This Can Only Reaffirm That Re Birth Is A Moment To Moment Event & Nothing To Do With Future Lives.

[Several]

I think this problem comes from the word rebirth. So we have tried to avoid the problem of soul by not using the description 'reincarnation', but the idea of an immortal element is so deeply ingrained in westerners that the term 'rebirth' now causes the association of 'I, immortal' to rise phoenix-like from the ashes of old arguments.

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

[camerata]

A stream of existence is not a soul. The way Thich Nhat Hanh explains it is this:

Imagine you are on a bridge looking at a stream. You then walk downstream to another bridge. What you see is the same stream, but not a single molecule of water you see from the second bridge is the same as what you saw from the first bridge.

[Xangsamhua]

A stream of existence is not a soul. The way Thich Nhat Hanh explains it is this:

Imagine you are on a bridge looking at a stream. You then walk downstream to another bridge. What you see is the same stream, but not a single molecule of water you see from the second bridge is the same as what you saw from the first bridge.

A stream of existence is not a soul. The way Thich Nhat Hanh explains it is this:

Imagine you are on a bridge looking at a stream. You then walk downstream to another bridge. What you see is the same stream, but not a single molecule of water you see from the second bridge is the same as what you saw from the first bridge.

TNH's explanations are not always any more convincing than anyone else's. His No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom for Life I found neither comforting nor convincing, and I speak as a great admirer of his other work.

In phenomenal terms, if the second stream has no continuity with the first then it's not the same stream. Rather, it's continuity rests solely, as the Muslims say, in the Will of God (Inshallah). It's a stream as conceived by Sunni occasionalists i.e. those who believe God creates the universe anew in each instant as a result of his Will. We simply perceive it as a continuation of the first stream. One could replace God by Karma,but in doing so we make Karma into a creative force without cause.

If, however, the second stream is continuous with the same stream, then its continuity consists either in some paraphenomenal underpinning, or in illusion, or both. We perceive the stream as a continuing entity (illusion), whereas it is, on this argument, simply a manifestation at the phenomenal level of a primordial level of being.

Apologies for sounding doctrinaire. I no longer try to explain things in terms of anatta and anicca, as I find the explanations unconvincing, but maybe there's an as yet undiscovered explanation out there that will work for me.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[camerata]

Analogies are rarely perfect. I think what TNH is doing here is using visual imagery to give us an idea of how an arahant would perceive or experience a process which is understood intuitively. It's said that all doubts about kamma and rebirth are resolved upon attaining sotapanna.

[camerata]

Would you say, in summary, Johns illustration of Dharma is pretty much aligned with Dharma with the exception of?:

• Relms being a mind thing rather than real.
  
• Moment to moment re birth rather than countless future l ives.
  
• Karma being symbolic of "action - consequence", rather than being an accurate vehicle which dispenses payback or reward for past actions.
  
• Samsara/Nibanna being actions which result in states in this life, rather than a place/state one escapes to when awakened.
  

More or less. It's hard to say, given that he changes so much around. For example, he has dependent origination as being non-linear and in the current life, which doesn't correspondent to the moment-to-moment version in the Abhidhamma, the one in the current life by Ven Payutto, or the one in the current life (from embryo to death) by Eisel Mazard. He has metta as the primary path to salvation, etc. He seems to have his own take on a lot of things. I would have to listen to some other talks. The 8 I listened to were interrupted by too many questions, so he didn't present things as he intended.

I was thinking of the other Westerners who have transferred from staunch Christian roots and are now looking for their metaphysical attachment from other quarters.

I think it's more often the opposite - that Westerners get involved in Buddhism because of its practical techniques for reducing suffering, and they don't care much about the metaphysical aspects. Just look at the popularity of Zen in the US.

Reference to the specific passage illudes me for now, but was along the lines:

Arriving late the Monk was told it was too late and the Sangha Council had agreed on the recording of the Buddhas teachings.

The Monk protested, "But I was with him and this is not what he taught!"

I didn't hear this in Peacock's talks. It sounds like something you'd find in a conspiracy theory. What's the source - a Sri Lankan chronicle? Presumably it refers to the First Council. The suttas were supplied by Ananda, Buddha's closest companion. So are we to believe that after 499 arahants agreed on Ananda's version, that the 500th arahant arrived and disagreed with everything, and that he's right? Highly unlikely.

[rockyysdt]

Would you say, in summary, Johns illustration of Dharma is pretty much aligned with Dharma with the exception of?:

• Relms being a mind thing rather than real.
  
• Moment to moment re birth rather than countless future l ives.
  
• Karma being symbolic of "action - consequence", rather than being an accurate vehicle which dispenses payback or reward for past actions.
  
• Samsara/Nibanna being actions which result in states in this life, rather than a place/state one escapes to when awakened.
  

More or less. It's hard to say, given that he changes so much around. For example, he has dependent origination as being non-linear and in the current life, which doesn't correspondent to the moment-to-moment version in the Abhidhamma, the one in the current life by Ven Payutto, or the one in the current life (from embryo to death) by Eisel Mazard. He has metta as the primary path to salvation, etc. He seems to have his own take on a lot of things. I would have to listen to some other talks. The 8 I listened to were interrupted by too many questions, so he didn't present things as he intended.

I was thinking of the other Westerners who have transferred from staunch Christian roots and are now looking for their metaphysical attachment from other quarters.

I think it's more often the opposite - that Westerners get involved in Buddhism because of its practical techniques for reducing suffering, and they don't care much about the metaphysical aspects. Just look at the popularity of Zen in the US.

Reference to the specific passage illudes me for now, but was along the lines:

Arriving late the Monk was told it was too late and the Sangha Council had agreed on the recording of the Buddhas teachings.

The Monk protested, "But I was with him and this is not what he taught!"

I didn't hear this in Peacock's talks. It sounds like something you'd find in a conspiracy theory. What's the source - a Sri Lankan chronicle? Presumably it refers to the First Council. The suttas were supplied by Ananda, Buddha's closest companion. So are we to believe that after 499 arahants agreed on Ananda's version, that the 500th arahant arrived and disagreed with everything, and that he's right? Highly unlikely.

I found listening to the talks a number of times revealed to me many things which I missed, or misunderstand the first time.

You might find many things missed by a single listening.

I came away with the understanding that, rather than being the primary way, metta was an alternative way to awakening.

The Buddha offered this to the farmers and others whose daily workload left little time for developing sitting concentration or to practice anapanasiti.

Unless one has the resource available to Forest Monks, Metta with awareness is a powerful alternative.

[rockyysdt]

Analogies are rarely perfect. I think what TNH is doing here is using visual imagery to give us an idea of how an arahant would perceive or experience a process which is understood intuitively. It's said that all doubts about kamma and rebirth are resolved upon attaining sotapanna.

I don't think TNH's analogy answers the question.

Rather it places more confusion.

[rockyysdt]

I think this problem comes from the word rebirth. So we have tried to avoid the problem of soul by not using the description 'reincarnation', but the idea of an immortal element is so deeply ingrained in westerners that the term 'rebirth' now causes the association of 'I, immortal' to rise phoenix-like from the ashes of old arguments.

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

I thought the problem was the word reincarnation.

The word re birth was adopted to remove any association with a soul or spirit being reincarnated.

As you say, lighting a candle, from the flame of another candle, but this is skirting around the question.

If you contend that there is non self, and the only association with the previous lives is a kharmic force then:

what no longer suffers when you end suffering by ending birth?

And if there is non self and the "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is illusory, then isn't an illusory life with dukkha preferable to non existence?

We can't have it both ways.

Either there is something permanent and unconditional (soul, spirit, call it what we like), or there isn't?

Edited August 20, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

TNH's explanations are not always any more convincing than anyone else's. His No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom for Life I found neither comforting nor convincing, and I speak as a great admirer of his other work.

In phenomenal terms, if the second stream has no continuity with the first then it's not the same stream. Rather, it's continuity rests solely, as the Muslims say, in the Will of God (Inshallah). It's a stream as conceived by Sunni occasionalists i.e. those who believe God creates the universe anew in each instant as a result of his Will. We simply perceive it as a continuation of the first stream. One could replace God by Karma,but in doing so we make Karma into a creative force without cause.

If, however, the second stream is continuous with the same stream, then its continuity consists either in some paraphenomenal underpinning, or in illusion, or both. We perceive the stream as a continuing entity (illusion), whereas it is, on this argument, simply a manifestation at the phenomenal level of a primordial level of being.

Apologies for sounding doctrinaire. I no longer try to explain things in terms of anatta and anicca, as I find the explanations unconvincing, but maybe there's an as yet undiscovered explanation out there that will work for me.

Hi X.

I was also left with more questions than answers to THN's analogy.

I'm interested to learn what currently use in place anatta and anicca to explain things?

[camerata]

I found listening to the talks a number of times revealed to me many things which I missed, or misunderstand the first time.

You might find many things missed by a single listening.

I came away with the understanding that, rather than being the primary way, metta was an alternative way to awakening.

The Buddha offered this to the farmers and others whose daily workload left little time for developing sitting concentration or to practice anapanasiti.

It could be I missed what he said about metta being just an alternative way to liberation. However I did hear him saying that monasticism probably isn't necessary today because we have more time than those farmers. I don't agree with this at all. In Indian Buddhism, Warder analyzed the occupations of the known disciples of the Buddha and says they were mostly Brahmins and townspeople (merchants in the new economy who were outside the traditional caste system). He says the villagers remained "resolutely Hindu." Simply having more time to practise wasn't the main reason for monasticism.

Peacock also states that he doesn't see the need for the jhanas. In Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, Ajahn Brahm makes a good case for jhanas being very important or even the only way to liberation. There are others who claim that without having attained the jhanas no-one can even understand what the Buddha is really saying in the suttas.

Peacock mentions that there is too much emphasis on pannya in Theravada and not enough on metta. He also says that he is glad he didn't ordain in Burma or Thailand (he ordained in the Tibetan Tradition and then in Sri Lanka) because of the emphasis on suffering. It would be interesting to hear what our Phra Farang think of this.

[Several]

I think this problem comes from the word rebirth. So we have tried to avoid the problem of soul by not using the description 'reincarnation', but the idea of an immortal element is so deeply ingrained in westerners that the term 'rebirth' now causes the association of 'I, immortal' to rise phoenix-like from the ashes of old arguments.

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

I thought the problem was the word reincarnation.

The word re birth was adopted to remove any association with a soul or spirit being reincarnated.

As you say, lighting a candle, from the flame of another candle, but this is skirting around the question.

If you contend that there is non self, and the only association with the previous lives is a kharmic force then:

what no longer suffers when you end suffering by ending birth?

And if there is non self and the "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is illusory, then isn't an illusory life with dukkha preferable to non existence?

We can't have it both ways.

Either there is something permanent and unconditional (soul, spirit, call it what we like), or there isn't?

But ego and consciousness are not the same thing. The 'I' who I have convinced myself to be is no more than a character created by choice and circumstance. The one who is conscious of this experience is the true being. It may be that this consciousness is only created in this body. I am absolutely sure it is not immortal. But it is this being that can learn to exist without suffering. Beyond greed, hatred and lust.

Consciousness cannot be weighed or measured but there it is none the less. There are innumerable people who have died briefly, and yet retained consciousness of what happened. To simply disregard this won't help.

So I must respectfully disagree that there either is or is not a spirit or soul. It is quite possible that consciousness can survive death of the flesh and yet not have the immortal magical qualities of a soul, or the overwhelming burden of an ego.

As before when I compared it to waves in the ocean, the ocean is indeed a single thing but the waves are both part of it and individual simultaneously. This may seem paradoxical but thats just a failing if language. There is I and not I at the same time. The state of consciousness at re birth is determined by Kamma.

So I'd say you either accept re birth or reject it entirely. You can't have moment to moment and not life to life. But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it.

[camerata]

"If the metaphysical helps, use it!" - John Peacock.

[Several]

"Luke. Use the force Luke..." Obi-Wan Kenobi

[rockyysdt]

The description I gave does not imply 'I' am reborn, but that the actions of my life have effects that cause a 'rebirth'. The Kamma is not exhausted. My life is a result of other Kamma which is mine now. So I work to release it and that way it will not continue in another life. The example in Milinda is lighting on candle from another. The first flame (Kamma) causes the second but is seperate from it.

Kamma exhibits momentum and seeks to dissipate. We all fall into the trap of belief in 'I' which is an illusion. The description becomes 'I am reborn' rather than 'there is rebirth'. From a non individualistic perspective moment to moment and life to life Kamma are identical.

Then are you saying that what you are aware of as you ("l", "ego", "self", "your consciousness"), passes on an kharmic influence, which generates a re birth, but apart from this there is no association between the old life and the new life?

Could we then say that your input in life allows another independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') the opportunity for a better life, but as far as you are concerned it is all over?

Plus I knew a guy who could remember who he was in his previous existence and when his family visited the address he gave the family he said he'd been part of still lived there. He'd forgotten all about this by the time he was eight. The Kammic effect of a (not his) previous existence was strong enough to retain memory. The new manifestation of this Kamma had become a being in its own right after eight years but as I am writing about this now the consequences of it remain.

So there you go. No need for a soul in life to life rebirth, it is the same as moment to moment. I feel the words 'rebirth' and 'energy' have too many different meanings to too many different people and are causing misunderstanding.

Okey dokey?

Even memory is illusory.

Memory, and moment to moment "contact = perception = reaction", so quick that it gives the illusion of consciousness (as a movie reell brings to life a set of frames/pictures).

Even if some kind of memory is passed onto another re birth life, it is illusory, impermanent, and conditioned.

Let's say that the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') achieves awakening causing the process of re birth to stop.

What is awakened?

If there is no longer any re birth, upon death, unless there is soul, isn't it the end of the line for the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') as you aren't acknowledging the existence of anything else?

Edited August 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

But ego and consciousness are not the same thing. The 'I' who I have convinced myself to be is no more than a character created by choice and circumstance. The one who is conscious of this experience is the true being. It may be that this consciousness is only created in this body. I am absolutely sure it is not immortal. But it is this being that can learn to exist without suffering. Beyond greed, hatred and lust.

Consciousness cannot be weighed or measured but there it is none the less. There are innumerable people who have died briefly, and yet retained consciousness of what happened. To simply disregard this won't help.

On this we are agreed.

In fact John Peacock indicates the Buddhas message was that through awareness (mindfulness of consciousness) one can eventually to live an awakened life.

Through right effort, right concentration, right mindfulness, one hones ones ability to be fully aware of things as they actually are, rather than dwell in dream states of the past and future.

So I must respectfully disagree that there either is or is not a spirit or soul. It is quite possible that consciousness can survive death of the flesh and yet not have the immortal magical qualities of a soul, or the overwhelming burden of an ego.

As before when I compared it to waves in the ocean, the ocean is indeed a single thing but the waves are both part of it and individual simultaneously. This may seem paradoxical but thats just a failing if language. There is I and not I at the same time. The state of consciousness at re birth is determined by Kamma.

This is the nub of the issue we're discussing.

On one hand the Buddha taught that there is nothing inside which is permanent or unconditioned, and that "l", "me", "ego", and "consciousness" is illusory.

Consciousness is a by product of the 5 skhandas and the speed at which one frame of contact/perception/reaction, moves onto the next, giving us the perception of consciousness.

There is nothing inside to be conscious.

This is what the Buddha taught.

So I'd say you either accept re birth or reject it entirely. You can't have moment to moment and not life to life. But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it.

Why?

The Buddha himself taught to have an open mind.

Isn't saying either, "re birth is only moment to moment", or 're birth must include the generation of future lives", fixed, rigid, or indicative of attachment?

Isn't it better to live ones life practicing the eightfold path, whilst keeping an open mind until one has personal experience.

This way we continue our practice (all important) whilst remaining unnattached, embracing all possibilities.

On this can't but not agree:

Either, re birth is moment to moment, or moment to moment and involve re birth to future lives, or it doesn't exist at all.

Isn't attaching oneself to only a single possibility fixing oneself or displaying rigidity?

Isn't this the opposite to the practice of unattached awareness where we don't control what we see, but allow us to become aware of what is?

Edited August 21, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It could be I missed what he said about metta being just an alternative way to liberation. However I did hear him saying that monasticism probably isn't necessary today because we have more time than those farmers. I don't agree with this at all. In Indian Buddhism, Warder analyzed the occupations of the known disciples of the Buddha and says they were mostly Brahmins and townspeople (merchants in the new economy who were outside the traditional caste system). He says the villagers remained "resolutely Hindu." Simply having more time to practise wasn't the main reason for monasticism.

Peacock mentions that there is too much emphasis on pannya in Theravada and not enough on metta. He also says that he is glad he didn't ordain in Burma or Thailand (he ordained in the Tibetan Tradition and then in Sri Lanka) because of the emphasis on suffering. It would be interesting to hear what our Phra Farang think of this.

John Peacock lived as an ordained Monk for 25 years, half in the Tibetan tradition and the other half in the Theravadin.

Would you agree that this experience would give him much insight?

In terms of options to practice Buddhism, you'd have to agree that the internet age has brought together a wealth of resource and experience unprecedented in the history of Buddhism.

The opportunity for quality practice and teaching comes only second to those fortunate to train under an arahant.

For many, the opportunity to live as a full time ordained forest monk, under the best instructors is difficult for most.

If Buddhism turns out to be a living practice, then wouldn't practicing in our community have its benefits ( what is the purpose of becoming awakened if you live your life in isolation) over seclusion?

Peacock also states that he doesn't see the need for the jhanas. In Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, Ajahn Brahm makes a good case for jhanas being very important or even the only way to liberation. There are others who claim that without having attained the jhanas no-one can even understand what the Buddha is really saying in the suttas.

I'm interested in this one C.

Due you recall in which session this was discussed?

[Several]

"I thought the problem was the word reincarnation."

True, but I'm getting the feeling the term 're birth' is going the same way.

"Then are you saying that what you are aware of as you ("l", "ego", "self", "your consciousness"), passes on an kharmic influence, which generates a re birth, but apart from this there is no association between the old life and the new life?

Could we then say that your input in life allows another independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') the opportunity for a better life, but as far as you are concerned it is all over?"

Again I and Not I simultaneously.

"Even memory is illusory.

Memory, and moment to moment "contact = perception = reaction", so quick that it gives the illusion of consciousness (as a movie reell brings to life a set of frames/pictures).

Even if some kind of memory is passed onto another re birth life, it is illusory, impermanent, and conditioned.Let's say that the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') achieves awakening causing the process of re birth to stop.

What is awakened?

If there is no longer any re birth, upon death, unless there is soul, isn't it the end of the line for the last independent life ("l", "self", "ego", "consciousness') as you aren't acknowledging the existence of anything else?"

Am I not? Conscious and subconscious are aspects of the same phenomena.That which is awakened must be all that Buddha described a human to be.

" This is the nub of the issue we're discussing.

On one hand the Buddha taught that there is nothing inside which is permanent or unconditioned, and that "l", "me", "ego", and "consciousness" is illusory.

Consciousness is a by product of the 5 skhandas and the speed at which one frame of contact/perception/reaction, moves onto the next, giving us the perception of consciousness.

There is nothing inside to be conscious.

This is what the Buddha taught."

Right enough, consciousness (Vinanna) is a product of this being, but subconscious (Bhavanga) is like the stream that Camerata quoted. Or from the analogy I used previously consciousness is the individual waves, subconscious is the entire ocean. It is here that all the stuff you object to takes place. The good old Pali Dictionary says; "Bhavanga Sota, stream of consciousness, basis, undercurrent. From it can be explained memory, paranormal psychic phenomena, mental and physical growth, Karma and re-birth. Life-continuum." or words to that effect. Not a soul, not permanent, always changing, fluid. Everything changes, making change itself permanent.

"On this can't but not agree:

"Either, re birth is moment to moment, or moment to moment and involve re birth to future lives, or it doesn't exist at all."

Isn't attaching oneself to only a single possibility fixing oneself or displaying rigidity?

Isn't this the opposite to the practice of unattached awareness where we don't control what we see, but allow us to become aware of what is?"

Only if I wasn't responding to...

"And if there is non self and the "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is illusory, then isn't an illusory life with dukkha preferable to non existence?

We can't have it both ways.

Either there is something permanent and unconditional (soul, spirit, call it what we like), or there isn't?"

...and saying "But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it." is fairly indicative of an open mind.

Good work on the frugal use of first person! Great discussion too. You're really getting the grey matter going here. Looking forward to your next post.

[camerata]

John Peacock lived as an ordained Monk for 25 years, half in the Tibetan tradition and the other half in the Theravadin.

Would you agree that this experience would give him much insight?

Would you agree that being a monk in Thailand for 25 years gives one much insight?

It's odd that Peacock doesn't mention anything he learnt as a Theravadin monk at all. He also doesn't mention any specific teachings he learnt from the Tibetan tradition. He just points out that Tibetan monks are less serious than Theravadins and Western Buddhists. I had the impression that everything he teaches is a result of his own scholarship. He never once refers to a monastic teacher or mentor (which may be deliberate, of course). His quotes are from the Canon or non-Buddhist texts.

In terms of options to practice Buddhism, you'd have to agree that the internet age has brought together a wealth of resource and experience unprecedented in the history of Buddhism.

The opportunity for quality practice and teaching comes only second to those fortunate to train under an arahant.

For many, the opportunity to live as a full time ordained forest monk, under the best instructors is difficult for most.

It's certainly convenient to receive the best teachings sitting at our computer, but as I understand it, 5 years of serious practice as a monk effects a fundamental change in thinking - at least that seemed to be Ajahn Chah's view (see Venerable Father).

If Buddhism turns out to be a living practice, then wouldn't practicing in our community have its benefits ( what is the purpose of becoming awakened if you live your life in isolation) over seclusion?

But monks don't live in isolation. The Buddha made them solely dependent on the surrounding community. At the very least this means going on alms round every day.

I'm interested in this one C.

Due you recall in which session this was discussed?

I don't, other than it was in Early Buddhism 2-6. There was no discussion. I think someone asked a question, "What about the jhanas?" and that was his answer.

Frankly, I think he was preaching to the choir at the Insight Meditation Center. I didn't hear anyone question his take on the Buddha's teachings. Then again, he comes across as an academic who knows his stuff.

[rockyysdt]

..and saying "But hey, I can't prove any of this so if I'm wrong, so be it." is fairly indicative of an open mind.

Not if you're dismissive of the other options.

Good work on the frugal use of first person! Great discussion too. You're really getting the grey matter going here. Looking forward to your next post.

I can't blame you for your response to my questions.

Matters metaphysical (if they exist) are beyond knowing by those limited by the physical.

My questions, however, are pertinent in terms how many interpret anatta (non self), kharma and re birth.

Edited August 22, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Ok. The matter is dropped. You seem to have good reasons for presenting your case, there is too much 'hocus pocus' going around and every bit of sobriety helps. My dismissive statements were only in response to what seemed to be dismissive in yours, so c'est la vie.

And remember, its never too late to turn to the dark side.

[rockyysdt]

You seem to have good reasons for presenting your case, there is too much 'hocus pocus' going around and every bit of sobriety helps.

My dismissive statements were only in response to what seemed to be dismissive in yours, so c'est la vie.

I think, due to the restrictive nature of discussion online, you may have misinterpretations of my views.

I'm mindful of sometimes persevering with a view which may not be popular or orthodox, when attempting to provide a balance of views.

I'm fully open to the possibility of re birth to future lives, real relms, the power of kharma reaching out into future lives and other metaphysical possibilities.

I'm also open to a non metaphysical explanation for the Buddhas teachings.

The purpose of my questions is to initiate discussion, and attempt to learn concepts and experiences from others.

Who knows, there maybe an awakened one amongst us who might reveal some insight.

After much discussion for some years, I'm still interested in discussing and challenging interpretations of dharma, and currently hold the view that all maybe possible but none is proven.

Clinging to a single interpretation, no matter how popular, orthodox, or mainstream goes against the very practice we are taught to engage in, and maybe our undoing.

Practice remains the key, but we can have fun discussing interesting concepts and ideas in the meantime.

Edited August 22, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Yeah, I know. Its not that I'm clinging to one idea as much as allowing it as a strong possibility. As I say, I could be wrong. And I apologise if I misinterpreted what you said. I agree totally with one thing though, practice, practice, practice.

[rockyysdt]

If Buddhism turns out to be a living practice, then wouldn't practicing in our community have its benefits ( what is the purpose of becoming awakened if you live your life in isolation) over seclusion?

But monks don't live in isolation. The Buddha made them solely dependent on the surrounding community. At the very least this means going on alms round every day.

My reference was to the forest Monks dedicated to mindfulness and concentration practice.

Isn't their involvement with the surrounding community generally focused on their alms in order to sustain themselves (as distinct from other Monks who perform a range of community tasks and rituals)?

After this don't they go back into isolation to continue their practice?

Edited August 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

But what did monks do in the Buddha's time? They sure didn't perform a lot of community tasks and rituals. The system the Buddha laid down was that the laity provide food and requisites and in exchange the monks teach the Dhamma. That's why you see many monks in the Ajahn Chah tradition giving Dhamma talks.

After awakening, one would expect an arahant to teach, not to live his life in isolation. I would expect an arahant to spend more time with the community once he has reached his goal.

[sabaijai]

85 posts on rebirth so far and no mention yet of citta. It is the arising and falling citta in a continuum which leads to the aggregation of khandas for a new life. No soul has transmigrated, and not even one citta from the previous birth exists in the new one. But the last citta of the previous life leads to the first citta of the new birth, following kamma. That is, the first citta in a new life is vipaka, ie a result of kamma in a chain of citta going back through one or more (or probably a great many) lives.

from What Buddhists Believe by K Sri Dhammananda

http://www.sinc.suny...ananda/main.htm

In the dying man's consciousness, there are three types of consciousness (Vinnana) functioning at the moment of death :rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi-citta), the current of passive consciousness or the current of life-continuum (bhavanga) and consciousness disconnecting the present life (cuti-citta). At the last moment of a man's present life the (patisandhi-citta) or rebirth-linking consciousness arises, having the three signs as its objects. The patisandhi-citta remains in the course of cognition for five faint thought-moments Javana and then sinks down into bhavanga. At the end of bhavanga the cuti-citta arises, disconnecting the present life and sinks down into bhavanga. At this very moment comes the end of the present life. At the end of that bhavanga another patisandhi-citta rises up in the next life and from this very moment the new life begins. This is the process of death and rebirth according to Buddhism, and only in Buddhism is the process of these natural phenomena found explained in minute detail.

from Dharma Punk

http://www.dharmapun...om/rebirth.html

When a person approaches death, their mind, due to craving for existence, is usually grasping at a particular object, idea, or feeling associated with their life. This is referred to as cuti-citta or "dying-consciousness". In Buddhism, there is no static or permanent atman which is reincarnated. Instead, there are dynamic processes such as kamma-vipaka (action and result, cause and effect, etc.), punabbhava ("further" or "renewed" becoming) and upapattibhava ("resultant" becoming or existence) as the five skandhas arising as a result of kammabhava (the process of behavior, generation of action, etc). During the process of birth, there is an initial consciousness (patisandhi-citta). This initial consciousness is a result (vipaka) of karmic influence (kammavega), which is endowed with all of the past impressions, characteristics, and tendencies of previous consciousness. However, the previous cuti-citta and next patisandhi-citta are not the same. When the initial consciousness eventually falls away it conditions the next citta (state of consciousness) to arise. This citta is the first bhavanga-citta (the undercurrent forming the condition of becoming, or subconsciousness) of a particular life. Therefore, patisandhi-citta does link the first bhavanga-citta with the previous cuti-citta.

There is only one patisandhi-citta with each rebirth, but there are countless bhavanga-cittas arising during a lifespan. The bhavanga-citta is vipaka-citta (resultant consciousness), as it is the result of the same kammavega which produced the patisandhi-citta. Thus the consciousness arising as a result of renewed existence is neither identical to nor different from previous consciousness - instead it is part of a causal continuum or stream of consciousness. Bhavanga-citta is the stream of consciousness in which one of these three objects forms its focus: kamma (action), kammanimitta (the conditions of previous kamma) or gatinimitta (the attributes of a future destination). This is the mental state of people when they are asleep. However, certain changes occur when we see, hear, smell, taste, touch or think, and these are called "active consciousness" (vithi-citta) - i.e. the processess of the conscious mind.

[Xangsamhua]

But there have been 78 references to "consciousness". I haven't gone through them to see what has been meant in each context.

All-knowing Wikipedia says that "Citta is derived from the Sanskrit root cit, and denotes "that which is conscious" – mind or consciousness", and your quotes talk about different kinds of consciousness. What has been missed?

[sabaijai]

But there have been 78 references to "consciousness". I haven't gone through them to see what has been meant in each context.

All-knowing Wikipedia says that "Citta is derived from the Sanskrit root cit, and denotes "that which is conscious" – mind or consciousness", and your quotes talk about different kinds of consciousness. What has been missed?

That's the point, actually. Several words used in Pali Buddhism can be roughly defined as 'consciousness' in English, and I find that word rather vague to begin with. What type of consciousness are we talking about?

Unless I missed it, none of the 78 mentions of 'consciousness' used it in a way that would indicate citta. More like vinnana or one of the other aggregates or in just a vague way related to English usage. Citta precedes the aggregates, then if vipaka is still to be reckoned with, the citta process continues on moment to moment, as it were (although it's much quicker than any normal interpretation of 'moment') into other aggregations. Yet no single citta lives on. Each is impermanent, rising and falling away quickly.

I didn't see that quote in the Wiki entry on citta, but wherever it comes from it is only a small snip from the entry, as it refers to the etymology in Sanskrit, not the actual meaning in Pali Buddhism. In Pali the root meaning differs anyway, as Wiki notes:

Citta is therefore closely related to volitions; this connection is also etymological, as citta comes from the same verbal root in Pali as the active terms meaning "to will."[13] Citta also reflects one's cognitive condition/progress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citta

[rockyysdt]

85 posts on rebirth so far and no mention yet of citta. It is the arising and falling citta in a continuum which leads to the aggregation of khandas for a new life. No soul has transmigrated, and not even one citta from the previous birth exists in the new one. But the last citta of the previous life leads to the first citta of the new birth, following kamma. That is, the first citta in a new life is vipaka, ie a result of kamma in a chain of citta going back through one or more (or probably a great many) lives.

from What Buddhists Believe by K Sri Dhammananda

http://www.sinc.suny...ananda/main.htm

In the dying man's consciousness, there are three types of consciousness (Vinnana) functioning at the moment of death :rebirth-linking consciousness (patisandhi-citta), the current of passive consciousness or the current of life-continuum (bhavanga) and consciousness disconnecting the present life (cuti-citta). At the last moment of a man's present life the (patisandhi-citta) or rebirth-linking consciousness arises, having the three signs as its objects. The patisandhi-citta remains in the course of cognition for five faint thought-moments Javana and then sinks down into bhavanga. At the end of bhavanga the cuti-citta arises, disconnecting the present life and sinks down into bhavanga. At this very moment comes the end of the present life. At the end of that bhavanga another patisandhi-citta rises up in the next life and from this very moment the new life begins. This is the process of death and rebirth according to Buddhism, and only in Buddhism is the process of these natural phenomena found explained in minute detail.

from Dharma Punk

http://www.dharmapun...om/rebirth.html

When a person approaches death, their mind, due to craving for existence, is usually grasping at a particular object, idea, or feeling associated with their life. This is referred to as cuti-citta or "dying-consciousness". In Buddhism, there is no static or permanent atman which is reincarnated. Instead, there are dynamic processes such as kamma-vipaka (action and result, cause and effect, etc.), punabbhava ("further" or "renewed" becoming) and upapattibhava ("resultant" becoming or existence) as the five skandhas arising as a result of kammabhava (the process of behavior, generation of action, etc). During the process of birth, there is an initial consciousness (patisandhi-citta). This initial consciousness is a result (vipaka) of karmic influence (kammavega), which is endowed with all of the past impressions, characteristics, and tendencies of previous consciousness. However, the previous cuti-citta and next patisandhi-citta are not the same. When the initial consciousness eventually falls away it conditions the next citta (state of consciousness) to arise. This citta is the first bhavanga-citta (the undercurrent forming the condition of becoming, or subconsciousness) of a particular life. Therefore, patisandhi-citta does link the first bhavanga-citta with the previous cuti-citta.

There is only one patisandhi-citta with each rebirth, but there are countless bhavanga-cittas arising during a lifespan. The bhavanga-citta is vipaka-citta (resultant consciousness), as it is the result of the same kammavega which produced the patisandhi-citta. Thus the consciousness arising as a result of renewed existence is neither identical to nor different from previous consciousness - instead it is part of a causal continuum or stream of consciousness. Bhavanga-citta is the stream of consciousness in which one of these three objects forms its focus: kamma (action), kammanimitta (the conditions of previous kamma) or gatinimitta (the attributes of a future destination). This is the mental state of people when they are asleep. However, certain changes occur when we see, hear, smell, taste, touch or think, and these are called "active consciousness" (vithi-citta) - i.e. the processess of the conscious mind.

Excellent references and interesting read SJ.

These points are critical to kharma/re birth and very quite detailed:

• In Buddhism, there is no static or permanent atman which is reincarnated.
  
• 
  
• The previous cuti-citta and next patisandhi-citta are not the same.
  
• 
  
• When the initial consciousness eventually falls away it conditions the next citta (state of consciousness) to arise.
  
• 
  
• This citta is the first bhavanga-citta (the undercurrent forming the condition of becoming, or subconsciousness) of a particular life.
  
• 
  
• Thus the consciousness arising as a result of renewed existence is neither identical to nor different from previous consciousness.
  
• 
  
• Instead it is part of a causal continuum or stream of consciousness.
  
• 
  
• Bhavanga-citta is the stream of consciousness.
  

Does awakening stop the "causal continuum", or stream of consciousness, or does it stop punabbhava ("further" or "renewed" becoming) and upapattibhava ("resultant" becoming or existence)?

This is very telling:

This initial consciousness is a result (vipaka) of karmic influence (kammavega), which is endowed with all of the past impressions, characteristics, and tendencies of previous consciousness. However, the previous cuti-citta and next patisandhi-citta are not the same.

It suggests that even though an initial consciousness results due to vipaka, the previous cuti-citta and the next patisandhi-citta are not the same.

Like a photocopy, it is endowed with past characteristics but is "not the same".

Rather than each of us appearing in future lives through the process of re birth, the teaching suggests future entities are slightly different copies of us.

An example of how different the two are can be highlighted thus:

"You are standing there and your double is standing next to you.

Your double is essentially almost identical.

You are about to be killed, but your executioner reassures you with the consoling news that you will live on in your double."

Somehow, I don't think this would reassure me.

Surely this highlights that although your essence (data) continues (patisandhi-citta), it is not you.

The question arises that as there as no permanent or static atman to be reincarnated, is the citta which inhabits the new life merely a copy and not you as you know yourself?

Although there is a historical and stream link between the two, each life has no physical or communicable links, just as two PC's programmed identically, remain separate entities, when not networked with each other via cables or wireless.

Also, is the stream consciousness individual to each of us, or is it a universal nibbana to which we return in order to reunite with the whole?

Do we lose consciousness of the whole whilst enhabiting a patisandhi-citta?

Edited August 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I forgot to add.

Finally, if it's the aim to end dukkha and be free from the cycle of re birth, why have it and samsara in the first place?

Edited August 25, 2012 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

I forgot to add.

Finally, if it's the aim to end dukkha and be free from the cycle of re birth, why have it and samsara in the first place?

Samsara and our consequent rebirth there is created by natural laws...the main one being the law of karma and change.