Rebirth

[Brucenkhamen]

If it's evolutionary to achieve freedom from suffering and therefore eliminate the cycle of rebirth, and as I personally can never be reborn as my ego, body, memory, thoughts and feelings are an illusion, extinguished upon death, then the only way to stop the universal rebirth of others is for everyone (critical

mass) to eliminate negative kamma and become enlightened.

Isn't when all or a significant number (critical mass) of unenlightened humans become enlightened then the "real reality" will stop generating births of ego bound humans and suffering will end as a consequence." a natural deduction?

Firstly I don't think the "Real Reality" generate ego-boundness, ego-boundness generates ego-boundness.

Secondly while I like the "Critical Mass" idea I'm not aware of anyone teaching it. What I was saying was I think the more that people turn away from the delusion of self and become enlightened the better the world will be to live in. While we think of one individual achieving enlightenment in reality that one individual is part of the whole so the whole must be improved. This would mean the Bodhisattva vow is superfluous but that's another story.

[Brucenkhamen]

I understood very well what you meant. But to me, when I do not agree with a fundamental part of a religion/philosophy I cannot call myself a 'believer' of that religion.

If I disagree with rebirth/reincarnation I might as well call myself a Atheist with values that are very similar to Buhddism.

The question I'd ask is why you think that Buddhism is a religion/philosophy to be believed?

I see it as a system of mental development with religion tacked onto it. I'd compare it with Yoga, now Yoga has a cosmolgy and belief system at least a complex as Buddhism that sits under the umbrella of Hinduism, yet people are happy to practice the techniques of physical and mental development without reference to it.

The Buddha himself advised not to believe anything he said just because he said it but investigate for yourself.

Nothing rides on what you believe, unlike historically based religions where for example if you don't believe in the creation myth and that God sent his son to die on the cross for your sins what do you have left?

Buddhism stands of falls based on whether the techniques he taught produce the results he promised, not whether we can describe within our limited language that which is beyond our experience.

I am aware that I am not just me but I am also my enviroment and my enviroment is me.

I am aware that there is no reason for existance nor is there a need for that reason. It is what it is and that is ok.

I do good because I feel by doing good I improve my enviroment and thus automaticly myself as well.

After reading everything beeing said here, that sounds pretty Buddhistlike to me.

It certainly sounds compatable, but remember that Buddhism is a system of mental development, so if you practice those techniques you can consider yourself Buddhist. If you come to the same level of understanding using a different methodology or set of experiences then that's good, the end result of both is not an understanding of "Buddhist truth" it's an understading of "Universal truth".

I am open to the possebility, but I do need to find out what the difference is between a Buddhist and an Atheist which just happens to have a philosophy similar to Buddhism.

As mentioned above the difference is whether you practice the techniques/methodology or not.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm trying deep self exploring (meditation) with an open mind and the view that the truth will appear through actual experience.

For me anything short of actual experience is just another belief.

The danger of first developing a belief is that you then seek things which reinforce it.

A belief can take deep hold and become unshakeable even when you're presented will compelling evidence to the contrary.

Sounds like the right approach, though sometimes you do need to have something to hold on to while you develop the ability to see the truth through actual experience, otherwise you'll be plagued by doubt and unanswerable questions and get nowhere. This could be a working hypothesis that you are willing to change as you learn more, or a teacher you trust. Don't be afraid to use these, they are like scaffolding on a building site, after they have fulfilled their purpose you can discard them, everybody knows the scaffolding is not the real building.

[Brucenkhamen]

Short conclusion of what I found: Everything that is, will always be and has always been. Only the form of existance changes not existance itself.

Simple trick to see it: place a dot on a piece of paper. This is now.

From the dot, draw a line into the future and ask yourself how long that line will be. My line extends into infinity because there is no reason to belief there is an end.

Now draw a line from the dot in the opposite direction (into the past) and ask yourself the same question again.

I see no reason why this line should stop (have a begining). It also extends into infinity. This is the core of my belief.

No beginning and no end.

Sounds like a case for rebirth to me even though the wording is different, it sounds like a different way of describing what I'm trying to describe.

If we try to describe a reality (with our finite language) that is beyond time as we know it, that is beyond matter as we know it then we are sure to get tripped up in our words. Phrases like "Only the form of existance changes not existance itself" and "No beginning and no end" resonate with me and put the question of what is rebirth into perspective. I think Buddhism has a lot to do with seeing the big picture rather than fixating on questions like "If the self isn't real what is reborn?", seeing the big picture goes hand in hand with release from suffering, wheras fixating on the subjective reality of "my self" perpetuates suffering.

I actually don't like it, because it would mean I would have to say I am religious afterall. I always thought there where but a handfull of people that at least understood, let alone agreed with me. And now after reading about Buddhism it seems I got a whole freaking religion behind me. This is bound to meet some resistance in my head and my first reaction is to find something in Buddhism I can disagree with so I can keep saying I am an atheist.

I wouldn't be concerned about it, you won't find it in Thailand but in the West there are a lot of teachers and teaching traditions that minimise or take out entirely the religious side of Buddhism, if you want to purue this further you'll be able to find people of a similar mind. I recommend you check out the bookk "Buddhism without Beliefs" by as a start

[rockyysdt]

Radius.

My experiences have been similar but I have a way to go with my practice.

Having a disposition filled with anxiety I often fall victim to negative self talk.

l

Instead of looking to other religions I chose to look within myself using a simple technique I learned at school:

Lay on your back, breathe, and everytime you breath out, concentrate on a part of your body and make it feel heavier.

Time seems to disappear after a while and the first time I experienced(only ones at school) 45 minutes went by in what seemed like 5 minutes to me.

I'll not write down the whole process here

(you can read my other thread for that: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Close-Believ...m-t207691.html).

At the end, whether this was because I reached some sort of higher mental level or because I was simply able to be relaxed enough to look at things objectivly without preconceptions, I found in essense there is no meaning of life and reality is sooo simple that it is very hard to 'see'. Yet it is very beautifull in it's simplicity.

Short conclusion of what I found: Everything that is, will always be and has always been. Only the form of existance changes not existance itself.

Simple trick to see it: place a dot on a piece of paper. This is now.

From the dot, draw a line into the future and ask yourself how long that line will be. My line extends into infinity because there is no reason to belief there is an end.

You've come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Being sceptical, I tend to keep an open mind looking and look for actual experience before deciding.

You mentioned infinity.

Sometimes I toy with the idea that God is infinty.

My theory is that God is, everything that there ever was, and everything that there ever will be, all at once and forever".

Sort of like Energy = MC squared

[rockyysdt]

Firstly I don't think the "Real Reality" generate ego-boundness, ego-boundness generates ego-boundness.

Secondly while I like the "Critical Mass" idea I'm not aware of anyone teaching it. What I was saying was I think the more that people turn away from the delusion of self and become enlightened the better the world will be to live in. While we think of one individual achieving enlightenment in reality that one individual is part of the whole so the whole must be improved. This would mean the Bodhisattva vow is superfluous but that's another story.

I'm sure our world would become a better place to live in, but I was attempting to tie down the issue of ending the cycle of rebirth.

If our efforts towards enlightenment is to eliminate our contribution towards negative kamma, leading to the end of the cycle of rebirth and therefore suffering, what does it take to to achieve this?

As we agreed, it's not at a personal level (our ego, body, thoughts, experiences are an illusion), presumably all must square off their contribution to kamma (critical mass) to end rebirth and suffering?

Would you agree?

[Brucenkhamen]

If our efforts towards enlightenment is to eliminate our contribution towards negative kamma, leading to the end of the cycle of rebirth and therefore suffering, what does it take to to achieve this?

As we agreed, it's not at a personal level (our ego, body, thoughts, experiences are an illusion), presumably all must square off their contribution to kamma (critical mass) to end rebirth and suffering?

Would you agree?

I really haven't thought that far ahead, I'm not sure doing so would have any positive affect on my progress or those around me, so simple answer "I don't know".

All I know is each step I take in the right direction is a step worth taking, I observe and see that it works and carry on.

You're trying to nail down answers to questions that are beyond what you and I can understand right now, questions that aren't part of the handful of leaves.

I think you have a pretty good idea of the possibilities that the idea of rebirth points to enough to have developed a working hypothesis that you can carry with you as you practice, isn't that enough?

[Brucenkhamen]

If our efforts towards enlightenment is to eliminate our contribution towards negative kamma, leading to the end of the cycle of rebirth and therefore suffering, what does it take to to achieve this?

As we agreed, it's not at a personal level (our ego, body, thoughts, experiences are an illusion), presumably all must square off their contribution to kamma (critical mass) to end rebirth and suffering?

Would you agree?

I really haven't thought that far ahead, I'm not sure doing so would have any positive affect on my progress or those around me, so simple answer "I don't know".

All I know is each step I take in the right direction is a step worth taking, I observe and see that it works and carry on.

You're trying to nail down answers to questions that are beyond what you and I can understand right now, questions that aren't part of the handful of leaves.

I think you have a pretty good idea of the possibilities that the idea of rebirth points to, enough that you needn't either blindly accept nor blindly reject the idea of rebirth, enough to have developed a working hypothesis that you can carry with you as you practice, isn't that enough?

[Radius]

You mentioned infinity.

Sometimes I toy with the idea that God is infinty.

My theory is that God is, everything that there ever was, and everything that there ever will be, all at once and forever".

Sort of like Energy = MC squared

One can debate a long time about how 'God' was meant in the bible. But the reality is that most people belief 'God' is a supreme being that can make consious choices with which one can communicate (prayer).

So this is the definition of 'God' I use. If I mean infinity, consiousness, good, love or whatever else I use those words and not the word 'God' to avoid confusion.

The question I'd ask is why you think that Buddhism is a religion/philosophy to be believed?

I see it as a system of mental development with religion tacked onto it. I'd compare it with Yoga, now Yoga has a cosmolgy and belief system at least a complex as Buddhism that sits under the umbrella of Hinduism, yet people are happy to practice the techniques of physical and mental development without reference to it.

The Buddha himself advised not to believe anything he said just because he said it but investigate for yourself.

Nothing rides on what you believe, unlike historically based religions where for example if you don't believe in the creation myth and that God sent his son to die on the cross for your sins what do you have left?

Buddhism stands of falls based on whether the techniques he taught produce the results he promised, not whether we can describe within our limited language that which is beyond our experience.

What I have so far about Buddhism indeed seems to be not much more then 'techniques of physical and mental development'.

But the conclusions from that development are amazingly similar to mine. Probebly because we are investigating the same universal truth. This makes my case stronger btw. 2 seperate paths leading to the same conclusion. Circumstantial evidence to it beeing correct.

I wonder where I can find more about the religious side of Buddhism. I like to know about rituals and stuff. Just to get the complete picture. I think I'll start a new thread on that one.

I hold great value in giving what I am a name. Not for myself but for others. To be able to explain to them what my thoughts are. Saying: "I am an atheist." immediatly gives people a rough outline of my 'truth'.

After that we can discuss the details. But to start with the details is simply not practical.

[rockyysdt]

I really haven't thought that far ahead, I'm not sure doing so would have any positive affect on my progress or those around me, so simple answer "I don't know".

All I know is each step I take in the right direction is a step worth taking, I observe and see that it works and carry on.

You're trying to nail down answers to questions that are beyond what you and I can understand right now, questions that aren't part of the handful of leaves.

I think you have a pretty good idea of the possibilities that the idea of rebirth points to enough to have developed a working hypothesis that you can carry with you as you practice, isn't that enough?

This fits into my philosophy of learning through direct experience (enlightenment) rather than try to understand things beyond us, but I thought the answer may have been described in Buddhas teachings, hence my questions.

I was of the belief that each of us would be eliminating our own suffering from the cycle of rebirth. Not our ego, body, thoughts, or experiences which are an illusion, but the portion of us which is real and has always been there and which is part of the real whole.

Now it seems that our quest to eliminate suffering through the cycle of rebirth is ultruistic because my contribution won't save my suffering from rebirth, but may add credit towards someone elses. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[rockyysdt]

One can debate a long time about how 'God' was meant in the bible. But the reality is that most people belief 'God' is a supreme being that can make consious choices with which one can communicate (prayer).

So this is the definition of 'God' I use. If I mean infinity, consiousness, good, love or whatever else I use those words and not the word 'God' to avoid confusion.

It might turn out that enlightenment is reunification with God or realisation that you are and always were part of everything (God).

The God of every religion might be the same one, each offering a different path to the same place.

Unless there's proof to the contrary we can become rigid if we cling to atheistic positions.

Don't you think having an open mind is the middle path?

[Radius]

One can debate a long time about how 'God' was meant in the bible. But the reality is that most people belief 'God' is a supreme being that can make consious choices with which one can communicate (prayer).

So this is the definition of 'God' I use. If I mean infinity, consiousness, good, love or whatever else I use those words and not the word 'God' to avoid confusion.

It might turn out that enlightenment is reunification with God or realisation that you are and always were part of everything (God).

The God of every religion might be the same one, each offering a different path to the same place.

Unless there's proof to the contrary we can become rigid if we cling to atheistic positions.

Don't you think having an open mind is the middle path?

Aaaah, the famous Buddhist middle path.

We are talking words now and that is an irrelevant discussion. If we don't talk words then the question is, what is God?

If he is a sentient beeing capable of sentient choises and we are able to directly communicate with this God (prayer) then I do not believe.

If you wish to call 'reality', 'all the good in the world' or 'all there is' God then I might agree.

But to avoid beeing mistaken I never use the word God for that.

So in essense: I don't care what name you give to it but for practical reasons it should not be God.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Radius

[rockyysdt]

If you wish to call 'reality', 'all the good in the world' or 'all there is' God then I might agree.

But to avoid beeing mistaken I never use the word God for that.

So in essense: I don't care what name you give to it but for practical reasons it should not be God.

Over time the meaning of words and their use in language evolves.

I'd say we have a case for amending the Dictionary meaning God.

[camerata]

Is there any need to redefine God? I think the definition is pretty clear as it is. It seems to me that efforts to redefine God are mainly to make a concept we are attached to (but reject intellectually) somehow more palatable. Buddhism has no need of God. I agree with Ven Dhammika that a person can't be a true Buddhist and still retain the religious side of Judaism/theism. I agree with Suzuki when he said you can practise Zen with any religion... but if you do, you don't get the full benefit of the Buddha's teachings. Put in the proverbial foxhole, you'll end up praying to God and suffering like everyone else.

For those moving to Buddhism from a theistic, Judeo-Christian cultural background, a certain amount of courage is required to deal with the God-concept that has been embedded in the subconscious.

[camerata]

I was of the belief that each of us would be eliminating our own suffering from the cycle of rebirth. Not our ego, body, thoughts, or experiences which are an illusion, but the portion of us which is real and has always been there and which is part of the real whole.

Now it seems that our quest to eliminate suffering through the cycle of rebirth is ultruistic because my contribution won't save my suffering from rebirth, but may add credit towards someone elses. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Your ego, body, experiences, etc, (in Buddhism, "the five aggregates") aren't an illusion. The illusion is that they constitute an enduring "self." If you reach enlightenment in this lifetime, your contribution and that of all those before you on your particular stream of existence will have saved you from suffering and rebirth.

If you don't, you will have contributed to the situation of the next being up the line. Then the question might arise, "Why should I care about 'someone else' up the line?" I think the answer is compassion. That "someone else" isn't really someone else, it's the inheritor of your kamma. Everything you do has an effect on that being, so you have a responsibility to do the right thing. It's kind of like raising a child - the child isn't you, but it does contain some of your DNA and you have a responsibility to raise it in the right way. Feeling compassion and responsibility for this future being is a strategy for reducing self-centredness and moving in the direction of nibbana.

[Radius]

For those moving to Buddhism from a theistic, Judeo-Christian cultural background, a certain amount of courage is required to deal with the God-concept that has been embedded in the subconscious.

Judeo-Christian culture: Yes

Belief in God: No

I don't think I need much courage to move to Buddhism. But Am I?

[rockyysdt]

Your ego, body, experiences, etc, (in Buddhism, "the five aggregates") aren't an illusion. The illusion is that they constitute an enduring "self." If you reach enlightenment in this lifetime, your contribution and that of all those before you on your particular stream of existence will have saved you from suffering and rebirth.

This suggests I have a lineage or stream.

Would my lineage manifest itself in different "body/ego" vehicles complete with nervous system and feelings/thoughts in which to experience the accumulated kamma.

Is this how you see it?

The "you" you mention, is this the portion of me which is part of the real and enduring reality which goes on to expereince suffering and re birth, and does it remember each body/ego that was associated with it?

If you don't, you will have contributed to the situation of the next being up the line. Then the question might arise, "Why should I care about 'someone else' up the line?" I think the answer is compassion. That "someone else" isn't really someone else, it's the inheritor of your kamma. Everything you do has an effect on that being, so you have a responsibility to do the right thing. It's kind of like raising a child - the child isn't you, but it does contain some of your DNA and you have a responsibility to raise it in the right way. Feeling compassion and responsibility for this future being is a strategy for reducing self-centredness and moving in the direction of nibbana.

[camerata]

I don't think I'd use the word "manifest" because it sounds a bit like something morphing into something else. If we are thinking of a human rebirth, you have Being A dying and Being B coming into existence as a fertilized egg. The two are unrelated until the point of death. At death, the last mind-moment of Being A conditions the first mind-moment of Being B. So Being B gets an imprint of the ever-changing accumulated experience of Being A without any unchanging self/soul/entity being passed along.

What I referred to as "you" is not so much an enduring reality as a "relative identity" or perhaps a "transcendent self." In modern terms, as I understand it, Being B inherits the accumulated experience of Entity A but this experience is not accessible to the conscious mind. It affects us like subconscious memories and tendencies do.

[rockyysdt]

What I referred to as "you" is not so much an enduring reality as a "relative identity" or perhaps a "transcendent self." In modern terms, as I understand it, Being B inherits the accumulated experience of Entity A but this experience is not accessible to the conscious mind. It affects us like subconscious memories and tendencies do.

Just trying to understand who you mean when you say "relative identity" or perhaps a "transcendent self".

Your ego, body, experiences, etc, (in Buddhism, "the five aggregates") aren't an illusion. The illusion is that they constitute an enduring "self." If you reach enlightenment in this lifetime, your contribution and that of all those before you on your particular stream of existence will have saved you from suffering and rebirth.

In the context you quote above the "you" which you save from suffering and rebirth can't be your body, mind, ego, thoughts, feelings and memories as these are not enduring and extinguish when you die.

Who or what is the "you"?

How can "you" be saved if you are not enduring?

If "you" are enduring to be saved from suffering and rebirth, who are "you"?

If we can't nail this down then your analogy is like wrestling with a greased pig.

Edited September 13, 2008 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Your ego, body, experiences, etc, (in Buddhism, "the five aggregates") aren't an illusion. The illusion is that they constitute an enduring "self." If you reach enlightenment in this lifetime, your contribution and that of all those before you on your particular stream of existence will have saved you from suffering and rebirth.

In the context you quote above the "you" which you save from suffering and rebirth can't be your body, mind, ego, thoughts, feelings and memories as these are not enduring and extinguish when you die.

"You" is just a convenient and conventional label. In this case it means the five aggregates called rockyysdt, because it's those five aggregates that would experience enlightenment in this lifetime and those aggregates we are talking about.

If we were discussing "you" being enlightened in a future life it would refer to a different set of five aggregates whose name we can't know.

In the Pali Canon, "you" would also mean all the beings on the same stream of existence as rockyysdt into the infinite past and infinite future. But this seems confusing and sounds like reincarnation, so I offered you terms like transcendent self as a simpler way of referring to that string of causally connected beings.

In reality there is no enduring "you" in the the sense of five aggregates or any conventional sense. If rockyysdt gets enlightened in this life, it's rockyysdt that gets enlightened. If it's some other being on the same stream of existence that gets enlightened, it isn't rockyysdt that attains nibbana, but the stream of existence that rockyysdt was part of ends and the being that got enlightened had a causal relationship with rockyysdt.

It only sounds difficult because we are using a conventional label for convenience to describe something that is not conventional.

[rockyysdt]

"You" is just a convenient and conventional label. In this case it means the five aggregates called rockyysdt, because it's those five aggregates that would experience enlightenment in this lifetime and those aggregates we are talking about.

What are the five aggregates?

If we were discussing "you" being enlightened in a future life it would refer to a different set of five aggregates whose name we can't know.

In the Pali Canon, "you" would also mean all the beings on the same stream of existence as rockyysdt into the infinite past and infinite future. But this seems confusing and sounds like reincarnation, so I offered you terms like transcendent self as a simpler way of referring to that string of causally connected beings.

In reality there is no enduring "you" in the the sense of five aggregates or any conventional sense. If rockyysdt gets enlightened in this life, it's rockyysdt that gets enlightened. If it's some other being on the same stream of existence that gets enlightened, it isn't rockyysdt that attains nibbana, but the stream of existence that rockyysdt was part of ends and the being that got enlightened had a causal relationship with rockyysdt.

All the more reason why you should overcome negative thoughts and have a go at attaining enlightenment.

Perhaps the crossing of our paths in not a coincidence, but for the purpose of spurring you on.

You quoted earlier:

Well, according to classical Theravada, the Buddha did teach rebirth, so there should be a zillion chances to attain nibbana. The fact that the Buddha stressed nibbana in this life (for his monks) is the main reason I'm not delaying practice until a future life, but it isn't enough to get me into robes.

As you've just indicated camerata has only one crack at enlightenment.

Although you are not enduring, you are real and in many respects the "real real you" may take zillions of years if not never to break your streams cycle of rebirth.

When this happens you won't be a part of it.

Your answer was touched upon earlier when describing Buddhas wife and son.

The answer is to seek a buddha as your teacher.

If you don't believe you can attain nibbana in this lifetime then you won't!

Edited September 13, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Robroy]

Whatever Buddha - or anyone else until recent centuries - said about rebirth is going to have to be metaphorical, because it was said in the pre-science era.

In all of history - including in the scientific age in which we have a battery of instruments & proofs to establish such things - there has not been a single study, or piece of video, audio, spectrographic evidence - to suggest that there is such a thing as rebirth. Not a single pulse of data in human history. That does not prove that rebirth is not real - but it stacks the odds against it by thousands to one, to put it optimistically.

However the metaphor is a rather lovely one, & personally I'm all for it. We can change beyond recognition, by our own efforts - as if we had been born a second time.

[ff978472]

What are the five aggregates?

Let met try to explain the Five aggregates.

Anyone can correct me if I am wrong.

Five aggregates (Khanda in Pali) is defined as the five subsystems or basic functions which constitute the human being.

1) Rupa : form - body, its nervous system, and sense objects.

2) Vedana : feeling - hot, cold, pain, like, dislike etc.

3) Sanna (Sanya in Thai) : recognition - this is when we recognize chairs, women, Jame, Somchai, our pencil boxes, etc.

4) Sankhara : thought - this is when thought processes and emotions occur. This is when you start to reborn

5) Vinyan : sense-consciousness and entering into the loop of selfness.

These terms are not new.

Before Buddha era, people already knew these terms.

The problem is that, they didn't know that there are actually 2 types of Five aggregates.

Without full conciousness, people let the 5 aggregates become the basis for attachment and that when it become "Upadana-Khandha"

=========================

"Behold bhikkhu (monk, yogi), I shall manifest the five khandha and the five upadana-khandha, do attend.

Bhikkhu, what are the five khandha?

Any rupa that is past, future, or present, inside or outside, coarse or fine, of low or high quality, far or near, is called rupa-khandha.

Any vedana… any sanna… any group of sankhara… and any vinnana that is past, future, or present, inside or outside, coarse or fine, of low or high quality, far or near, is called vinnana-khandha.

Bhikkhu, these are called the five khandha,

Behold bhikkhu, what are the five upadana-khandha?

Any rupa that is past, future, or present, inside or outside, coarse or fine, of low or high quality, far or near, evolves with asava (defilement), is condition for upadana (clinging) is called upadana-khandha.

Any rupa… any vedana… any sanna… any group of sankhara… and any vinnana that is past, future, or present, … far or near, evolves with asava, is condition for upadana is called upadana-khandha or vinnana.

Bhikkhu, these are called the five upadana-khandha."

==============

It was Buddha who pointed out to those Yogi that there were actually 2 types of Khandha: "natural Khanda" and "upadana-khandha"

Natural Khanda are neccessary for human being, they help protecting human being from dangers but none of them are "self," or "of self".

It is this "upadana-khandha" which cause suffering.

[ff978472]

In other words, we reborn every time we are attached to these 5 aggregates and thus cause suffering.

[camerata]

Courtesy of Bhikkhu Bodhi:

The Buddha reveals that what we are, our being or personality, is a composite of five factors which are called the five aggregates of clinging. They are called the five aggregates of clinging because they form the basis for clinging. Whatever we cling to can be found amongst the five aggregates. These five function together as the instrument for our experience of the world. We cling to them as instruments of our experience in this life, and when they break up at death, due to that same clinging - the desire for enjoyment and for existence - a new set of aggregates, a new life arises to continue our experience in another existence.

The five aggregates are:

1. Material form.

2. Feelings.

3. Perceptions.

4. Mental formations.

5. Consciousness.

I MATERIAL FORM

This includes all the material factors of existence, every type of material phenomena. The most important of these is the body, the physical organism through which one experiences the world.

II FEELING

Feeling is the mental factor that has the function of experiencing the 'flavour' of the object, the effective quality of the object. There are three basic types of feelings - pleasant, painful and neutral feeling. Feeling can further be subdivided by way of the sense faculty through which it originates: feeling which arises by contact with the eye, ear, nose, tongue , body and mind, which amounts to eighteen types of feeling (three kinds each through six sense faculties).

III PERCEPTION

This is the mental act of grasping the distinguishing qualities of the object. Perception takes note of the object's features, it identifies and notes.

Perception is divided into six categories by way of the sense objects that it takes note of:

[a] Perception of form

Perception of sound

[c] Perception of smell

[d] Perception of taste

[e] Perception of touch

[f] Perception of ideas

IV MENTAL FORMATIONS

This is a comprehensive group which contains a number of volitional factors. In Abidhamma 50 types of mental formations are mentioned. Of these, the most important is volition or will. This is the mental factor which arouses us to act by way of body or speech. Mental formations also include all different desires and emotions, including the wholesome and unwholesome roots. These are the basic psychological roots of unwholesome actions: greed hatred and delusion, and the basic roots of wholesome actions: generosity, loving kindness and wisdom.

V CONSCIOUSNESS

Consciousness is the key factor of the mind. It is the basic awareness of the object, the light of awareness which makes all experience possible.

Consciousness is divided into six types by way of its bases:

[a] eye consciousness (cognizes visual objects.)

ear consciousness (cognizes sound)

[c] nose consciousness (cognizes smell)

[d] tongue consciousness (cognizes taste)

[e] body consciousness (cognizes tangible sensations)

[f] mind consciousness (cognizes objects of outer senses such as sights, sounds... etc as well as mental objects such as ideas, concepts,images, abstract notions etc.)

Consciousness seems similar to perception, but these two perform different functions. Consciousness is the general awareness of objects, while perception is the specific factor which grasps the object's distinctive qualities.

Whatever we identify ourselves with, whatever we take to be 'I', or 'my self' can be found within these five agggregates. Therefore if we care to understand ourselves, what we have to understand is the five aggregates. To fully understand the five aggregates means to see them as they really are, and this means to see them in terms of the three characteristics of existence, that is, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness or suffering, and selflessness or non-self.

[Radius]

You guys are loosing me here.

Lets see if I can make some sense of it:

(Feel free to skip to the conclusion part of this post. The stuff before it is my real time path to this conclusion.)

I have decided(for myself) that rebirth is meant metaphorically. I can do nothing but disagree with the concept of rebirth as an actual return of one or more of the five aggregates that define me.

Parts of me can be past on, but they are not me.

1. Material form.

These are my molecules and the way they are bound together. When I die they will eventually be taken up by the whole again. But they will never form 'me' again.

2. Feelings.

These exist only within myself. However, I can explain how I feel to others or explain about a feeling they don't know. In this way I can make that person also feel something. After I die I will have passed along concepts of feelings, memory of the way I felt and I will have triggered feelings in others. But the Feelings that are 'me' no longer exist after death.

3. Perceptions.

These are the ways I detect reality. This is raw data to be processed by my brain into mental formations(number 4). I can recognize different raw data as having similar parts as previous raw data and thus come to a conclusion about the meaning of this data (to me). I can pass this knowledge along to others.

After I die I no longer have any perceptions because I no longer have acting senses to percieve or a working brain to process the data.

All that remains is the knowledge I have relayed to others about raw data they might detect.

4. Mental formations.

These are the conclusions I bind to perceptions. This is my image of reality. This is what I consider to be 'true'. I can relay this knowledge to others. So they might be able to come to the same mental formations as I have. After I die the mental formations that make up 'me' no longer exist.

5. Consciousness.

This is awareness of all 5 aggregates. When I am aware, only than I can relay parts or all of the 5 aggregates to others.

When I die, the awareness that is 'me' no longer exists. But I might have passed on my awareness to others.

Conclusion:

The 5 aggregates exist and are real. But only MY 5 aggregates are 'me'. And after I die 'me' no longer exists.

What remains is knowledge about my 5 aggregates in others. And that knowledge may lead to some of the same aggregates as mine, but they are not 'me'.

So, putting it simple: Rebirth = knowledge that was passed to others + the use of the molecules that made up 'me' and some of their formations.

With their formations I mean DNA and the (re)use of my molecules even happens when I am alive.

The only thing that is actually reborn is our collective knowledge and our evolution. Or you could say reality is in a constant state of beeing reborn.

Or as I stated before: Everything will always be, the only thing that changes is the form in which everything is.

Extrapolation and Questions:

Rebirth is not individual. It is much bigger. Rebirth is about everything and how it continiously changes. Rebirth is not good or bad. Rebirth does not mean improvement, it just means change.

If rebirth is change than what does Buddhism mean with beeing enlightend? What is enlightment?

Is it the awareness of this cosmic rebirth. Is it knowing that whatever you cling to holds no meaning because there is no such thing as 'meaning'?

Why does enlightment end suffering? What is suffering?

Do I actually agree with the concept of enlightment?

I do agree witht he concept of suffering, but is it a bad thing? Is it something that needs to end? I actually don't think so.

I see no problem in suffering. In fact, I see progress in suffering. With suffering I learn. And I enjoy learning so suffering cannot be all bad.

Without suffering there is no enlightment? No good without bad, no light without dark. no Yin without Yang?

Seek no enlightment, seek balance. <----- Does this fall within the teachings of Buddha or not?

Edited September 14, 2008 by Radius

[rockyysdt]

Why does enlightment end suffering? What is suffering?

All humans, whether they admit to it or not will suffer to varying degrees during their lifetime due to their nature.

They may experience the death of their loved ones, the trauma of having to kill someone in war, the pain of a terminal illness, the break up of a marriage etc.

Radius.

I think others have said that each of us has a lineage, an infinite succession of lives, each separate and unique to the other but each shaped by the inherited kamma of the previous.

That these lives are impermanent as the ego, body, memories and consciousness end with death.

That this lineage will continue forever or until one of the lives achieves enlightenment thus breaking the cycle of rebirth of your lineage.

If this is so, then these questions arise.

When enlightenment occurs

a. will the life associated with your lineage which achieves enlightenment have an advantage over the others (intact consciousness)? or

b. will the real real you, the enduring one hidden behind the ego and self, reunite with infinity (nibbana) along with the consciousness of all before?

c. or will you (ego & body) immediately die because you serve no purpose other than to carry the real real you (enduring) which is asleep and awakens upon enlightenment?

Edited September 14, 2008 by rockyysdt

[Radius]

Ending all suffering means ending all enlightment. There is no enlightment without suffering.

I have just thought up a metaphor:

Imagine a dug out circle in the sand. Fill half of that circle with marbles. No more marbles can be added to the circle and no marbles can be taken out.

The marbles + the 'no marbles' area = reality.

You could see the places that hold marbles as 'suffering' and the places that hold no marbles as enlightment.

To change a place that has a marble, into a place that has no marble you could put your finger in the group of marbles and end the 'suffering' in that particular place of reality. But because there is balance it means a new suffering will arise somewhere else. This is the cause and effect Buddhism speaks of.

So yes, enlightment = the end of suffering. It even is the end of all suffering, but all suffering does not end with enlightment. <<--- read that again.

I realize that I am now going out on a lim here. But I like to think of it as 'thinking outside of the box'.

I am even going much further. reality is not a ring it is a sphere. and the amount of marbles is infinite and so is the amount of 'no marbles'.

And the marbles and 'no marbles' don't just represent suffering and enlightment. They represent all opposites.

You might say: "but to achive balance there must be a finite amount of both sides". You must realize that finity and infinity are part of the same circle. When one thing becomes infinite another becomes finite.

And reality isn't just a sphere either actually. It is a shape of infinite dimensions.

Finity and infinity are 2 sides of the same coin called reality. Ones again: balance.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Radius

[Brucenkhamen]

Ending all suffering means ending all enlightment. There is no enlightment without suffering...

Finity and infinity are 2 sides of the same coin called reality. Ones again: balance.

Well I've read it through a couple of times but still don't know what you're on about.

You appear to be saying you think if someone gets enlightened then soneone else must get unenligtened to preserve the balance.

Is this assumption something you only apply to enligtenment and suffering? Does someone get cancer every time someone is cured? does someone lose their masters degree every time someone attains one?

There comes a time when too much thinking can become an obstacle and it's time to start doing, I suspect you've reached it.

[rockyysdt]

Ending all suffering means ending all enlightment. There is no enlightment without suffering.

Radius.

I fancy the other theory.

It's evolutionary to become enlightened.

If we succeed, everyone will eventually become enlightened and reunite (realise) they are part of infinity and always have been.

Of course the last to do so (become enlightened) must turn out the lights.