The Final Countdown

[camerata]

The Final Countdown Part 1

by Cittasamvaro

Rebirth in Buddhism is always a tricky issue. Many Westerners don’t like the idea of rebirth, as they hold loosely to a materialist view that animals are self-replicating DNA machines comprised of physical matter only. Mind in this paradigm, may run by its own rules, but it is still a function of physical matter (how then, can there be free will?). This is called a functionalist standpoint, and even if most people don’t think about it, this sums up the general opinion.

Like it or not, Buddhism not only accepts rebirth as real, the whole religion in built around it. In the first teaching the Buddha gave, the Dhammacakka Sutta, we hear that Dukkha is inevitable in the round of rebirths, and that being reborn in the 3 realms is driven by the power of Tanha (craving). This statement itself requires some lengthy explanation to avoid some mistakes of interpretation...

Full article.

[healthcaretaker]

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

[camerata]

After the Final Countdown

by Cittasamvaro

The Final Moment

However, the importance of the final moments is found in most Buddhist schools. It seems that the transition period is a time of great instability, and if you are practised and prepared you can make quick progress. And the opposite is also true, that you can easily fall unnecessarily into an unfavourable realm.

In Tibetan Buddhism this is paramount. The whole Vajrayana Phowa practise is based around this. The famous Tibetan Book of the Dead (which is not an officially sanctioned text) is based around recitations to guide the deceased through an intermediate stage between this life and the next.

In Theravada we have less emphasis on ‘uncertainties’, and focus efforts on the here and now, and development of good qualities, including but not limited to, meditation. There were instances in the Buddha’s life though, where advice was given to dying people, who were then able to make rapid attainments. Perhaps the proximity of death clears the mind …

In official Theravada view rebirth occurs immediately upon death. There is a ‘relinking’ consciousness that arises in the new being without delay. However this view became a hardened part of Theravada only several hundred years after the Buddha’s passing away.

Full article.

[chutai]

I found that "Exploring Karma and Rebirth" by Nagapriya had an interesting and thoughtful perspective on both karma and rebirth. Although basically an introduction to the subject, the author offers some thought provoking issues on both subjects that long-term practitioners might do well to consider. For instance, if Shakyamuni was was first expounding Dharma in the West would he have mentioned either. Perhaps it would only make sense in the context of where he was expounding the time ? A very brief precise on some of what Nagapriya is asking , but a book worth the ponderingI think.

[huli]

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

[rockyysdt]

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

But then to believe that the energy will reappear with any similarity to its earlier form is a huge leap.

My computer hard drive has many memories.

If I melt it down, the resultant energy/matter will no longer support the memories and earlier character.

This will be lost.

In human terms this can be called anatta.

Edited July 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[chutai]

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

Using the term reincarnation is itself problematic from a Buddhist perspective. There can be no such thing as a "non-personal reincarnation" as the term reincarnation implies that something is reincarnated with life, i.e. matter. When in fact matter already has a life-force of its own. To suggest that matter is re-infused with life suggests some transcendent or eternal otherness (soul?) which mystically embodies something with life. This is ok from a theistic point of view, However, is incompatible with Buddhist thought, which prefers to use the term "rebirth".

[huli]

I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.

Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?

Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

Using the term reincarnation is itself problematic from a Buddhist perspective. There can be no such thing as a "non-personal reincarnation" as the term reincarnation implies that something is reincarnated with life, i.e. matter. When in fact matter already has a life-force of its own. To suggest that matter is re-infused with life suggests some transcendent or eternal otherness (soul?) which mystically embodies something with life. This is ok from a theistic point of view, However, is incompatible with Buddhist thought, which prefers to use the term "rebirth".

I stand corrected on the better term "rebirth", compared to "reincarnation". However, I doubt if either term is immune to an incorrect interpretation of Buddhist thought on non-self. The jist of my posting was how one can imagine a scientific and logical transmigration of I can't say what, based on energy, to wit, the First Law of Thermodynamics, that is "no self" and "non-personal", as was specified. Although you may find a soul and theistic point of view in the term "reincarnation", not everyone does, and none was intended.

[Xangsamhua]

<br />

<br />

<br />I believe Science will very soon able to prove it; based on the theory that energy can neither be created or destroyed but can be transformed.<br /><br />Isn't that what is life and rebirth about ?<img src='http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />Even if there is no self, per se, there is some force that holds the aggregates together temporarily as a human life. It follows that this something, call it energy, would need to go somewhere at death, and this represents a logical and scientific rationale for non-personal reincarnation. First Law of Thermodynamics and all that.

<br /><br />Using the term reincarnation is itself problematic from a Buddhist perspective. There can be no such thing as a "non-personal reincarnation" as the term reincarnation implies that something is reincarnated with life, i.e. matter. When in fact matter already has a life-force of its own. To suggest that matter is re-infused with life suggests some transcendent or eternal otherness (soul?) which mystically embodies something with life. This is ok from a theistic point of view, However, is incompatible with Buddhist thought, which prefers to use the term "rebirth".<br />

<br /><br /><br />

James Paul McDermott, in Development in the Early Buddhist Concept of Kamma/Karma (New Delhi, 1984/2003: 75) says in his discussion of the Abhidhamma on this matter:

By showing that even in the briefest moment of consciousness there is an intricate network of relationships, the idea of a static world is attacked and the truth of impermanence emphasized.

Within this context of impermanence the notion of an uninterrupted life-stream is nonetheless maintained. For although the combination of elements and relations inevitably changes from one moment to the next, some components survive longer than others, thereby being reintegrated in a new relationship. Thus an identifiable locus is defined within a framework of constant flux.

I'm not sure how some components survive longer than others or what might be an example. The only thing I know of that seems to endure in a reasonably coherent and cohesive form (for most people, for most of their lives) is memory. With the exception of the stories one hears of a small number of people remembering previous lives, which would suggest reincarnation as much as rebirth - the memory being reincarnated - most people have no memory of previous lives, even if their identifiable locus has crossed over from a previous life to this one. However, if one is transformed from life to life, but has no continuity via memory, then the transformation is a purely formal one. It has no meaning in any conscious sense, and yet karma is primarily a moral law, isn't it, rather than a physical one?

Hence, karma as cause/effect, action/consequence may well apply; it may well be part of the moral and natural order of the universe, but to call it "rebirth" suggests it is more than that. It suggests that a moral being is morally as well as physically reborn in some identifiable form. If it weren't it would be impossible for people to remember previous births or for the Dalai Lama or Kamapa or others to be identified in their new form (having active memories of their previous identity and those of others in their previous incarnation).

With no continuity of memory I would find it difficult to connect karma with rebirth/reincarnation, and yet continuity of memory would suggest that memory is atta/self. Awkward for the context in which the Abhidhamma speaks about karma, if McDermott has got it right.

For me the jury is still out. The concept is not always consistent in the Pali Canon either - differing between earlier and later layers of the texts.

However, I just don't know enough yet. Am still working on it. Should read Buddhadhasa on this, I suppose.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[Sarathi]

There is a self, there is a person, in Buddhism.

There is no Atman, that's all.

Actually even that is not quite accurate, but it will do as a starter.

[chutai]

Empty and devoid of ego

is the nature of all things.

There is no individual being

that in reality exists.

Nor end nor beginning having,

nor any middle course.

All is a sham, there’s no reality whatever;

It is like unto a vision and a dream.

It is like unto clouds and lightning.

It is like unto gossamer or bubbles floating

It is like unto a fiery revolving wheel.

It is like unto water splashing.

Because of causes and conditions things are here:

In them there is no self-nature (atman, soul).

All things that move and work,

know them as such.

Ignorance and thirsty desire,

the source of birth and death are they:

Right contemplation and discipline of heart,

desire and ignorance obliterate.

All beings in the world,

beyond words and expressions are they;

Their ultimate true nature, pure and true,

Is like unto vacuity of space.

- Abhisamaya Sutra

[Xangsamhua]

There is a self, there is a person, in Buddhism.

There is no Atman, that's all.

Actually even that is not quite accurate, but it will do as a starter.

Yes, a relative self, an "identifiable locus within a framework of constant flux" rather than an irreducible and permanent entity.

I have no problem with that as an ontological position; my problem is with the mechanics of translating this relative locus via karma to a new birth.

One might say that to worry about this is to split hairs or be distracted by the unknowable, but if karma-laden rebirth (and its overcoming) is central to Buddhism, then it is important, if one wants to be identified as a Buddhist, to either have an understanding of this process or to acknowledge it as an act of faith.

It seems though, that in the 21st century, attempts to explain and clarify the relation between karma and rebirth are no further advanced than those of the Abhidhamma and raise the same issues as the Puggalavadins (personalists) and others raised in those times (and were answered in similar ways, but without reference to the second law of thermodynamics, etc.).

Some Western Buddhists declare a lack of interest in karma as a generative force in whatever happens after this life. I suppose they are Neo-Buddhists, or Post-Buddhists, but not Buddhists in the conventional sense. Perhaps it doesn't matter really, especially if the Buddha's teaching is not the Final Word, but a powerful contribution to the clarification of reason and the unfolding of truth. I've also heard it put by a Zen master: "Why be a Buddhist when you could be a Buddha?"

Edited July 4, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[chutai]

Some Western Buddhists declare a lack of interest in karma as a generative force in whatever happens after this life. I suppose they are Neo-Buddhists, or Post-Buddhists, but not Buddhists in the conventional sense. Perhaps it doesn't matter really, especially if the Buddha's teaching is not the Final Word, but a powerful contribution to the clarification of reason and the unfolding of truth. I've also heard it put by a Zen master: "Why be a Buddhist when you could be a Buddha?"

I must admit not ever hearing anyone subscribing to Buddhist thought denying Karma as volitional action, although there may be questions around pervasive karmic consequentialism ; as it's obvious from what we experience that people don't always get their just deserts whether based on good or bad actions. However, as a guideline to treating others with mindful respect it can't be beaten, even if there's no proof of rebirth , let alone the question what is there to be reborn. Any answer seems to me more about faith than evidential.

Nevertheless, I do like that Zen quote as it's central to the Mahayana doctrine about each possessing the inherent Buddha nature. Albeit that doesn't negate the navigational compass as set down by the historic Buddha , and subsequently clarified by countless mentors.

My own favourite quote from all Buddhist literature is in Anguttara Nikaya (3.65) :

Do not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it

[Xangsamhua]

Referring to Chutai's post (4 July @ 1810 hrs):

I must admit not ever hearing anyone subscribing to Buddhist thought denying Karma as volitional action, although there may be questions around pervasive karmic consequentialism ; as it's obvious from what we experience that people don't always get their just deserts whether based on good or bad actions. However, as a guideline to treating others with mindful respect it can't be beaten, even if there's no proof of rebirth , let alone the question what is there to be reborn. Any answer seems to me more about faith than evidential.

I understood that with respect to karma people in fact always do get their just deserts, though it may not appear that way to us. Thus, a murderer may appear to suffer inadequate consequences for his deed from our perspective and a lesser criminal harsher punishment than seems to fit the crime; however, there may be much more going on in the intentional life of those people than we are aware of and karma takes all of that into account. Nevertheless, early disputants such as Tissa and Nagasena, if I remember rightly, did acknowledge that not every consequence arises from karma. There are other causes as well. Hence, the fact that the Buddha or an arahant/arhat has expended all his karmic debt does not mean that he can't suffer pain or illness or even commit a fault (e.g. an arahant could unintentionally breach a minor rule of monastic discipline).

I think it's the re-birth thing (what gets reborn and how?) that is the issue with Western (Neo?) Buddhists, such as Stephen Batchelor, as it was in ancient times with the Puggalavadins, who wanted to be orthodox, but had this concern. The need for belief in karma to be in the end a faith-based one has to be acknowledged, though scientist-monks like Matthieu Ricard are a bit reluctant to do so. He falls back on his experience of Tibetan-Nepali Buddhism and the Shanti Devi story as evidence.

My own favourite quote from all Buddhist literature is in Anguttara Nikaya (3.65) :

Do not accept any claim merely on the basis of appeal to holy scripture or that it was said by a great yogi; rather if you find that it appeals to your sense of discrimination and conscience as being conducive to your benefit and happiness, then accept it and live up to it

Top quote, I agree, Very affirming, not excessively positivist. It allows that, in the end, we fall back on our discernment and moral judgement. We have to, unless we are to be completely skeptical of our own ability to do these things. That would lead to fideism or nihilism - not the middle path.

Thank you for your views.

[IMA_FARANG]

While I understand the concern about rebirth...I fail to see it's real relevance. In my personal opinion, since it seems to start immediately after death...when I can't do anything about it anyhow...I don't intend to worry or debate about it.

The only thing I DO intend to do is to is to practice and live the best that I can as a Buddhist during my life here on earth...and let karma and rebith take care of themselves after I pass away.

In fact, I would say that's all a sentient being can hope to do here on earth. I,for one, don't know how to do anything else but that.

So I'll just "keep on keeping on" (to use a 1960s catch phrase) with trying to be the best Buddhist I can and let the rest (Karma and Rebirth) take care of themselves.

How else am I supposed to proceed?

As the story goes:

Once there was a simple man who while looking into a mirror at his own face accidentally droped that mirror. It shattered into a thousand pieces when he dropped it.

The simple man became very distressed. His head was shattered into a thousand pieces!

He searched for a long time for another head to put on his shoulders to replace the one he was sure had been shattered when he dropped that mirror. But he could not find one!

After a few days he happened to pass by another mirror, and was surprised to see he had a head on his shoulders anyway! Apparently it had been there all the time!

So he was extremely happy to find out he had always had a head ayhow and went on with his simple life.

The moral of the story is...don't be like that simple man...or in Zen terminology to go "Seeking for fire to cook your dinner with a lighted candle in your hand."

Or putting it another way, concentrate on your practice...and leave the workings of Karma and Rebirth to their own ways. YOU can't control them,can you?

[rockyysdt]

While I understand the concern about rebirth...I fail to see it's real relevance. In my personal opinion, since it seems to start immediately after death...when I can't do anything about it anyhow...I don't intend to worry or debate about it.

The only thing I DO intend to do is to is to practice and live the best that I can as a Buddhist during my life here on earth...and let karma and rebith take care of themselves after I pass away.

Perhaps the only other thing which we can do is to make sure we are prepared for our death.

We're told by Buddhist masters that the final moment of our consciousness is important.

When death is imminent, the right state of mind at the final moment is said to allow one to find their way into a higher state of re birth as the present life is left.

I understand mindfulness of the breathe is best.

You'll have this already covered with your intention to "practice and live the best that you can as a Buddhist during your life on earth".

In fact, I would say that's all a sentient being can hope to do here on earth. I,for one, don't know how to do anything else but that.

So I'll just "keep on keeping on" (to use a 1960s catch phrase) with trying to be the best Buddhist I can and let the rest (Karma and Rebirth) take care of themselves.

Berger

Edited July 5, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

If one is reborn again and again for aeons, or many times, countless times (depending on which texts one relies on) then the idea of a "countdown" is meaningless. In the context of this post, it is erroneous.

A countdown implies that eventually the end, zero, will be reached. That can't be the case with endless reincarnation because nothing ends, the forms just change. Expounding the idea of a countdown means that one is still caught in the existence/non-existence dichotomy.

[rockyysdt]

If one is reborn again and again for aeons, or many times, countless times (depending on which texts one relies on) then the idea of a "countdown" is meaningless. In the context of this post, it is erroneous.

A countdown implies that eventually the end, zero, will be reached. That can't be the case with endless reincarnation because nothing ends, the forms just change. Expounding the idea of a countdown means that one is still caught in the existence/non-existence dichotomy.

Fortunately endless differs from countless.

If there is any truth in re birth and its eventual cessation, then perhaps most of us have a countless base already.

Edited July 12, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Fortunately endless differs from countless.

If there is any truth in re birth and its eventual cessation, then perhaps most of us have a countless base already.

Er.... angels on a pinhead, Rocky?

Surely the point is that both endlessness and countlessness cannot cease. If I can't count any more because I've run out of numbers, I just create new numbers .... gadzillions, multigadzillions, megagadzillions, etc + 1. Whatever I come up with there is no point at which I can't say "+1". Endlessness, conceived as time or space, also implies that there is no point at which there just isn't anything any more.

As Jawnie says, endlessness (or countlessness, a quantification of endlessness) whether projected forwards or backwards renders absurd any dichotomy between existence and non-existence. Either existence sprang from non-existence, which is absurd, or existence always is - no beginning, no end, except in relative terms, and even relativity is reduced to meaninglessness in the context of no-beginning, no-end. Nirvana/Nibbana in such a scheme of things becomes just being and letting be - as a point in Indra's net, a universe in equilibrium. Tat Tvam Asi.

[rockyysdt]

Er.... angels on a pinhead, Rocky?

Surely the point is that both endlessness and countlessness cannot cease. If I can't count any more because I've run out of numbers, I just create new numbers .... gadzillions, multigadzillions, megagadzillions, etc + 1. Whatever I come up with there is no point at which I can't say "+1". Endlessness, conceived as time or space, also implies that there is no point at which there just isn't anything any more.

As Jawnie says, endlessness (or countlessness, a quantification of endlessness) whether projected forwards or backwards renders absurd any dichotomy between existence and non-existence. Either existence sprang from non-existence, which is absurd, or existence always is - no beginning, no end, except in relative terms, and even relativity is reduced to meaninglessness in the context of no-beginning, no-end. Nirvana/Nibbana in such a scheme of things becomes just being and letting be - as a point in Indra's net, a universe in equilibrium. Tat Tvam Asi.

I stand corrected X.

I was clinging to the "too numerous to count" definition.

That is, too numerous for me, a human, to count.

Such a definition allows a possibility of end.

[Xangsamhua]

I stand corrected X.

I was clinging to the "too numerous to count" definition.

That is, too numerous for me, a human, to count.

Such a definition allows a possibility of end.

The concept of infinity really blows my mind!

[rockyysdt]

I stand corrected X.

I was clinging to the "too numerous to count" definition.

That is, too numerous for me, a human, to count.

Such a definition allows a possibility of end.

The concept of infinity really blows my mind!

Infinity reminds me of my early definition of what Nirvana is.

Of course this definition doesn't come from any Dhamma l have read.

Nirvana is:

Everything that there ever was and everything that there ever will be, all at once and forever.

Perhaps your definition is closer to the truth.

Edited July 13, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

Yes, according to Mahayana Buddhists, the cycle of creation, generation, decline, and destruction of the universe has repeated itself endless and countless times. They posit no beginning, such as the "Big Bang" However, the scientific calculation for the beginning of the known universe and the Tibetan calculation for when the current aeon began are approximately the same: 13 billion years ago. Buddha nature, our nature, stands outside of this.

Fortunately endless differs from countless.

If there is any truth in re birth and its eventual cessation, then perhaps most of us have a countless base already.

Er.... angels on a pinhead, Rocky?

Surely the point is that both endlessness and countlessness cannot cease. If I can't count any more because I've run out of numbers, I just create new numbers .... gadzillions, multigadzillions, megagadzillions, etc + 1. Whatever I come up with there is no point at which I can't say "+1". Endlessness, conceived as time or space, also implies that there is no point at which there just isn't anything any more.

As Jawnie says, endlessness (or countlessness, a quantification of endlessness) whether projected forwards or backwards renders absurd any dichotomy between existence and non-existence. Either existence sprang from non-existence, which is absurd, or existence always is - no beginning, no end, except in relative terms, and even relativity is reduced to meaninglessness in the context of no-beginning, no-end. Nirvana/Nibbana in such a scheme of things becomes just being and letting be - as a point in Indra's net, a universe in equilibrium. Tat Tvam Asi.

[Xangsamhua]

Yes, according to Mahayana Buddhists, the cycle of creation, generation, decline, and destruction of the universe has repeated itself endless and countless times. They posit no beginning, such as the "Big Bang"

However, the scientific calculation for the beginning of the known universe and the Tibetan calculation for when the current aeon began are approximately the same: 13 billion years ago.

Buddha nature, our nature, stands outside of this.

That's interesting. I wonder how the Tibetans arrived at 13 billion years.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, according to Mahayana Buddhists, the cycle of creation, generation, decline, and destruction of the universe has repeated itself endless and countless times. They posit no beginning, such as the "Big Bang" However, the scientific calculation for the beginning of the known universe and the Tibetan calculation for when the current aeon began are approximately the same: 13 billion years ago. Buddha nature, our nature, stands outside of this.

That's a bit of a worry.

Estimates give the current age of the universe at 13.7 billions years, + or - 0.11 billion.

According to your data we're well overdue for the end.