Origins Of Karma

[rockyysdt]

Is it so hard to accept that the Buddha experienced other realms and beings as a result of the abilities he gained through meditation?

A Buddhist priest of Zen background indicated that the Buddha taught according to the mental and spiritual capacity of each individual.

The Buddha taught greater than 84,000 teachings representing the diverse backgrounds and characteristics of the people.

Many of those he taught were deeply ingrained in the belief of reincarnation and Deva relms

Edited May 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Jawnie]

Multiple lifetimes and reincarnation are basic tenets of Buddhist philosophy, regardless of which school or vehicle one follows.

Hi Jawnie.

Reincarnation is the religious and philosophical belief that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of Indian religions.

Reincarnation has nothing to do with what the Buddha taught.

Also, the Buddha taught that a soul or spirit does not exist and that there is nothing inside us to be reincarnated.

Rockyttt: you cite the traditional Theravadin view but the Buddha taught about karma and reincarnation extensively in his Jataka stories, for example. And, even though you correctly cite the basics on the absence of a transmigrating self, it is still a wrong view because it is Nilhist. That is the belief there is no existence before or after this one. Are you saying that our current lifetimes will be our one, and only, lives?

It's just that others interpret what the Buddha taught as follows:

"Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death.

There is no such teaching in Buddhism.

One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman -- no soul or no self.

The closest to reincarnation is "re birth", but there is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death.

When we die, the molecules which constitute us, don't disappear but continue on in different combinations.

As to whether kharma shapes these into another life, we don't have experience of this.

That's a rather artful dodge.

Again, if karma is infallible, what becomes of the karma created by the actions I mentioned and the scenario I laid out?

[rockyysdt]

That's a rather artful dodge.

Judging by my previous posts how would you have had me reply?

It might have also been an acknowledgement that I don't have the answers, and that am struggling to learn, as are many others.

Again, if karma is infallible, what becomes of the karma created by the actions I mentioned and the scenario I laid out?

Everyone has different interpretations.

It seems that only the Buddha could truly remove any doubt as to what he taught.

[camerata]

The Buddha taught greater than 84,000 teachings representing the diverse backgrounds and characteristics of the people.

Many of those he taught were deeply ingrained in the belief of reincarnation and Deva relms

"84,000" was shorthand for "a lot" in ancient India but Mahayana has promoted this 84,000 teachings idea to explain its many widely differing sects (most of which are long gone). In actual fact there weren't that many different groups, and they can be roughly divided into two categories: monks and laymen. For monks the emphasis was meditation and nibbana in this life, for householders it was morality and heaven.

The fact that the Buddha emphasized doing good to achieve a fortunate rebirth makes perfect sense in his scheme of things. There's no reason to teach anatta and anicca to householders who perhaps can't understand it and are preoccupied with daily life. But this doesn't mean he was saying one thing and meaning another.

Your proposition that the Buddha never said what he meant - even to his most gifted monks - in 40 years of teaching sounds very unlikely to me. In fact it sounds a lot like the strange Mahayana idea that he kept all his "higher teachings" hidden (and they were hidden for several hundred years) because no-one could understand them in his time. IMO it's much more likely that he simply taught different aspects of the Dhamma to different groups.

[fabianfred]

Immediate rebirth occurs if a being is reborn into any realm except the human and animal realms where one is born as an egg and grows up. In the heaven realms one is born instantly...males as a 20 year old and females as a 15 or 16 year old (physically mature) and no aging occurs until ones lifetime is ending.

Rebirth into the Hungry ghost, hell, and demon realms also is instant.

[Xangsamhua]

What if, on your last day alive, you committed all the worst 'sins' according to Buddhism: killed your parents, killed an arhant, lied, slandered, had all manner of sexual misconduct....and then died? If each of these actions creates negative karma, would you escape that karma if you died immediately upon committing all these actions?

It's beyond reasonable expectations that, if you'd led a life based on right view and right action, you'd run about on your last day committing these sins. If karma is effective it's because the effects of right view and right action are cumulative and lead to further right view and action and good karma.

If the contents of our minds are important at the moment of our death in influencing the kind of rebirth we'll have, there's a good chance that these contents in turn have been influenced by the kinds of thoughts we're likely to have had over a long period.

Deranged behaviour at the end of our life, or even slightly out-of-character behaviour, is likely to be the effect of things over which we have no control at the time.

A person who has acted rightly throughout life as the result of good intention (not just because of external pressure) will act well at the end if still mentally capable. Otherwise, karma doesn't really mean anything.

[rockyysdt]

Immediate rebirth occurs if a being is reborn into any realm except the human and animal realms where one is born as an egg and grows up. In the heaven realms one is born instantly...males as a 20 year old and females as a 15 or 16 year old (physically mature) and no aging occurs until ones lifetime is ending.

Rebirth into the Hungry ghost, hell, and demon realms also is instant.

Through my work I have met a lady who was told by a wise woman who she met in Sri Lanka, that she had been a Deva in her former life.

She's a very positive person and refuses to be held back by those of negative persuasion around her.

The only negative I felt she may encounter is that her knowledge of her past may have an affect of inflating her ego which might get in the way of her progress.

She dwells a lot in reading, but, apart from a low level of mindfulness doesn't practice concentration.

Fred, why would one have immediate rebirth as a male or female?

Wouldn't immediate rebirth as a Deva do away with the need for intercourse in order to procreate?

Edited May 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Deranged behaviour at the end of our life, or even slightly out-of-character behaviour, is likely to be the effect of things over which we have no control at the time.

A person who has acted rightly throughout life as the result of good intention (not just because of external pressure) will act well at the end if still mentally capable. Otherwise, karma doesn't really mean anything.

Jawnie suggested that if we had a congenital predisposition to do bad things our physical condition was also influenced by the fruits of past kharma.

Jawnie, using your reasoning as per the earlier post on this thread, would physical mind degradation in old age, leading to acting poorly amount to negative kharma and the resultant fruits of kharma?

How does a congenital condition sit with volition and intention?

Also, I was thinking about kharma as put forward on this thread.

If I attract negative fruits of kharma (vipaka), I will need someone to execute such fruits.

In other words another must act badly (poor kharma) in order for me to reap vipaka.

I murder someone, and my kharmic fruits (vipaka) may result in me being murdered by another in the future when the right conditions occur.

The fruits of vipaka require another to plant kharmic seeds.

Edited May 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Denying the existence of rebirth in the various realms we call samsara and the cause which is karma past and present is not in line with Right View which is the first of the Noble Eigthfold Path....

....but then who am I to correct you.....

you are blocking yourself from reaching stream-entry by having such views....

never mind...there is always the next Buddha's time to get another chance....( a lot of suffering before then though.....)

Hi Fred.

I had a look at the first Noble Eightfold Path and no where within it does it mention re birth or relms.

quote:

Right view

Right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi / sammā-diṭṭhi) can also be translated as "right perspective", "right outlook" or "right understanding". It is the right way of looking at life, nature, and the world as they really are. It is to understand how reality works. It acts as the reasoning for someone to start practicing the path. It explains the reasons for human existence, suffering, sickness, aging, death, the existence of greed, hatred, and delusion. It gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors. Right view begins with concepts and propositional knowledge, but through the practice of right concentration, it gradually becomes transmuted into wisdom, which can eradicate the fetters of the mind. Understanding of right view will inspire the person to lead a virtuous life in line with right view. In the Pāli and Chinese canons, it is explained thus:^{[16][17][18][19][20][21]}

And what is right view? Knowledge with reference to suffering, knowledge with reference to the origination of suffering, knowledge with reference to the cessation of suffering, knowledge with reference to the way of practice leading to the cessation of suffering: This is called right view.

There are two types of right view:

1. View with taints: this view is mundane. Having this type of view will bring merit and will support the favourable existence of the sentient being in the realm of samsara.
   
2. View without taints: this view is supramundane. It is a factor of the path and will lead the holder of this view toward self-awakening and liberation from the realm of samsara.
   

Right view has many facets; its elementary form is suitable for lay followers, while the other form, which requires deeper understanding, is suitable for monastics. Usually, it involves understanding the following reality:

1. Moral law of karma: Every action (by way of body, speech, and mind) will have karmic results (a.k.a. reaction). Wholesome and unwholesome actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action. It is the right view about the moral process of the world.
   
2. The three characteristics: everything that arises will cease (impermanence). Mental and body phenomena are impermanent, source of suffering and not-self.
   
3. Suffering: Birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, and despair are suffering. Not being able to obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising of craving is the proximate cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the proximate cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of suffering, and the elimination of this quality is the root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path.^[22] This type of right view is explained in terms of Four Noble Truths.
   

Right view for monastics is explained in detail in the Sammādiṭṭhi Sutta ("Right View Discourse"), in which Ven. Sariputta instructs that right view can alternately be attained by the thorough understanding of the unwholesome and the wholesome, the four nutriments, the twelve nidanas or the three taints.^[23] "Wrong view" arising from ignorance (avijja), is the precondition for wrong intention, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration.^[24][25] The practitioner should use right effort to abandon the wrong view and to enter into right view. Right mindfulness is used to constantly remain in right view.

The purpose of right view is to clear one's path of the majority of confusion, misunderstanding, and deluded thinking. It is a means to gain right understanding of reality. Right view should be held with a flexible, open mind, without clinging to that view as a dogmatic position.^[26][27][28] In this way, right view becomes a route to liberation rather than an obstacle.

Can I ask?

As long as I practice the eightfold path well, why would keeping an open mind, regarding re birth being moment to moment vs many lives, result in blocking myself in terms of the path?

What if, on your last day alive, you committed all the worst 'sins' according to Buddhism: killed your parents, killed an arhant, lied, slandered, had all manner of sexual misconduct....and then died? If each of these actions creates negative karma, would you escape that karma if you died immediately upon committing all these actions?

In the history of human kind how often has this occurred and what is its likelihood or probability?

If someone did do it, would they be in full charge of their faculties and if not, does an insane or congenitally impaired person have control (volition and intention - sankhara)?

Edited May 6, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Gladiator]

The reality is that object ball is never going to jump out of the pocket, hit the white ball, which hits your stick and jerks your arm back. But this is their karma teachings. And most people are already trained that there is retribution for your bad actions. And giving money has good consequences. But when you win the lotto, nobody says it was your good karma. They say you were lucky.

If there are those who twist the teachings of a religion or practice in order to profit, does this diminish the original practice or teachings?

As Fred has indicated, the word Kharma is frequently misused as meaning destiny due to past indiscretions.

Kharma is action, as you say, but the consequences are the fruits of kharma (vipaka).

The severity of vipaka revolves around ones action and intention.

Giving money won't diminish vipaka.

Vipaka is either immediate or may take a long time to ripen.

Someone who smokes tobacco regularly may seem to get away with it, but eventually their aerobic fitness will die off, they may end up suffering from lung cancer or a number of other malignancies, but all will suffer from varying degrees if emphysema. These fruits of kharma will not only affect the owner of actions, but may also result in much suffering to that persons family.

Someone who regularly speeds and breaks traffic laws may eventually end up with a variety of kharmic fruit such as fines, disqualification, higher insurance costs, property loss through accident, injury or death.

Someone who regularly accepts bribes allowing a regular road law breaker to continue to drive may end up being indirectly responsible for a road death.

The subtleties of kharma are far to complex for the unawakened to ever fully know or understand.

Hmmm

`

This is response from a non-smoker.

But then how do you account for so many that we have lost along the way?

Never smoked. did not drink alcolhol. excecised amd had the correct diet?

No one said that life is fair but can be very unjust at times....

[huli]

karma, is there a self or not, the nature of nirvana

all are ideas or concepts that were taught by Buddha and discussed ever since

if there were an easy way to explain them once and for all, it would have been done by Buddha and many others probably too

they are very interesting to discuss and dialogue about, but there can never be the final discussion that settles them.

it is futile to defend one view, moment to moment karma vs. lifetime to lifetime, or, is there a self, or not, because there is karma, or, is nirvana a state or a process, and the answers are not important anyway since they have nothing to do with the cessation of suffering and the path which leads to it

Furthermore, the teachings of Buddha have been preserved and there is broad agreement on them, especially the core teachings of the Noble Truths and 8 fold Path, which are straightforward. It is not true that Buddhism is just a bundle of different opinions on the above topics, and that nobody knows what Buddha taught anymore.

It is not helpful to understanding the problem of existence by engaging in cognitive duels.

[fabianfred]

Fred, why would one have immediate rebirth as a male or female?

Wouldn't immediate rebirth as a Deva do away with the need for intercourse in order to procreate?

In the six heaven realms, which are realms of sensual happiness (including the human realm), there is no suffering. There are therfore no children in these realms, since pregnancy and childbirth is suffering. Beings born male appear as mature physically like a human 20 year old and those born female are like a 15 or 16 year old in the human realm. Pleasures of all five senses are experienced, taste...food, smell, sight...beauty, sounds, sensations....sex is had but probably different to in the human realm since no childbirth results. In some of the higher realms than the heavens there are no sexes, and in the highest ones no physical forms.

[Xangsamhua]

karma, is there a self or not, the nature of nirvana

all are ideas or concepts that were taught by Buddha and discussed ever since

if there were an easy way to explain them once and for all, it would have been done by Buddha and many others probably too

they are very interesting to discuss and dialogue about, but there can never be the final discussion that settles them.

it is futile to defend one view, moment to moment karma vs. lifetime to lifetime, or, is there a self, or not, because there is karma, or, is nirvana a state or a process, and the answers are not important anyway since they have nothing to do with the cessation of suffering and the path which leads to it

Furthermore, the teachings of Buddha have been preserved and there is broad agreement on them, especially the core teachings of the Noble Truths and 8 fold Path, which are straightforward. It is not true that Buddhism is just a bundle of different opinions on the above topics, and that nobody knows what Buddha taught anymore.

It is not helpful to understanding the problem of existence by engaging in cognitive duels.

Huli, I think I agree with everything you say except for the last sentence.

"Cognitive duelling" (nice term), like any sort of training (e.g. for the sport of Fencing), keeps the mind in shape, and teaches us new things. How would an Olympic fencer succeed if he never thinks about and takes on board what his opponent might come up with?

In Tibetan Buddhism, Dialectics is a core part of a monk's training. As you walk up to the main temple and the Dalai Lama's palace in Dharamsala you will walk past the Institute of Dialectics, where the monks sharpen their intellectual cutlery.

I guess real "duelling", with swords or pistols is a fight to the death, usually for no good purpose. If that's what we're engaged in, I think we're a bit silly. Excessive attachment to one's own intellectual position is a form of delusion (moha) and a barrier to prajna/panya (wisdom).

In the Hindu tradition, Brahman is said to have created the cosmos as the outcome of creative play. Not a bad image. If dialectics is seen by participants as a form of constructive play, not as a fight to the end and not as a trivial pursuit, then we can get a lot from it. As you say, in the long run we don't "know", we don't have all the answers, but we may have learned some useful things and we may be able to recognize obvious errors and illusions for what they are.

[anybody]

Let's first get clear on the word KARMA. It means Actions. It is best described in the west by Newtons 3 laws of action. Religions have changed the meaning to make money...now you suffer because of previous bad actions. You can give us money, which is a good action, and good things will come to you in the future. For the business of Buddhism, they need Good and Bad to get money from you. But it is almost impossible now to understand the laws of action, because all the authorities in Buddhism and religions are businesses wanting money, so they universally talk non-sense, and we common people are supposed to just believe and give money.

Here is an example of real karma and the illogical religious karma. Some of you may understand. A pool player moves his arm and his power moves the pool stick. The stick hits the white ball. The action is karma, Action and movement. The arm moves the stick moving the white ball. This is the first law: for each Action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I move arm, the stick moves, then the white ball hits an object ball and it goes into a pocket. This is real karma, the law of Action. The business of religion has convinced you of a theory that this karma action has good and bad which will come and get you! and you need them to save you...just pay some money

The reality is that object ball is never going to jump out of the pocket, hit the white ball, which hits your stick and jerks your arm back. But this is their karma teachings. And most people are already trained that there is retribution for your bad actions. And giving money has good consequences. But when you win the lotto, nobody says it was your good karma. They say you were lucky.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

Right on to your interpretation of karma. Its scientific when you think about it. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Karma is the way the universe works. It is unfolding as it should. It is human selfishness in thinking that karma is directed only at us or at beings with reasoning who are conscious that they are alive. It has nothing to do with right and wrong or justice. That is more of the Christian "eye for an eye" idea. Karma has been long before humans or religion. The word Karma has been tainted and thought of now in a negative way instead of the beautiful thing that it is.

[Xangsamhua]

It has nothing to do with right and wrong or justice. That is more of the Christian "eye for an eye" idea.

"Eye for an eye" is Old Testament/Mosaic Law - not Christian, which is about turning the other cheek, etc (in theory, if not in practice).

Need to read up a bit, I think.

Huston Smith is good.

If you want a really entertaining as well as scholarly look at the development of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, I suggest Jack Miles's God: A Biography and Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God.

[rockyysdt]

karma, is there a self or not, the nature of nirvana

all are ideas or concepts that were taught by Buddha and discussed ever since

if there were an easy way to explain them once and for all, it would have been done by Buddha and many others probably too

they are very interesting to discuss and dialogue about, but there can never be the final discussion that settles them.

it is futile to defend one view, moment to moment karma vs. lifetime to lifetime, or, is there a self, or not, because there is karma, or, is nirvana a state or a process, and the answers are not important anyway since they have nothing to do with the cessation of suffering and the path which leads to it

Furthermore, the teachings of Buddha have been preserved and there is broad agreement on them, especially the core teachings of the Noble Truths and 8 fold Path, which are straightforward. It is not true that Buddhism is just a bundle of different opinions on the above topics, and that nobody knows what Buddha taught anymore.

It is not helpful to understanding the problem of existence by engaging in cognitive duels.

I agree that it's not particularly important, other than, as the Buddha taught, to experience for oneself.

I like to keep an open mind.

It is, however very important to Fred as he's indicated that you can't succeed (awakening - enlightenment) if you don't have 'right view".

He and Camerata have indicated right view includes the "lifetime to lifetime" model. There is no debate.

The other thing that is vital is that people are living by their view (moment to moment karma vs. lifetime to lifetime).

This can have profound consequences over your lifetime.

With one interpretation your goal is to get to Nirvana and then live forever.

With the other, your goal is to realize your maximum potential as a human being.

Edited May 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

It has never been a Theravada stance that you "get to Nirvana and then live forever."

However, Ajahn Punnadhammo makes an interesting point about the materialist "one-life" view:

It is sometimes asked if holding the view of karma and rebirth is necessary for practice. I would argue that for significant progress to be made, it is. Or rather, more accurately, the one-life-only view is a serious detriment. For liberation to occur, there must be a radical relinquishment in the depths of the psyche. In traditional Buddhist practice, the idea of samsara as an endlessly repeated wheel of futility makes this possible. On the other hand, if this one existence is all we have, it gives a poignancy and an importance to the mundane reality, making it impossible to renounce at the level required. It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about very subtle movements of the mind at a very profound depth, and at that place the smallest obstacle may be an enormous hindrance.

Although belief in karma and rebirth is often thought of as the distinguishing factor between traditional and redefined Buddhism, it is actually a secondary issue. The real nub is the attitude toward the third noble truth. The goal of Buddhism has always been realization of the unconditioned (nibbana or nirvana.) There is no place for an unconditioned element in a materialist (or indeed in an eternalist) worldview. If this is missing, Buddhist teaching is completely lacking in its most profound aspect. This is evident if one examines the writings of the "agnostic Buddhists." The goal is shifted from transcendence of samsaric existence to reconciliation with it—a goal that has been compared to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

http://buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha336.htm

[rockyysdt]

It has never been a Theravada stance that you "get to Nirvana and then live forever."

Isn't this implied?

Going by what everyone is contending in these posts we recycle forever in samsara until we become enlightened thus escaping it.

When we escape it (Nirvana) it can be forever.

The only other alternative is that you become extinguished because there is no longer a force (kharma - vipaka) to influence re birth.

That would align with the end of suffering.

Those who don't exist can't suffer.

Edited May 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It is sometimes asked if holding the view of karma and rebirth is necessary for practice. I would argue that for significant progress to be made, it is. Or rather, more accurately, the one-life-only view is a serious detriment. For liberation to occur, there must be a radical relinquishment in the depths of the psyche. In traditional Buddhist practice, the idea of samsara as an endlessly repeated wheel of futility makes this possible. On the other hand, if this one existence is all we have, it gives a poignancy and an importance to the mundane reality, making it impossible to renounce at the level required. It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about very subtle movements of the mind at a very profound depth, and at that place the smallest obstacle may be an enormous hindrance.

This is like the other thing we are asked to do.

It has been said that holding onto the ego is an impediment.

This is why we say, there is nothing inside which is permanent (non self), but then on the other hand we say there is something.

The thing which is common to all previous lives and future lives subject to re birth, and

that which is associated with enlightenment.

[fabianfred]

Reaching the state of Nibbana does not mean the end of existence...just the end of rebirth as we know it within Samsara. However what kind of existence is beyond our capability to understand...until we reach it ourselves.

[camerata]

Isn't this implied?

That anyone "lives forever" is not implied in the scriptures. That we get out of the round of rebirths is very clear. What it means to access an unconditioned element (i.e. nibbana) is something of a mystery that seems to be beyond conceptual thinking.

On an intellectual level, I personally think that attaining the "Deathless" means at the very least that with the separation of self and other removed, death is meaningless and irrelevant. i.e. death as we know it can no longer be experienced.

From the same article:

As a last note, it could be said that for the puthujjana (one who has not yet glimpsed for herself the unconditioned), this is the one place in Buddhist teaching where the faculty of faith (saddha) is absolutely indispensable. Because all our language and thought belongs to the conditioned realm, the unconditioned can never be imagined or arrived at by reason. Even for one who has realized it, it cannot be explained. For one who has not, it must be taken on faith.

[camerata]

This is why we say, there is nothing inside which is permanent (non self), but then on the other hand we say there is something.

Well, I haven't said that. And where in the scriptures did the Buddha say there is something permanent that is reborn? From Ajahn Punnadhammo again:

Consciousness is itself void and conditionally arisen. It is neither created nor destroyed; rather, it arises dependent upon certain causal factors, which include an object, a physical base, karma, and previous moments of consciousness. For consciousness to arise in the womb must imply a previous existence to activate this causal link.

As I understand it, each existence is linked by a "void consciousness," so there is a causal link rather than some "thing" reborn. An example from the Debate of King Milinda:

“What is it, Nāgasena, that is reborn?”

“Mind and matter.”

“Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”

“No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”

“Give me an illustration.”

“It is like a fire that a man might kindle and, having warmed himself, he might leave it burning and go away. Then if that fire were to set light to another man’s field and the owner were to seize him and accuse him before the king, and he were to say, ‘Your majesty, I did not set this man’s field on fire. The fire that I left burning was different to that which burnt his field. I am not guilty.’ Would he deserve punishment?”

“Indeed, yes, because whatever he might say the latter fire resulted from the former one.”

“Just so, O king, by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.”

http://www.aimwell.o...th/rebirth.html

[rockyysdt]

Well, I haven't said that. And where in the scriptures did the Buddha say there is something permanent that is reborn?

Maybe it was the way I framed my post!

We've already established that what is re born is impermanent and conditioned.

What I was referring to is the element, which we speak of in riddles, that appears to be permanent or unconditioned or both.

The thing which you've indicated has many future lives vs moment to moment.

It's the element which is associated with the lineage of impermanent/conditioned re births both past and future, and which endures into enlightenment.

An example of this element is when the Buddha spoke of seeing his past lives and stopped as they went back too far.

That which was enlightened and observed the former lives.

Otherwise what saw the former lives was just the lucky impermanent/conditioned "I" which was lucky enough to be alive when awakening took place (all the others had nothing to do with the next, other than their kharma/vipaka sparking re birth. They all died and rotted away).

Edited May 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Otherwise what saw the former lives was just the lucky impermanent/conditioned "I" which was lucky enough to be alive when awakening took place (all the others had nothing to do with the next, other than their kharma/vipaka sparking re birth. They all died and rotted away).

All the more reason to go for nibbana in this life, I think.