The Buddha Didn'T Just Believe In Rebirth, He Argued For It

[camerata]

The Buddha didn't just believe in rebirth, he argued for it

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

It never ceases to amaze me that scholars — who should know better — keep repeating the idea that the Buddha lived in a time when everyone took for granted two principles: (1) that rebirth happened, and (2) that karma had an effect on how rebirth happened.

You wonder why this idea gets repeated so often, because the Pali Canon provides clear evidence to the contrary, evidence that has been available in Western languages for more than a century.

The Buddha frequently referred to two extremes of wrong view that blocked progress on the path: eternalism and annihilationism. “Annihilationism” is the term he used to describe those who denied rebirth. Apparently he didn’t invent the term himself, as MN 22 reports that other teachers sometimes accused him of being an annihilationist as well.

...

So the issues of whether there is rebirth and — if there is — whether karma has an effect on rebirth were hotly debated in the Buddha’s time. And the debate didn’t extend just to philosophers. Ordinary people were also affected by the debate, as is clear in the Buddha’s instructions to the Kalamas, a group of skeptical householders. Knowing that he can’t prove the principle of karmic results to them — proof of that comes only with the first stage of awakening — he says that if you assume that karma has results, you will act skillfully. And when you act skillfully, you gain four assurances in the here and now.

Full story.

[rockyysdt]

Whether there is re birth of another life is not important to us.

If something is re born as a cockroach, we can say that it won't be us.

We are impermanent and conditioned.

To believe I will be reborn is egotistical and/or attached to self.

If there is re birth, it won't be us which will be reborn, it's going to be something else, so why would we care?

For us to be reborn, there would need to be a permanent self to be reborn.

Believing this is equivalent to believing in reincarnation and Brahmanism.

Brahmanism teaches that the Atman (self, breathe, life) is this fixed self which carries over from life to life until it is liberated.

If we look more closely, it can be said that rebirth (birth, death, rebirth) is a moment to moment thing.

We carry our conditioning (infatuation, aversion, confusion/delusion) over and over again, (samsara - cyclic existence), going round in circles, finding ourselves in the same place repeatedly (birth, death, & rebirth).

The way we escape from this cycle of moment to moment birth, death, & rebirth is by awakening ourselves.

How can one say, "To be a Buddhist, you must believe in rebirth from life to life, whilst on the other hand subscribe to the Buddhas requirement to examine, test, and verify:

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Actual re birth of yourself from life to life is metaphysical, religious and not verifiable.

The big question to ask is: "Are we interested in the Buddha's teachings which can directly help us in our lives, or are we interested in religion and tradition?

Edited September 28, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

QUOTE:

So it's obvious that that the idea of rebirth and its connection with karma was not an unexamined assumption in Indian culture. It was one of the most controversial issues of the Buddha's time—which means that we can't write off his teachings on karma and rebirth simply as an undigested relic from his culture. In teaching these principles, he was consciously taking a stand on an issue that was hotly debated, in a culture that expected him to articulate clearly his explanation for how and why rebirth did or didn't happen. We know that he didn't take on all the hot issues of his day—remember the story of the man shot by the arrow (MN 63)—so the Buddha must have had his reasons for taking this issue on.

The author offers very poor logic to support his case.

I'd suggest the Buddha took "birth, death, & rebirth", a hotly debated topic, and molded it into his message of samsara and suffering.

In this way he avoided attention from those (Brahmanists) who would eliminate anyone who attempted to undermine the rigid caste system and associated beliefs which revolved around it.

The Buddha cleverly made fun of those who taught reincarnation/re birth whilst simultaneously packaging his message of suffering due to habitual and repetitive moment to moment birth, death, & rebirth cycle, and the way to escape it.

Edited September 28, 2011 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

Whether there is re birth of another life is not important to us.

If something is re born as a cockroach, we can say that it won't be us.

We are impermanent and conditioned.

To believe I will be reborn is egotistical and/or attached to self.

If there is re birth, it won't be us which will be reborn, it's going to be something else, so why would we care?

For us to be reborn, there would need to be a permanent self to be reborn.

Believing this is equivalent to believing in reincarnation and Brahmanism.

Brahmanism teaches that the Atman (self, breathe, life) is this fixed self which carries over from life to life until it is liberated.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Actual re birth of yourself from life to life is metaphysical, religious and not verifiable.

Actual rebirth IS verifyable....to those who attain the ability to recall past lives by meditation.

Your quote of the Kalama sutta is a common mis-quote..

He never taught "..not to believe in anything..." but rather 'not to believe in a teacher....'

The kalama sutta was his answer to those who were confronted by many teachers all telling them differnt things until they didn't know who to believe....but many people twist the meaning to suit themselves so that they can choose not to believe anything they are uncomfortable with.

If your accumulation of bad karma in this life and the past causes you to be reborn as a cockroach....it is you who will suffer...not some anonymous being....otherwise that is like saying that we can do evil and another being pays for it in hell...not what the Buddha taught.

[rockyysdt]

Your quote of the Kalama sutta is a common mis-quote..

He never taught "..not to believe in anything..." but rather 'not to believe in a teacher....'

The kalama sutta was his answer to those who were confronted by many teachers all telling them different things until they didn't know who to believe....but many people twist the meaning to suit themselves so that they can choose not to believe anything they are uncomfortable with.

If your accumulation of bad karma in this life and the past causes you to be reborn as a cockroach....it is you who will suffer...not some anonymous being....otherwise that is like saying that we can do evil and another being pays for it in hell...not what the Buddha taught.

My position is to examine, test & verify.

This includes elements of Buddhism, much of which was passed on orally by many until it was scribed into canonical works.

The Buddha said many things and taught for over 45 years.

I don't know of anyone who could go for such a period without refining his knowledge or changing his mind.

I was hoping you could explain, "what is re born"?

[Xangsamhua]

Prior to the Buddha's entrance on the stage, the vedas taught that one oscillated between this world and the next, this oscillation being unrelated to the consequence of one's actions. It just happened. The Jains introduced (?) the teaching that one's actions impacted on one's rebirth, but they emphasized action rather than intention. The Buddha, to use Richard Gombrich's term, "ethicized" the universe by teaching that "all sentient beings are morally responsible and can be reborn in a higher or lower station because of the good and evil they have done" (Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought, 2009) He introduced the principle that intention, not just action, was the determinant of whether an action was morally good or not and what kind of karmic consequence the action incurred. I think, from my reading, that Thanissaro Bhikkhu is right in saying that the Buddha both believed and preached karma and rebirth, and he taught that it was contingent on ethical intent. This was original and radical, I believe.

Although one may be able to remember one's previous lives, as the Buddha claimed to have done at Bodhgaya, and others have claimed since, the subjective experience of doing so, even if it really is what it appears to be, is not a "proof" in terms of what the scientific method and Popper's development of it would require, i.e. publicly demonstrable evidence, and falsifiability. Both we who trust the Buddha's claims and the Buddha himself make/made a leap of faith in accepting a subjective experience and reports of such an experience as evidence that what is experienced subjectively is objectively true as well. Buddhism is a faith-based religion; it is not a scientific system or just a series of tentative propositions and hypotheses that we can put to the test, keeping and discarding as we go.

To suggest that the Buddha made a "leap of faith" may seem disrespectful, but even if it was indeed true insight, not faith on the Buddha's part, to a disinterested (as in "impartial") observer, it was a subjective judgement.

The only coherent explanation I've come across for what is transmitted from one life to the next is that of the Yogacarans, who argue that store-consciousness (the alaya-vijnana), which "contains" the "seeds" planted by karma-producing actions and intentions, is the vehicle for transmitting karma from one life to the next. I'm probably putting this very crudely, but it's roughly what I remember.

[fabianfred]

I was hoping you could explain, "what is re born"?

This is the most difficult part of the three factors of existence to understand....suffering and impermanence are easy...but non-self isn't.

Note I say non-self and not no-self. The body and mind are not our true self. So what is it that is re-born?

Nothing is permanent, but ever changing. There is no permanent me, but there must be a subtle connection....continuum.

I am not the same person i was as a ten year old boy......I have used up karma, generated new karma, changed physically with age and growth, gained knowledge, hopefully gained wisdom...but there is a connection between me and that ten year old boy. Also between him and the new-born baby I was.....and between the new-born and the previous existence. Subtle connection...not the same person, or body...but carrying the same karma from the past existences.

Exactly what, is perhaps beyond our comprehension. Our egos as humans do not like to think that there are things beyond our comprehension, beyond our ability to understand.

Some believe that the sub-conscious, which is 9/10ths, since we are considered to be only 1/10th conscious, is where is carried knowledge of past existences and perhaps records of karma. How else can people be regressed in hypnosis and recall past lives.

A fascinating subject....but ultimately we do not need to understand it in order to be able to do the required practice to escape Samsara.

However, our understanding of the fact that we are lucky to have a rare human birth, and have the rare chance to meet the Buddha's Dhamma, and the opportunity to practice it....is good fuel for the fire to keep practicing, and not waste this precious chance.

[rockyysdt]

Don't get me wrong Fred.

I'm just a travelor, as are we all, learning, testing, debating and practicing.

Blindly accepting things on faith alone has rendered many on our planet to devote/waste their entire lives to fruitless pursuits/expectations.

Misinterpretations of the Pali Canon due to poor translation has fallen into our lap and is worthy of examination.

We all owe it to ourselves to persue what the Buddha actually taught and not interpretations of this made in earlier centuries.

I understand what you are saying regarding re birth.

Reincarnation involves something permanent being passed from one life to another.

We know this is not possible as we are impermanent and conditioned and there is nothing inside.

That forces us to turn to re birth.

That is we die and disappear but our essence (accumulation of memory, karmic fruit) spawns re birth.

Unfortunately this cannot be of any consequence to me.

I died.

If there is something common, which eventually becomes enlightened, then again, I was just a vehicle which carried it.

I have no consciousness of it, in anyway shape or form.

I am conditioned and impermanent.

I only know myself.

That which I don't know is not me.

But again the Buddha said that "All phenomena is impermanent".

He also said we can become awakened (a process).

He never said we become enlightened (a state) which is a 19th century word.

I was hoping you could explain, "what is re born"?

This is the most difficult part of the three factors of existence to understand....suffering and impermanence are easy...but non-self isn't.

Note I say non-self and not no-self. The body and mind are not our true self. So what is it that is re-born?

Nothing is permanent, but ever changing. There is no permanent me, but there must be a subtle connection....continuum.

I am not the same person i was as a ten year old boy......I have used up karma, generated new karma, changed physically with age and growth, gained knowledge, hopefully gained wisdom...but there is a connection between me and that ten year old boy. Also between him and the new-born baby I was.....and between the new-born and the previous existence. Subtle connection...not the same person, or body...but carrying the same karma from the past existences.

Exactly what, is perhaps beyond our comprehension. Our egos as humans do not like to think that there are things beyond our comprehension, beyond our ability to understand.

Some believe that the sub-conscious, which is 9/10ths, since we are considered to be only 1/10th conscious, is where is carried knowledge of past existences and perhaps records of karma. How else can people be regressed in hypnosis and recall past lives.

A fascinating subject....but ultimately we do not need to understand it in order to be able to do the required practice to escape Samsara.

However, our understanding of the fact that we are lucky to have a rare human birth, and have the rare chance to meet the Buddha's Dhamma, and the opportunity to practice it....is good fuel for the fire to keep practicing, and not waste this precious chance.

Edited September 29, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Reincarnation involves something permanent being passed from one life to another.

We know this is not possible as we are impermanent and conditioned and there is nothing inside.

I suspect our language-driven minds disable us from ever being able to say, ultimately, that anything is either permanent or impermanent, or that nothing is either permanent or impermanent. Because we think the way we talk we make statements about phenomena that imply a subject, so to say that nothing is permanent implies that there is a thing we call "nothing" that is impermanent, but for an entity to have an attribute - impermanence, in this case - implies that there is some underlying and continuing thing to which, in this case, impermanence is attributed.

Playing word-games? Yes, but let's just try - non-verbally - to think of nothingness, as both subject and object. There is nothing ... no .. thing ... no ... ... ... We can only do it by playing thought-games, and we must fail.

Phenomenologically speaking - thinking of phenomena as they "appear", either physically or intellectually, the Buddha's claim that nothing is permanent makes sense. We can't find anything that is permanent. Whether we use a telescope to explore the cosmos or a microscope to explore the microcosm, we never find a final underpinning substance. Things just keep getting smaller or further away. Existence is infinite, and if existence is infinite there is neither permanence nor impermanence. A significant reason why Buddhists do not believe in a supreme creator-God is because there is no starting point from which the laws of cause and effect (the principle of sufficient reason) can give rise to the creator or his creation. For the same reason nothing can have arisen which has the quality of either impermanence or permanence. I think the Buddha, in teaching that no phenomena are permanent was applying skillful means, not declaring an ontological dogma.

Which brings me to reincarnation. I'm impressed by Dr Ian Stevenson's studies on possible reincarnation cases in the 1960s. Some are described in his book "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1980). Note that he never claims that these cases constitute "proof" (that would be impossible), but to my mind they are certainly suggestive. However, they do not provide any evidence for karma, and the "reincarnation" described does not constitute a simple taking up in one life from where one left off in the previous one. What appears to have been inherited by the children Stevenson studied (in India, Ceylon, Alaska and Brazil) is memory. They can remember deceased people and the people and places they knew that the children really have no way of knowing about by natural means. All other possibilities are examined and eliminated. The memories are strong when the children are young and fade almost to nothingness by the time they reach late adolescence, so any apparent identity with the deceased person is not permanent. There are also, in some cases, physical marks - scars, weaknesses, disabilities, phobias etc - that can be related to events in the remembered previous life, but these are not significant in making a case.

It looks to me that the evidence we have for reincarnation/rebirth (??) indicates that there is a level or plane of existence occupied by memory, which has the potential to be shared, but which, except in very few or unsustained cases, is not. We do not connect with it, but it is there, and in exceptional cases it adheres to young children. This would suggest that there is a non-physical, ideational plane or level of existence separate from the physical, observable, measurable one and one that transcends the minds of individuals. We seldom connect with it, apart from the occasional experience of deja vu, inexplicable emotion or perhaps some kind of apparently supernatural experience. If this is so, it is dogmatic to simply say "Even ultimately, nothing is permanent". Perhaps Nagarjuna had this in mind when he propsed his tetralemma, that anything either is or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not. And it was Nagarjuna, wasn't it, who said that "Form is emptiness; emptiness is form".

Of course, everything I've said in the preceding paragraph is mere hypothesis. As such, it both has and does not have propositional form.

[fabianfred]

That forces us to turn to re birth.

That is we die and disappear but our essence (accumulation of memory, karmic fruit) spawns re birth.

Unfortunately this cannot be of any consequence to me.

I died.

If there is something common, which eventually becomes enlightened, then again, I was just a vehicle which carried it.

I have no consciousness of it, in anyway shape or form.

I am conditioned and impermanent.

I only know myself.

That which I don't know is not me.

Unfortunately this sounds to be more like belief in only a single life-time. This sounds like we will not experience any punishment or reward for our actions.

The essential 'me' if you like is the bit we refer to as mindfulness. The bit which is aware and knowing the feelings and thoughts...examining and discarding them. My teacher refers to this as the 'sixth sense' which all have. Not the ESP which the West calls the sixth sense. It is related to consciousness, since when we are in a coma we have no mindfulness or awareness, but that is not all of it.

I cannot remember the suffering I had as a boy when I fell and cut my knee....I still have the scar.....I do know it had hurt then. I cannot remember the suffering I must have experienced when i was in a hell realm in a previous existence (inevitable since the past is infinite and so i have always been doing the round of rebirths in various realms according to my karma.)

[camerata]

That forces us to turn to re birth.

That is we die and disappear but our essence (accumulation of memory, karmic fruit) spawns re birth.

Unfortunately this cannot be of any consequence to me.

I died.

If there is something common, which eventually becomes enlightened, then again, I was just a vehicle which carried it.

I have no consciousness of it, in anyway shape or form.

I am conditioned and impermanent.

I only know myself.

That which I don't know is not me.

This is the same as saying that if you get blind drunk and murder someone, you are not responsible because you don't remember it. We should have compassion for the beings that continue our stream of existence in future lives. They experience the results of our misconduct.

But again the Buddha said that "All phenomena is impermanent".

Since we are discussing correct translations, what he actually said was, "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent."

[Xangsamhua]

Since we are discussing correct translations, what he actually said was, "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent."

Does this make any difference, Camerata? Aren't all phenomena conditioned? If they weren't they wouldn't be phenomena; they'd be noumena. Anything unconditioned has to be demonstrated as having any reality at all. This is difficult if noumena can not be accessed through the senses (perception). We are privately aware of our thoughts and memories via the sixth (ideation) consciousness, but these are epiphenomena rather than noumena, which we usually think of as transcending phenomena in the sense of being unknown and unknowable.

As I have suggested, it may be logically, or perhaps semantically contradictory to say that in absolute and ultimate terms everything is impermanent, and so the Buddha or his editors and commentators are right to say impermanence applies only to conditioned (i.e. all) phenomena, but that there may be something unconditioned that is meta-phenomenal - beyond both matter and consciousness. This is Nirvana/Nibbana, isn't it? A state (it must be a state, i.e. static, if it's unconditioned), but Nirvana, like Karma is one of the undemonstrable tenets of the Buddha - something to be believed despite the tangles one gets into in doing so.

[camerata]

To me, the point of the quote is that unlike everything else nibbana is not conditioned, not subject to the cause and effect that causes dukkha, and therefore something worth striving for. However, one can't argue that nibbana is a state of mind if this is true. Rather, it's a state of being. And if one experiences nibbana as unconditioned (and all that implies), it is unconditioned. Ultimately, it can be demonstrated to oneself.

[rockyysdt]

Unfortunately this sounds to be more like belief in only a single life-time. This sounds like we will not experience any punishment or reward for our actions.

The essential 'me' if you like is the bit we refer to as mindfulness. The bit which is aware and knowing the feelings and thoughts...examining and discarding them. My teacher refers to this as the 'sixth sense' which all have. Not the ESP which the West calls the sixth sense. It is related to consciousness, since when we are in a coma we have no mindfulness or awareness, but that is not all of it.

I cannot remember the suffering I had as a boy when I fell and cut my knee....I still have the scar.....I do know it had hurt then. I cannot remember the suffering I must have experienced when i was in a hell realm in a previous existence (inevitable since the past is infinite and so i have always been doing the round of rebirths in various realms according to my karma.)

I'm completely open to all possibilities, including re birth to future lives, however I won't say I believe it.

Professing belief makes it just another religion, one which I've chosen to hang my hat on.

In terms of karma (a verb, not a noun), the fruits of karma are ongoing.

Some are instant, others occur at different periods in time.

You don't have to extend to several lives to experience the fruits of karma.

Why does there need to be a me and an essential me?

Suggesting this implies there is a hidden self, perhaps an Atman.

[rockyysdt]

[This is the same as saying that if you get blind drunk and murder someone, you are not responsible because you don't remember it. We should have compassion for the beings that continue our stream of existence in future lives. They experience the results of our misconduct.

Perhaps a poor choice of words to illustrate my point.

For me, the reason for living as the Buddha taught would be the same whether there is the promise of immortality (future lives) or not.

The Atman (unconditioned essence which passes from life to life) is Brahmanism and not what the Buddha taught.

So why would I show compassion to something ( "the beings that continue our stream of existence in future lives") which doesn't exist?

This notion is religion. I am open to its possibility but whether it is so or not is of no consequence to my behavior.

Anything else would be egotistical as it would imply seeking reward which sustains the "l".

But again the Buddha said that "All phenomena is impermanent".

Since we are discussing correct translations, what he actually said was, "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent."

Can you sight anything which is unconditioned?

Edited September 30, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

To me, the point of the quote is that unlike everything else nibbana is not conditioned, not subject to the cause and effect that causes dukkha, and therefore something worth striving for. However, one can't argue that nibbana is a state of mind if this is true. Rather, it's a state of being. And if one experiences nibbana as unconditioned (and all that implies), it is unconditioned. Ultimately, it can be demonstrated to oneself.

Definitely, however the word nibbana (nirvana) is a verb not a noun.

It is not a state but an action.

The word nibbana (nirvana) means literally "going out".

Greed aversion and delusion has extinguished or gone out.

It is living without greed, aversion, delusion.

Greed, aversion & delusion grows/inflates the "I", "me", "ego".

When greed, aversion & delusion cease, there is liberation and awakening.

Edited September 30, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

It is living without greed, aversion, delusion.

Living without greed, aversion and delusion is a state of being.

[camerata]

Can you sight anything which is unconditioned?

Nibbana.

So why would I show compassion to something ( "the beings that continue our stream of existence in future lives") which doesn't exist?

This notion is religion. I am open to its possibility but whether it is so or not is of no consequence to my behavior.

You don't know that it doesn't exist. Why show compassion to a mosquito? It has nothing to do with you and you don't have any proof that it is sentient. The answer is that everything is interconnected and compassion is part of the mental cultivation that takes you toward nibbana.

[rockyysdt]

It is living without greed, aversion, delusion.

Living without greed, aversion and delusion is a state of being.

Sorry Camerata.

It was pretty late at night over here when l posted and my thinking wasn't clear.

I had wanted to make the distinction between Nirvana being a place vs being a verb.

If we look at the translation of the word, Nirvana isn't a place we end up in once enlightened, but rather an action, living without aversion, greed (craving) and delusion.

Suggesting Nirvana as a place implies reunification with our essential self, or Atman, or enduring essence .

Future lives (re births) aren't essential to maintain the model as we are impermanent and conditioned and there is nothing inside which is enduring but rather consists of processes.

Edited October 1, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I had wanted to make the distinction between Nirvana being a place vs being a verb.

I think Nirvana/Nibbana is only a place in "pop-Buddhism" or when used as a metaphor. Take the dire novel Bangkok 8, for example, which talks about "standing on the shores of Nirvana." The book also refers to cops who don't take bribes as arhats.

[rockyysdt]

Can you sight anything which is unconditioned?

Nibbana.

As long as it's clear we are talking about a verb or action/lack of action, rather than a place or thing.

When we refer to permanent/impermanent we are usually referring to places or things not actions.

All things are impermanent.

So why would I show compassion to something ( "the beings that continue our stream of existence in future lives") which doesn't exist?

This notion is religion. I am open to its possibility but whether it is so or not is of no consequence to my behavior.

You don't know that it doesn't exist. Why show compassion to a mosquito? It has nothing to do with you and you don't have any proof that it is sentient. The answer is that everything is interconnected and compassion is part of the mental cultivation that takes you toward nibbana.

I fully support compassion towards anything living.

We have a colony of mice which have taken residents in our kitchen.,

They scamper around making loud noises in the evening, feast on our cats dinner bowl, and generally chew on things such as the power cable servicing our refrigerator.

I know I must act but have been reticent, as I can't see myself killing them or subjecting them to pain or distress.

The precept relating to this is to refrain from taking away anothers breathe.

I'm completely in agreement with following the Buddhas instructions, the eightfold path, "right wisdom, right conduct, & right meditation".

The fruits of my endeavors are still there to be gained through practice, regardless of my belief whether future lives through re birth exist or not.

What I was suggesting was that if you sacrifice your life for future re births, what is reborn is not you.

If re birth (many lives) is factual, then you were one of many mortal beings performing their contribution towards somethings advancement.

But as I'm not a Brahmanist, I know this is not possible, because the Buddha taught there is nothing inside which endures.

,

Edited October 1, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Here are 33 synonyms for Nibbana. Some are places, but clearly used metaphorically.

• The Unconditioned
  
• The destruction of lust, hate, delusion
  
• The Uninclined
  
• The taintless
  
• The truth
  
• The other shore
  
• The subtle
  
• The very difficult to see
  
• The unaging
  
• The stable
  
• The undisintegrating
  
• The unmanifest
  
• The unproliferated
  
• The peaceful
  
• The deathless
  
• The sublime
  
• The auspicious
  
• The secure
  
• The destruction of craving
  
• The wonderful
  
• The amazing
  
• The unailing
  
• The unailing state
  
• The unafflicted
  
• Dispassion
  
• Purity
  
• Freedom
  
• Non-attachment
  
• The island
  
• The shelter
  
• The asylum
  
• The refuge
  
• The destination and the path leading to the destination
  

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Nibbana

[rockyysdt]

Here are 33 synonyms for Nibbana. Some are places, but clearly used metaphorically.

• The Unconditioned
• The destruction of lust, hate, delusion
• The Uninclined
• The taintless
• The truth
• The other shore
• The subtle
• The very difficult to see
• The unaging
• The stable
• The undisintegrating
• The unmanifest
• The unproliferated
• The peaceful
• The deathless
• The sublime
• The auspicious
• The secure
• The destruction of craving
• The wonderful
• The amazing
• The unailing
• The unailing state
• The unafflicted
• Dispassion
• Purity
• Freedom
• Non-attachment
• The island
• The shelter
• The asylum
• The refuge
• The destination and the path leading to the destination

http://www.dhammawik...p?title=Nibbana

A synonym is a word which has the same or nearly the same meaning.

Nearly the same is indicative of a difference. Differences can lead to completely different conclusions.

The meaning of words is in a state of flux.

These days the contemporary use of the word "kharma" is as a noun, meaning "fate and destiny".

However in Sanskrit, Kharma is a verb or action.

Nibbana can be:

2. Hinduism . salvation through the union of Atman with Brahma; moksha. 3. A place or state characterized by freedom from or oblivion to pain, worry, and the external world.

Sanskrit denotes Nibbana as a verb.

Acts which lead to the extinction of individual passion, hatred, and delusion

Edited October 1, 2011 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I think you're pushing a rock up a hill with this one. It's clear from reading the Pali Canon that whether you call it "nibbana" or something like "the Deathless," the goal of the path is an unconditioned state:

This is the ultimate goal to which the Buddha points, as the immediate aim for those of developed faculties and also as the long-term ideal for those in need of further development: Nibbana, the Deathless, the unconditioned state where there is no more birth, aging and death, and no more suffering.

The Deathless (amata): Nibbana, so called because those who attain it are free from the cycle of repeated birth and death.

- Bhikkhu Bodhi

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.intro.budd.html

[rockyysdt]

My point is that the state of being is unconditioned, but the thing which is experiencing it is not.

Yes, the wheel of birth, death, and re birth (moment to moment) stops when aversion, greed (craving) and delusion go out.

That doesn't mean that the one who experiences it is deathless, only the cycle which is a verb or an action.

If there is no doer you can no longer have a verb or a doing.

I think you're pushing a rock up a hill with this one. It's clear from reading the Pali Canon that whether you call it "nibbana" or something like "the Deathless," the goal of the path is an unconditioned state:

This is the ultimate goal to which the Buddha points, as the immediate aim for those of developed faculties and also as the long-term ideal for those in need of further development: Nibbana, the Deathless, the unconditioned state where there is no more birth, aging and death, and no more suffering.

The Deathless (amata): Nibbana, so called because those who attain it are free from the cycle of repeated birth and death.

- Bhikkhu Bodhi

http://www.accesstoi...intro.budd.html

[Xangsamhua]

My point is that the state of being is unconditioned, but the thing which is experiencing it is not.

Yes, the wheel of birth, death, and re birth (moment to moment) stops when aversion, greed (craving) and delusion go out.

That doesn't mean that the one who experiences it is deathless, only the cycle which is a verb or an action.

If there is no doer you can no longer have a verb or a doing.

But, Rocky, isn't the "state of being" referred to as nibbana the state of being of the being experiencing it? It is both the subject and the object of the experience.

And, according to the scriptures it is unconditioned. But if unconditioned it can't be a verb, because actions and processes (verbs) are the effects of causes and the causes of further effects. However, to be an unconditioned state it must be a state that is unattainable. If it is attained then it is the consequence of actions, and therefore not unconditioned.

Perhaps, if we take the subject out of the equation altogether we might get around the "verb" vis-a-vis "state" difficulty. If, in fact, there is no subject; if what we think of as ourselves as subjects are merely manifestations of the cosmos, the effects of infinite cause and effect, then verbs (actions/processes) and nouns (particulars/subjects/objects) become the same thing.

If we are simply effects, products of all that has gone before, ad infinitum, and fully conditioned by the interdependence of all phenomena, then we are essentially both noun/subject (we are aware of ourselves and have memory) and verb/process/result (products and manifestations of the cosmos).

And, to go a bit further, in an infinite cosmos, particular existence and particular non-existence are the same thing. We as individual lives are not even a blip in an infinite "time-scale" (contradiction-in-terms, I know, but how do we talk about the duration of infinity?) In terms of infinity our individual lives have no duration.

As far as nibbana is concerned, it may be better not to strive for it, because we won't attain it that way. If nibbana is a reality, and if we can release ourselves from craving and attachment, and develop selfless compassion, maybe nibbana is already there, in the spaces between and permeating our awarenesses, thoughts and intentions.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Xangsamhua.

You make good points.

I think I need to do more investigation and enquiry.

A lecturer was saying that our language has issues as it constantly refers to I, me, us, self, but that in reality all that is is a series of processes.

There is no solid I.

There have been some tangents along the way clouding what we were originally discussing.

It seems no one knows what Nibbana is, only what it's not.

My current view is that awakening (not enlightenment) occurs when there is no craving, delusion, & aversion.

Craving, delusion & aversion, creates a contracted state in which we are reactive and fixed.

The absence of craving, delusion & aversion, creates a spacious process open to possibilities.

Perhaps Nibbana is when we are liberated from craving, delusion & aversion, but only until we expire.

My point is that the state of being is unconditioned, but the thing which is experiencing it is not.

Yes, the wheel of birth, death, and re birth (moment to moment) stops when aversion, greed (craving) and delusion go out.

That doesn't mean that the one who experiences it is deathless, only the cycle which is a verb or an action.

If there is no doer you can no longer have a verb or a doing.

But, Rocky, isn't the "state of being" referred to as nibbana the state of being of the being experiencing it? It is both the subject and the object of the experience.

And, according to the scriptures it is unconditioned. But if unconditioned it can't be a verb, because actions and processes (verbs) are the effects of causes and the causes of further effects. However, to be an unconditioned state it must be a state that is unattainable. If it is attained then it is the consequence of actions, and therefore not unconditioned.

Perhaps, if we take the subject out of the equation altogether we might get around the "verb" vis-a-vis "state" difficulty. If, in fact, there is no subject; if what we think of as ourselves as subjects are merely manifestations of the cosmos, the effects of infinite cause and effect, then verbs (actions/processes) and nouns (particulars/subjects/objects) become the same thing.

If we are simply effects, products of all that has gone before, ad infinitum, and fully conditioned by the interdependence of all phenomena, then we are essentially both noun/subject (we are aware of ourselves and have memory) and verb/process/result (products and manifestations of the cosmos).

And, to go a bit further, in an infinite cosmos, particular existence and particular non-existence are the same thing. We as individual lives are not even a blip in an infinite "time-scale" (contradiction-in-terms, I know, but how do we talk about the duration of infinity?) In terms of infinity our individual lives have no duration.

As far as nibbana is concerned, it may be better not to strive for it, because we won't attain it that way. If nibbana is a reality, and if we can release ourselves from craving and attachment, and develop selfless compassion, maybe nibbana is already there, in the spaces between and permeating our awarenesses, thoughts and intentions.

[fabianfred]

I would tend to say ...forget about enlightenment...that is something the mahayana strive for, which is the same as Buddhahood. The Buddha did not advise us all to become Buddhas, just to attain to the state of Nibbana as he had...as an arahant.

[fabianfred]

What I was suggesting was that if you sacrifice your life for future re births, what is reborn is not you.

If re birth (many lives) is factual, then you were one of many mortal beings performing their contribution towards somethings advancement.

But as I'm not a Brahmanist, I know this is not possible, because the Buddha taught there is nothing inside which endures.

,

I would tend to take issue here.....the Buddha taught that there is nothing which is unchanging and permanent, but there is still a subtle link between lives. How else can he mention many times about his own past lives, refering to himself as a certain person in that lifetime.

Once a brahmin and his wife invited him for a meal, all the while refering to him as their son. Afterwards the other monks asked why, when everyone knew his father and mother were not those two. He replied that for 500 existences the man was his father and for 500 his uncle and for 500 his grandfather...the same for the woman...so for 1500 existences each had raised him.

You say we sacrifice ourselves for a future which is not us.....Ok the being in my future existence will not be Fred, but there will be a connection from me to that being and and suffering or pleasure felt will be by the future 'me'.

We are very constrained by the language we have to use...trying to describe the indescribable

[rockyysdt]

Ok the being in my future existence will not be Fred, but there will be a connection from me to that being and and suffering or pleasure felt will be by the future 'me'.

If there is re birth to many lives, and that future lives are important, why condemn these future beings to non existence by ending re birth?

More rationally we end Duka (suffering) in our lives by ending the cycle of birth, death & re birth from moment to moment.

Edited October 2, 2011 by rockyysdt