Do you really think rebirth is realistic?

[termite]

Simply put, one object of consciousness must end for another to begin.

[conebeckham]

"Consciousness" may have an object--and there may be "another" moment of consciousness based on another object, I grant you.

But there's a certain nonreferential "awareness" that is not dualistic, subject/object. Perhaps we should look there......

[ronnewmexico]

I don't know about termites last statement.

but to respond to the last.....what I would find there is awareness considered a actualitywithout object.
Which cannnot happen. In basic form we can never become aware of a object that is nonexistant.

That awareness is a quality which precipitates when object presents speaks to our nature as sentient being, having that capacity always. That we have that quality doesn't speak to its inherant existance.

It is that awareness when presents does not have to have a particular aspect of subject oject when presenting as consciousness. Consciousness is not simply awareness. It is a compositie of differing aspects of awareness. Seeing a subject object relationship in our common world does not infer that object is not being presented in fashion to our awareness but that when object presents we fail to see we are naturally part of that object for consideration. It is not that we have a constantly present awareness but that when object presents it becomes on. Creating a false seperation is the inception of the self other dichotomy. But that doesn't infer object is not present nor we as being aware of object are not present. The basic could be misconstrued in various fashion and is.

We take this on to be seperate from us with misconception When on or aware we can only remember on not not on. That is a constriction of our reality.... the way awareness functions. So on combined with that characteristic and habiitual inclination aspect of awareness(anther aspect of consciouisness which helps up to apprehend our reality/object) it presents as a continum, or always on.
We simply have no function which allows for us to perceive not on.

But to take then awareness as being always on...conflicts with our observations on how awareness always functions...which is in relationship to object.....always.
ONe could hypotheise such a state, but such would have to conflict with how awareness works and hence consciousness which has a base in aware function.

Imagine consciousness as being a exercise in understanding or comprehending. Each aspect of awareness purely understood is with only one intent...to comprehend. We discriminate aspect, we see commonality in aspect, we see intention in object we see object acting as other object to understand we must habitate object or see how its action is commonly seen to be other things we may have known so we can then apprehend object and say....well it is like this..hence habitual consciousness base in aware aspect....and on and on.

So seen that way the delusion is not in its being on or not on but in how we find it to be conflicting with how we think it to be. So we take it to be always on as we have a habit of it being always on.

Logically it is contrindicated.

I would not state we cannot as sentient being with consciousness develope a always on in a functional sense in that habitual aspect can internalize and conceptualize object so a continum of consciouness can present in some form...But that doesn't detract from the reality of awareness requireing object to become aware of.

Hence to my opinion why we do not rebirth immediately. A evolution of habitual retentitive aspect of consciousness is occuring in relationship to its last moment of perceived life. So we rebirth only when concluded and aspect no longer provides object and thusly rebirth when circumstance precipitates that particular consciousnesses production or appearence. In whatever realm to which by circumstance it is exactly suited to appear. Not on the basis of consciousness being always on but on the basis of evolution of consciousness which then fits exactly its next precipitation.

Purely seen with awareness in directly understood realtionship to object presented it is not that neigher exists nor that such a being does not exist or that it necessarily always exists it is that when it exists awareness it exists in relationship to what is being cognicized. Self cognition....certainly.
Consciousnesses aspect varying would speak to that. So functionally permanant
not actually permanent.

What the difference.....self holds onto continum as self continum. It is not so.
A bundle of understanding would be more like it. Correctly or incorrectly apprehending bundle.
But not with aspect that cannot be found in reality, a always on or aware aspect that apprehends objects which do not exist. Functionally always on, but like water being always wet that indciator does indicate we will always find water or that water is everywhere. In our reality we will always find water. The most we can rationally say is it is always wet.....that is the most we can really say when we find water.
So aware aspect is found not always on as our realtiy speaks to a off. If we could ever produce a realm with no on. We cannot. If we could we could not remember it. No basis would exist for its rememberence.

On such a basis...l can never rebirth. The circumstance of I could replicate and I present as such. No I would ever rebirth. If one existed....the second I would have to exclude the first or the first second...never could both exist in the manner of sameness, same space. Different spaces a thousand perhaps exactly equal circumstances or close enough for city work to be considered exactly equal in presentation....certainly...happens all the time I would assume. Hence dopplegangers antimatter universes and matter universes and all the rest and multiple emenations of a buddha....I conjecture. Everything speaks to a grand grand scale to this thing. Our conceptions only speak to the small.

Which is why to my view when presented with the view only in part to a member of the royal court by Padmesambhava years ago she fainted dead away....it is so large if fully apprehended it would blow us apart. We prevent that occurance as it speaks against a singular identity which is what fuels our delusion and creates our existance in this realm. We create a reality perception which affirms and never denies our singular nature....our realm and all that presents within it. It presents in this fashion as it reflects our believing it to be so..this reflects our belief as how things are not as they are. As they are is empty....to every extent.

[termite]

I don't know about termites last statement.

Just pointing to the nature of the relationship between consciousness/object and what follows from it. Rebirth is the process of "breaking apart" that co-arisen phenomenon into seer and seen. It is "becoming."

(And, to conebeckham: If there were 'nonreferential "awareness"' it would be necessary for it to be an object -- and thus a "reference" -- in order to be seen. "Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

[Ogyen]

Just pointing to the nature of the relationship between consciousness/object and what follows from it. Rebirth is the process of "breaking apart" that co-arisen phenomenon into seer and seen. It is "becoming."

(And, to conebeckham: If there were 'nonreferential "awareness"' it would be necessary for it to be an object -- and thus a "reference" -- in order to be seen. "Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

Very astute and clear point, termite! I'm impressed.

[termite]

"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind.

Gotta remember to keep up my image...

[Ogyen]

"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind.

Gotta remember to keep up my image...

actually, you had me at "Tapeworm Soup"...

[termite]

"Astute" and "termite" in the same sentence! It boggles the mind.

Gotta remember to keep up my image...

actually, you had me at "Tapeworm Soup"...

It's an old family recipe.

[conebeckham]

Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

[shel]

"Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

The Magic of Me - good title for a children's book.

[termite]

Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me.

[termite]

"Dual" and "non-dual" don't apply to consciousness/object, because they are not separate in the first place; it's the making of a "me" that creates the illusory separation.)

The Magic of Me - good title for a children's book.

Hi, Mommy, I'm home! Today in art class we made a Me out of Mud. And Billy threw Becky's Me at the wall, and the teacher made him clean it up.

[shel]

Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me.

Is that a problem?

[termite]

Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

"Beyond" sounds a bit dualistic to me.

Is that a problem?

I don't know. I don't know where "beyond" is. If "beyond" is part of "dualistic 'mind consciousness'" then it isn't somewhere else, is it?

I think whatever problem there is, it is in meaning not getting across from one internet poster to another. Namely, I'm not sure what we're talking about any more.

[muni]

Nice to read here down. Termite, where is beyond? Like that rebirth reflected in narrowness results only in rejecting and accepting. Ah, what! Makes no any change! Natures' law and what is called rebirth, just is so in labeling by dream habits. But to be freed of these, beyond conceptual mind the stream of samsaric rebirths stop.

Or (figurative temporary vision) it must be like my dog who was looking football. He followed such little fellow running behind a ball and disappearing in the right corner down the screen. He directly looked under the TV table where that thing was gone. There must be something "out" of nature like it is, which disappears, out of processes or ends in continuum.

This is (a bit out of topic) shining through offered posts:

"I don't value high positions, I like low ones.
The lowest place is the seat of the saints of the past". Patrul Rinpoche.

Thank you. Okay, give me some of that soup.

[Individual]

Perhaps this is "Hinayana" here, but...

I think that rebirth is more clearly understood in phenomenological terms, as one's own direct experience of the present, rather than objective, scientific terms, as the cause & effect of life and death.

The latter seems like it's wrapped up with eternalism, self-view, and reincarnation theories, but the former is immediately accessible and with the post-mortem state, it's merely a toss-up; although there's no reason to doubt that the vehicle of experience is somehow fundamentally different from the present one, except with regards to the mechanisms through which it can be expressed.

[5heaps]

I think that rebirth is more clearly understood in phenomenological terms, as one's own direct experience of the present, rather than objective, scientific terms, as the cause & effect of life and death.

does buddhism assert that mere mind is equivalent to biological life and death? i would say they cant since by definition mind is one heap and physical form is another heap.

what we do say though is that the cessation of both the physical and mental heaps is what is named "death", whereas science currently might say that there is just physical matter which deteriorates.

[muni]

"To remain undistracted right now practicing Dharma through the rolling train of life is the way to respect rebirth.
By merely reading and rejecting laws of nature, we are like an elephant running through a small shopping street, having all knowledge in plastic bags, while forgetting impermanence, interdependency and no any solidness to grasp to. We forget breath is not independent. " By a simple being.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Sakya Trizin expressed it a bit the same: "Your present life is just one life, future lives are inummerable.
Do not sacrifice so many lives to your illusionary being and its' welbeing".

[Individual]

"To remain undistracted right now practicing Dharma through the rolling train of life is the way to respect rebirth.
By merely reading and rejecting laws of nature, we are like an elephant running through a small shopping street, having all knowledge in plastic bags, while forgetting impermanence, interdependency and no any solidness to grasp to. We forget breath is not independent. " By a simple being.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and Sakya Trizin expressed it a bit the same: "Your present life is just one life, future lives are inummerable.
Do not sacrifice so many lives to your illusionary being and its' welbeing".

Both are well-said.

Rather than focusing on what's true, I also think it's easier to understand rebirth if we understand what it's not.

It's not eternalism or annihilationism. I think some people are very self-deceptive in how they define those two terms. Some Buddhists might think "agnosticism," isn't connected to annihilationist biases, while others may try to sneak in some kind eternal non-dual transcendental mind object or process which isn't a self, but actually is, not seeing that this is a form of eternalist bias too.

For instance, I could dispute something like this:

Forget "nonreferential awareness" then, and let's substitute "nonreferential awakeness."

My point being, there is something there beyond the dualistic "mind consciousness"--

There is no "thing" I know beyond samsara (if you do, can you prove it? ) and everything in samsara is dependent and impermanent, even the highest states of blissful non-dual awareness. Whatever is subject to arising is subject to cessation. If it can be gained, it can be lost. And if it can be lost, there is suffering.

[conebeckham]

What about Buddhahood, or the Dharmakaya, then?

You will doubtless say they are not "things," .....but what are things? What is mind? A Thought?