Rebirth and endless time

[Sherab]

We are then back to the problem of beginningless causality-chain.
Why would a beginningless causality be a problem? There is samsara without a beginning, consciousness without beginning, ignorance without beginning. That is, there has never been a first moment of delusion, a creation, a start of existence, a source.

As indicated in an earlier post, beginningless causality is an explanation based on infinite regress. Such explanations by its very nature, can never be a complete explanation.

[Sherab]

Norman,
What do you mean dharmas are not in time? What about their basic description of them being momentary and in that momentariness they have the phases of arising and disappearing?

Hi Astus,

You quoted Nagarjuna earlier:

Nagarjuna says (MMK 11.1-2):
"When asked, “is a before-extreme evident?” the great Muni said, “it is not.” Samsara has no beginning, no end; it has no before, no after. For that without beginning [and] end, where can a middle be in that? Therefore, it is not possible for it to have before, after, and simultaneous phases."

If you agree with Nagarjuna's argument, then there can be no real moments and no real momentariness, since the same argument about the impossibility of a before, after and simultaneous phase is applicable to moments as well.

[Astus]

"Such explanations by its very nature, can never be a complete explanation."

Sorry, but this is just repeating that it is a problem and not answering why it is a problem.

"If you agree with Nagarjuna's argument, then there can be no real moments and no real momentariness, since the same argument about the impossibility of a before, after and simultaneous phase is applicable to moments as well."

Ultimately not even dharmas exist, so they can't be outside of time. Conventionally, however, the Abhidharma system is not at fault. An important difference between Madhyamaka and Abhidharma teachings is how the two truths are defined. In Abhidharma the dharmas are ultimate, in Madhyamaka dharmas are conventional only. However, being conventional doesn't mean it is non-existent or not true at all.

[Jnana]

In Abhidharma the dharmas are ultimate, in Madhyamaka dharmas are conventional only. However, being conventional doesn't mean it is non-existent or not true at all.

Yes, without employing the conventional teachings the ultimate cannot be realized. All Indian mādhyamikas have emphasized this.

Also, as Astus has implied, there is nothing wrong with accepting momentary phenomena as a true convention. This is accepted by mādhyamikas who accept the convention of yogic perception (yogipratyakṣa) as yogic conventional truth (in contrast to worldly conventions).

All the best,

Geoff

[muni]

Endless time. Allow me: Time exists?
Time exists out of mental construction - constructed, cultivated, explained dharmas?

[Sherab]

Astus,

"Such explanations by its very nature, can never be a complete explanation."

Sorry, but this is just repeating that it is a problem and not answering why it is a problem.

Incompleteness of answer as the answer to "What is the prior cause?" is always "prior cause(s)". So there can be no end to the questioning and therefore no end to the answering.

You wrote earlier

What do you mean dharmas are not in time? What about their basic description of them being momentary and in that momentariness they have the phases of arising and disappearing?

So I replied
"If you agree with Nagarjuna's argument, then there can be no real moments and no real momentariness, since the same argument about the impossibility of a before, after and simultaneous phase is applicable to moments as well." meaning that there is no real dharmas and no real time.

Then you replied:

Ultimately not even dharmas exist, so they can't be outside of time.

Now, I don't know what you are actually asking.

[Astus]

Sherab,

This is not a series of questions about what was before or after but a system of dependent origination which is simply a universal law stating that things arise dependently and not without a cause, from which comes there is no first cause existing without a cause of its own, consequently mind-streams are eternal.

Ultimately dharmas don't exist, just like anything else, but then, there is the conventional existence of the dharmas. It is exactly because of being conventional that ultimately they're not established and empty.

[norman]

The declaration that objects are void or empty has got nothing to do with the objects themselves, they were never there to be emptied in the first place. It's a technique whereby we are told how to perceive.

'Conventional existence' is not to be regarded objectively, as pointing towards an objective fact. That is having it the wrong way round. The Prajnaparamita sutras go on and on about it. What we regard as the conventional is not infact that at all.

”Where there arises an act of consciousness which has none of the
skandhas for objective support, there the non-viewing of form, etc.,
takes place. But just this non-viewing of the skandhas is the viewing
of the world. That is the way in which the world is viewed by that
Tathagata.”

- Prajnaparamita in 8000 lines

When Form is absent as the concept of itself, we have the very voidness it is void of. This ”voidness” is the ”non-viewing of the skandhas [which is] the viewing of the world”, and that is ”the way in which the world is viewed by that Tathagata”. Perceiving the world via the skandhas, accepting them as such, is imaginative nonsense, because it has no objective basis. It's a child of a barren woman.

In effect the sutra is saying: "When there is perception, not on behalf of what we regard as "conventional existence", but of the conceptual absence of that (its non-viewing), we have the "presence" of the absence of conventional existence (the act of consciousness without objective support), which is what conventional existence is. Just this non-viewing of the conventional existence is the viewing of conventional existence."

The same could be said about the dharmas, which are also treated as objective concepts. As objects they rise, abide, etc, but that's not how we're suppose to view them at all.

Sherab,

This is not a series of questions about what was before or after but a system of dependent origination which is simply a universal law stating that things arise dependently and not without a cause, from which comes there is no first cause existing without a cause of its own, consequently mind-streams are eternal.

Ultimately dharmas don't exist, just like anything else, but then, there is the conventional existence of the dharmas. It is exactly because of being conventional that ultimately they're not established and empty.

[Ogyen]

small doubt, small realization
great doubt, great realization.

[mudra]

Just to go back to the OP, and some of the replies - I'm a little confused by the way some of these terms seem to be used interchangeably. To my understanding, cyclic existence=samsara, and is not the exactly the same as dependent arising even though it arises dependently.

If we were to look at impermanent phenomena, which of course arise dependently, we would find:
1. some that have no beginning and no end (from Mahayana pov: eg mind streams/mental continuums)
2. some that have a beginning and an end (our physical bodies sure fit this one)
3. have no beginning but an end (eg samsaric cyclic existence, ignorance etc)
4. have a beginning but no end (eg liberation, Buddhahood, death)

referring back to a portion of the quote:

but still I say, there is no making an end of
suffering for those beings roaming and wandering on hindered by ignorance and fettered by
craving."
Samyutta Nikaya 22.99

Back to the discussion about time - which basically is just a measuring system for change, or if we wanted to be a bit more to the point - a mental construct that isapplied to intervals. Change/impermanence doesn't stop, so time continues to be somewhat relevant. When we start trying to find a beginning or end to time itself as that which determines the cause/effect, existence/non-existence of phenomena it starts to get a little silly.

[ground]

small doubt, small realization
great doubt, great realization.

Ven. Huifeng wrote:

it appeared that there was a fair amount of confusion, mainly about reading 疑情 yiqing as "doubt" which was mistakenly considered the opposite of 信 xin "faith / confidence".

viewtopic.php?p=23811#p23811

Kind regards

[Aemilius]

Just to go back to the OP, and some of the replies - I'm a little confused by the way some of these terms seem to be used interchangeably. To my understanding, cyclic existence=samsara, and is not the exactly the same as dependent arising even though it arises dependently.

I agree that it is an important point to say that dependent arising is not equal to cyclic existence. But what are your sources for saying that ?

[Rael]

there was mind.
desire was produced.
samsara grew.
it hurts....



get it right again and blow it all out and enter Nirvana.


heh heh heh....< arrogant snickers........

[Aemilius]

there was mind.
desire was produced.
samsara grew.
it hurts....



get it right again and blow it all out and enter Nirvana.


heh heh heh....< arrogant snickers........

Buddhism generally refutes the idea of there being just "mind".
Mind does not have absolute or independent existenece.
I'm so humble I can say this to you.

[mudra]

Just to go back to the OP, and some of the replies - I'm a little confused by the way some of these terms seem to be used interchangeably. To my understanding, cyclic existence=samsara, and is not the exactly the same as dependent arising even though it arises dependently.

I agree that it is an important point to say that dependent arising is not equal to cyclic existence. But what are your sources for saying that ?

Well it is my understanding that the term cyclic existence is used for samsara in most English language translations of Buddhist dharma - correct me if it is not. For example the following quotation from an English language translation of Nagarjuna's Letter to Friend:

Cyclic existence is like that; birth-
Whether in the lands of deities and humans, hell beings,
Hungry ghosts, or animals - is not auspicious.
Understand that birth is a vessel of much harm

If it is so, then samsaric existence is definitely not the entire scope of dependent arising. The 12 links of dependent arising refer specifically to samsaric existence, but they do not present the entire scope of existence. Buddhas for example have arisen dependent on causes (purification, accumulation etc) - are Buddhas samsaric? Are non-sentient existences samsaric?

The definition of samsara is to arise with aggregates/skandhas conditioned by klesha and karma.
Stones and other inanimate objects do not arise conditioned by klesha and karma but arise dependently nonetheless. These phenomena arise and disintegrate but are not cyclical in the sense that sentient beings are.

[Rael]

there was mind.
desire was produced.
samsara grew.
it hurts....



get it right again and blow it all out and enter Nirvana.


heh heh heh....< arrogant snickers........

Buddhism generally refutes the idea of there being just "mind".
Mind does not have absolute or independent existenece.
I'm so humble I can say this to you.

Yeah i grapple with this....thanks for lending a hand....
I view Samsara as something that is created due to karma and desire.

We are all self created so to speak...lost in samsara individuals appear and confuse everything even more...there is no soul...thats an edict....karma creating Samsara

take away all karma and there is no samsara and what is left, mind...???

independent existence or lack of or absolutes are all samsaric conventions. yes/ no?


"there being just mind " is spoken in samsaric idealism....yes / no ???

we can't define it for words ruin everything.....yes / no ?

but point we must.....

[Aemilius]

there was mind.
desire was produced.
samsara grew.
it hurts....



get it right again and blow it all out and enter Nirvana.


heh heh heh....< arrogant snickers........

Buddhism generally refutes the idea of there being just "mind".
Mind does not have absolute or independent existenece.
I'm so humble I can say this to you.

Yeah i grapple with this....thanks for lending a hand....
I view Samsara as something that is created due to karma and desire.

We are all self created so to speak...lost in samsara individuals appear and confuse everything even more...there is no soul...thats an edict....karma creating Samsara

take away all karma and there is no samsara and what is left, mind...???

independent existence or lack of or absolutes are all samsaric conventions. yes/ no?

Samsara doesn't have a beginning, there is no state before it. It is not in an absolute sense created by karma and desire.
Karma and desire rise out of ignorance, but neither ignorance does exist absolutely. If ignorance doesn't give rise to karmic action, consciousness, name and form, etc... it is not really there.

"Independent existence" etc... are a means of realizing the truth of samsara. When you see samsara you also see nirvana. In the Salistambha sutra Bhagavan Shakyamuni, while looking at a seedling of rice, says:" Whoever sees the dependent arising sees Buddha, the enlightened state", and fell silent.
The sutra then continues as a discussson between Sariputra and bodhisattva Maitreya about the meaning of this one sentence.

[Aemilius]

Yeah i grapple with this....thanks for lending a hand....
I view Samsara as something that is created due to karma and desire.

We are all self created so to speak...lost in samsara individuals appear and confuse everything even more...there is no soul...thats an edict....karma creating Samsara

take away all karma and there is no samsara and what is left, mind...???

independent existence or lack of or absolutes are all samsaric conventions. yes/ no?


"there being just mind " is spoken in samsaric idealism....yes / no ???

we can't define it for words ruin everything.....yes / no ?

but point we must.....

"There being just mind" is a comlex question. In the process of rebirth there are states like the four dhyana heavens, the four formless dhyana realms, and the antarabhava, or the state between death and new rebirth. In the human realm we see beings in them as having bodies made of radiance, or made of light. And in the formless dhyana realms beings are purely a state of absorption, in which they don't experience the passing of time at all. Meanwhile the worlds on lower planes of existence take form, develop, deteriorate, and dissolve into emptiness,... But still these realms of formlessness are created through meditative effort in a human like level of existence, and thus they do not exist by themselves.
I have been told by Ringu Tulku, and by others experienced in meditation, that seeing deva realms etc.. as kind of "ethereal" is a mistaken view. These states are similar to the human state, they are equally true and real. Human body is not material in an absolute sense. Seeing matter as truly existent is ignorance, it is not seing the truth of "matter".

[Rael]

Samsara doesn't have a beginning, there is no state before it. It is not in an absolute sense created by karma and desire.
Karma and desire rise out of ignorance, but neither ignorance does exist absolutely. If ignorance doesn't give rise to karmic action, consciousness, name and form, etc... it is not really there.

"Independent existence" etc... are a means of realizing the truth of samsara. When you see samsara you also see nirvana. In the Salistambha sutra Bhagavan Shakyamuni, while looking at a seedling of rice, says:" Whoever sees the dependent arising sees Buddha, the enlightened state", and fell silent.
The sutra then continues as a discussson between Sariputra and bodhisattva Maitreya about the meaning of this one sentence.

I don't believe there any texts on this subject of beginning and no end by the Buddha, or Mahayana Teachers.


As per no texts on the Primordial Buddha, The Tulku when asked verified he found no texts and that it was so long ago everyone that is around has forgotten or were not around....his words......"The verdict is still out on this one"

I just assume a time before Samsara....for me ....why??....cause i believe there will be a day when everyone is liberated and Avolikiteshvara can enter Nirvana...and that at one time this state that will be ,was already.......and desire crept in and it all started to be created......and as the karma got produced it got bigger and bigger and more individuals appeared due to this Karma ...and on and on and on......
My take!
My Big Grapple...lol


thats the big grapple....lol......

[Rael]

"There being just mind" is a comlex question. In the process of rebirth there are states like the four dhyana heavens, the four formless dhyana realms, and the antarabhava, or the state between death and new rebirth. In the human realm we see beings in them as having bodies made of radiance, or made of light. And in the formless dhyana realms beings are purely a state of absorption, in which they don't experience the passing of time at all. Meanwhile the worlds on lower planes of existence take form, develop, deteriorate, and dissolve into emptiness,... But still these realms of formlessness are created through meditative effort in a human like level of existence, and thus they do not exist by themselves.
I have been told by Ringu Tulku, and by others experienced in meditation, that seeing deva realms etc.. as kind of "ethereal" is a mistaken view. These states are similar to the human state, they are equally true and real. Human body is not material in an absolute sense. Seeing matter as truly existent is ignorance, it is not seing the truth of "matter".

all those Realms are Samsaric. Only a Buddhahood state can be labeled non Samsaric.....

which ties in to my prevoius post off of you...


by the way you help me think....thanks for that.....your good.....and i would be more than willing and thankful to be able to see things differently ...that is, if what i say is obscured or not.....


this view has not always been so for me....