".

 

Clinging and craving such ideas is just clinging and craving for permanence.

 

The Buddha taught the understanding of the nature of suffering and the ending of suffering, through among other things the acceptance of impermanence, the idea of there being "something beyond" crept back in later mostly the re-integration of pre-Buddhist philosophies.

 

 

 

Thanks Bruce.

 

I'm thinking "one can logically accept that attachment & craving to anything impermanent will lead to suffering, without the need to practice for ones lifetime."

 

Then what occurs when one becomes enlightened or awakened?

Wasn't this an entree into "that which was never born"?

 

Or did the Buddha craft his words to make his teaching appear to include something beyond.

An ambiguity in order to protect himself from offending religious adherents of the time.

 

And why would one embark on years of dedicated practice and asceticism in order to have actual experience of the folly of attachment & craving?

 

If ones attachments & craving revolve around wholesome pursuits, what is wrong with craving?

 

Aren't these attributes, practiced with an element of control and moderation, valuable as they provide the drive towards

pursuits, wholesome or not?

 

If what you're saying is correct, then why deny oneself of the pleasures which life can offer with moderation and care for others?

We are impermanent with a limited number of years of existence we were fortunate to find ourselves with.

What is the reward of denying oneself of these in the pursuit of actual experience of impermanence?

 

In terms of ending suffering, if one is impermanent doesn't death end suffering?

If not, that which we are (our impermanent selves), which is all that we know cannot suffer if expired.

[Brucenkhamen]

In pali the word for a wholesome desire is different (chanda), compared with an unwholesome desire (tanha) which I call craving (its sometimes called greed or thirst) they have two different words because they are considered two different things.  Craving is an addiction, a compulsion, driving force, and this addiction or compulsion compounds suffering.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting something wholesome and pursuing it, though this pursuit can turn to craving if one lacks awareness and just strives without balance.

 

Buddhist practice includes the renunciation of pleasures as this gives you the opportunity to see clearly whether or not these things have a hold on you, and then let them go.  It's not that there is anything wrong with pleasurable experiences as such, it's that renunciation (even if temporary) helps you see clearly and understand your relationship with them.

 

Nature is a constant flow of death and renewal and we are part of nature.  One is impermanent but craving leads to new life if that craving hasn't been snuffed out, not really you but generated by your kamma, at least that's my take on it. 

 

[rockyysdt]

On 1/2/2025 at 5:59 PM, Brucenkhamen said:

In pali the word for a wholesome desire is different (chanda), compared with an unwholesome desire (tanha) which I call craving (its sometimes called greed or thirst) they have two different words because they are considered two different things.  Craving is an addiction, a compulsion, driving force, and this addiction or compulsion compounds suffering.

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting something wholesome and pursuing it, though this pursuit can turn to craving if one lacks awareness and just strives without balance.

 

Buddhist practice includes the renunciation of pleasures as this gives you the opportunity to see clearly whether or not these things have a hold on you, and then let them go.  It's not that there is anything wrong with pleasurable experiences as such, it's that renunciation (even if temporary) helps you see clearly and understand your relationship with them.

 

Nature is a constant flow of death and renewal and we are part of nature.  One is impermanent but craving leads to new life if that craving hasn't been snuffed out, not really you but generated by your kamma, at least that's my take on it. 

 

 

It all seems rather illogical.

 

Not in this order.

 

1. The gold standard for practitioners or adherents is a lifelong practice of denying oneself of pleasures.
2. Successful practice of this is to extinguish re birth (not reincarnation) of life.

 

• If everyone was successful, collectively, why would we want to extinguish all life?
• And, given that we are not reincarnated, why would we want to deny ourselves of pleasure in order to achieve it before we die?

 

 

 

 

[Brucenkhamen]

6 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

...

 

Denying oneself some pleasures, not all pleasure.  One does this because one sees that flitting from pleasure from pleasure doesn't provide lasting happiness.  The pursuit of pleasure often involves a lot of pain, have you ever tried to convince a women to have sex with you for example? The pleasurable experience then lasts a short time then afterwards there is an empty feeling and craving the next pleasure.

 

If you believe pursuing pleasure will provide lasting happiness knock yourself out, people who are willing to deny themselves have seen that this doesn't work, that's why they want to do it. 

 

This is all because of the craving involved in the process, not the pleasure itself.

 

Denying yourself gross pleasure opens up the possibility of experiencing equanimity, peace, and subtle pleasure which is far better.

 

We want to achieve it before we die because because it's a better way to live the remainder your life. 

 

[rockyysdt]

11 hours ago, Brucenkhamen said:

 

Denying oneself some pleasures, not all pleasure.  One does this because one sees that flitting from pleasure from pleasure doesn't provide lasting happiness.  The pursuit of pleasure often involves a lot of pain, have you ever tried to convince a women to have sex with you for example? The pleasurable experience then lasts a short time then afterwards there is an empty feeling and craving the next pleasure.

 

If you believe pursuing pleasure will provide lasting happiness knock yourself out, people who are willing to deny themselves have seen that this doesn't work, that's why they want to do it. 

 

This is all because of the craving involved in the process, not the pleasure itself.

 

Denying yourself gross pleasure opens up the possibility of experiencing equanimity, peace, and subtle pleasure which is far better.

 

We want to achieve it before we die because because it's a better way to live the remainder your life. 

 

Hi Bruce.

 

I haven't given up on the Buddhist teachings and path.

Just trying to make sense of it.

 

Wouldn't one say, the greater number of pleasures denied or restricted will enhance ones chances of successfully reaching the Buddhist goal of Awakening?

Monks have an extensive list of precepts in comparison to laypeople, and, as a result, deny themselves of much pleasure.

 

Isn't an alternative to cultivate common sense, moderation, healthy lifestyle including aerobic exercise, stretching, weights & yoga, healthy diet, improving ones knowledge, and learning to be and behave at your very best?

 

You mentioned suffering in pursuit of a woman for sexual pleasure.

Sexual abstinence regardless of the method being abstained, is known to be unhealthy.

 

Coming back to my earlier points.

 

If everyone is successful in extinguishing craving, then what good is it to end up with no one re born?

 

A Monk may practice in a state of denial, for decades in their quest for Awakening, and end up never reaching it.

Was their life of denial worth it?

 

And what about the deathless state?

 

That which was never born, can never die.

 

If our lives are not real, and therefore we were never born, then what is deathless?

 

 

 

 

 

[Brucenkhamen]

12 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

...

 

 

I think you're focusing too much on pleasures here.  Buddhist monastic renunciation is primarily about simplifying ones life so that you are not pulled in different directions and distracted from your practice.  This also includes stopping chasing pleasures for pleasures sake and stop avoiding pain but I'd say this is secondary.

 

There is nothing wrong with pleasurable experiences, there is something wrong with craving them.  Honestly I think most people give up the hedonistic pursuit of pleasures after their teens, grow up, and realise these do not provide lasting happiness, they choose instead to have a relationship, family, and career which all have a mixture of pleasure and pain.  Its called being an Adult.

 

Going back to a hedonistic bargirl/drugs lifestyle later in life might indicate a lesson not learned, or a mid life crises.

 

I would not say the greater number of pleasures restricted denied will enhance ones chances of successfully reaching the Buddhist goal of Awakening, jhana for example is highly pleasurable and without the bitter aftertaste of worldly pleasures.  As Thanissaro says its about swapping candy for gold and this is just as true for an adult layperson as it is for a monk.

 

Monks do a lot of physical exercise, at least forest monks do.

 

I don't think the Buddha ever suggested that we would ever get to the stage where nobody is being reborn anymore, better to focus on your own life.

 

A monk may for practice for decades in their quest for Awakening, and end up never reaching it, but he lived a lifestyle that he chose.  To see the value in that I think it best to compare it with the lifestyle he would have lived if he'd stayed a layperson, this of course varies from person to person.

 

Our lives are real, here's a definition of the deathless...

 

Quote

A synonym widely used for nirvana in early texts is "deathless" or "deathfree" (Pali: amata, sanskrit: amrta) and refers to a condition "where there is no death, because there is also no birth, no coming into existence, nothing made by conditioning, and therefore no time."

 

[rockyysdt]

10 hours ago, Brucenkhamen said:

I don't think the Buddha ever suggested that we would ever get to the stage where nobody is being reborn anymore, better to focus on your own life.

 

If everyone successfully applies the Buddhas teaching, then how can this not be the outcome?

 

Quote:  A monk may for practice for decades in their quest for Awakening, and end up never reaching it, but he lived a lifestyle that he chose.  To see the value in that I think it best to compare it with the lifestyle he would have lived if he'd stayed a layperson, this of course varies from person to person.

• There must be many lifestyles which will result in much pain, suffering & early demise. That's not to say that there aren't as many lifestyles, other than Buddhism, which might be very positive, satisfying and rewarding.

Quote:  Buddhist monastic renunciation is primarily about simplifying ones life so that you are not pulled in different directions and distracted from your practice. 

• The need for monastic life, including renunciation, points to the need to commit a large portion of ones life to dedicated practice in order to successfully become Awakened. A life of denial and sacrifice in order to extinguish re birth (not reincarnation) of life, and to experience Equanimity.

 

We have already agreed that “that which is born must die” & “impermanence”.

If that which is Reborn is not us/me/you, then why would us/me/you practice a life filled with renunciation & denial to stop a Rebirth?

 

And, is experiencing equanimity after maybe 40-50 years practice, if you are lucky, worth the trade off?

 

Aren't there many lifestyles which can maximise balanced pleasure, love, enjoyment, & satisfaction in life whilst limiting pain and suffering without a life of renunciation and denial?

 

 

[Brucenkhamen]

11 hours ago, rockyysdt said:

If everyone successfully applies the Buddhas teaching, then how can this not be the outcome?

 

Quote:  A monk may for practice for decades in their quest for Awakening, and end up never reaching it, but he lived a lifestyle that he chose.  To see the value in that I think it best to compare it with the lifestyle he would have lived if he'd stayed a layperson, this of course varies from person to person.

• There must be many lifestyles which will result in much pain, suffering & early demise. That's not to say that there aren't as many lifestyles, other than Buddhism, which might be very positive, satisfying and rewarding.

Quote:  Buddhist monastic renunciation is primarily about simplifying ones life so that you are not pulled in different directions and distracted from your practice. 

• The need for monastic life, including renunciation, points to the need to commit a large portion of ones life to dedicated practice in order to successfully become Awakened. A life of denial and sacrifice in order to extinguish re birth (not reincarnation) of life, and to experience Equanimity.

 

We have already agreed that “that which is born must die” & “impermanence”.

If that which is Reborn is not us/me/you, then why would us/me/you practice a life filled with renunciation & denial to stop a Rebirth?

 

And, is experiencing equanimity after maybe 40-50 years practice, if you are lucky, worth the trade off?

 

Aren't there many lifestyles which can maximise balanced pleasure, love, enjoyment, & satisfaction in life whilst limiting pain and suffering without a life of renunciation and denial?

 

 

 

If pigs could fly how will we prevent getting pig<deleted> on our heads? It's pointless raising an extreme scenario that is nowhere near happening.

 

Yes, there are probably other lifestyles that might be very positive, satisfying and rewarding, someone choose the Buddhas path if they believe the benefit to sacrifice ratio outweighs the alternatives.

 

The classical presentation might be "A life of denial and sacrifice in order to extinguish re-birth" but when you look into the practice techniques and the the Buddhas teaching in the scriptures it's mostly about freeing the mind here and now.  Most Indian religions have that same classical formula as basis, its the Indian religion problem statement, the Buddha used it also but only really as a background.  I think you'd be better off looking into what the Buddhas unique teachings were rather that what he integrated from his culture and time.

 

That which is reborn is not us/me/you but what we do in life is our legacy.  Your children are not us/me/you either and yet you would do anything to help them get into a position to have a good life after you are gone, if you do have a kammic link to a future life wouldn't you do the same?  It's not that different.

 

If you believe there are many lifestyles which can maximise balanced pleasure, love, enjoyment, & satisfaction in life whilst limiting pain and suffering without a life of renunciation and denial, why didn't you choose one?

 

 

 

[rockyysdt]

7 hours ago, Brucenkhamen said:

 

If pigs could fly how will we prevent getting pig<deleted> on our heads? It's pointless raising an extreme scenario that is nowhere near happening.

 

Yes, there are probably other lifestyles that might be very positive, satisfying and rewarding, someone choose the Buddhas path if they believe the benefit to sacrifice ratio outweighs the alternatives.

 

The classical presentation might be "A life of denial and sacrifice in order to extinguish re-birth" but when you look into the practice techniques and the the Buddhas teaching in the scriptures it's mostly about freeing the mind here and now.  Most Indian religions have that same classical formula as basis, its the Indian religion problem statement, the Buddha used it also but only really as a background.  I think you'd be better off looking into what the Buddhas unique teachings were rather that what he integrated from his culture and time.

 

That which is reborn is not us/me/you but what we do in life is our legacy.  Your children are not us/me/you either and yet you would do anything to help them get into a position to have a good life after you are gone, if you do have a kammic link to a future life wouldn't you do the same?  It's not that different.

 

If you believe there are many lifestyles which can maximise balanced pleasure, love, enjoyment, & satisfaction in life whilst limiting pain and suffering without a life of renunciation and denial, why didn't you choose one?

 

 

 

Thanks Bruce.

 

I value your input.

 

You mentioned why I hadn't chosen another lifestyle/s.

I indirectly have been (that's not to say Buddhism isn't included).

This includes cobbling together lifestyles & practices which will assist in having a fruitful life.

Knowledge and its availability is exponentially growing.

Taking care of my health. Working towards simple simple things such as avoiding intoxicants, eliminating ultra processed foods including so called vegetable oils & sugar, & other harmful things. Adopting healthy lifestyle, gym/weights, aerobic activity, and body/mind activities such as yoga and the like.

Being mindful of others not as well off and engage in charitable works.

Seeking out new knowledge on relevant endeavors to add to ones list of practices.

Awareness of my own responses when engaging with others to analyse their appropriateness.

 

I didn't think my scenario was extreme.

More an end result of successful application of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path, a cornerstone of the Buddhas teachings.    Magga: The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering

 

There cannot be a cessation of suffering whilst re birth continues.

 

Isn't the ultimate goal to eliminate Duhkha by quenching the thirst for craving?

Anything short of Awakening can only ever lead to temporarily reducing craving.

 

And, this leads to another crossroad.

 

Is it a part of us (deathless part) which is destined to countless rounds of re birth in Samsara or is the re birth a new entity brought about by our  unquenched craving?

 

Is Nibbana a state in which a part of us ((deathless part)) returns, if not what ever exists in Nibbana?

 

These questions also revolve around, and are suggestive of, something beyond the impermanent/conditioned, and dare I say, religion, or something beyond expiration.

 

Is it correct to say, the only difference between a collection of other practices & lifestyles & Buddhism, is that Buddhism will ultimately offer cessation of re birth of another entity, not us,  & the experience of equanimity?

 

Based on many adherents, impermanence suggests, that for each of us there is nothing beyond death.