Buddhism on the topic of Death

[hamsterdance]

I just read an article and am a bit confused about how the Buddha explained death and rebirth. Here's the article link:

http://aryan-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012/07/4-absolute-truth-of-metaphysics-damn.html

If I am reading this article correctly it sounds like this unborn citta (mind?) thinks it resides inside brains and at death when the brain consciousness disappears mind stands alone with no need for any kind of skanda contact again as it always did (still does?). Meditation is trying to realize it doesn't need all this skanda biz or the Alaya Vinana. Although I admit to this day I'm still unclear as to exactly *what* an Alaya Vinana is since apparently it's not some kind of permanent soul-Self. Which - come to think of it - does in a way make sense. If it *were* a soul-Self that would imply the possibility of a separate existence from all other sentient beings with no way for Dependent Arising to "do it's thang". Except to me - that article sounds like it's implying there is a True Self and it's this Citta.


However, I'm still confused as to what happens at death. I'd always thought that Buddhism taught one's consciousness disintegrates at death. Hence the constant need to work while one is alive to meditate and practice virtue. I guess I have a tendency to equate awareness with consciousness because I have never experienced awareness in any other way. So to me when Buddha says consciousness ends...well...to me that sounds like he's saying it's ALL OVER. Man...absolutely nothing will remain to even be Ignorant to Rebirth. Kind of like how most non-Buddhist atheists think that when you die that's IT. There is nothing left. No citta, no awareness, no mind, no matter, no skandas, no...nothing. Absolute anihilation. Ok I guess that's a hold over from my days as a hardcore atheist as I still kind of wonder if that is what happens. I mean...the Buddha was big on teaching impermanence. I've seen arguments online between Buddhists and Hindus on exactly this subject with each side saying the other is wrong on exactly what the Buddha meant with his teachings of impermanence.

I just really don't understand what the Buddha taught on the subject of death and what happens after (if anything).

If I then try to say OK this citta must be this One that is talked about in so many traditions - call it Dharmakaya, the Tao...whatever. But then...I read the Buddha teaches there is no one single entity who is the "Supreme Creator". Unless maybe *everybody's* actions all together amalgamate to be this "supreme creator" (am I understanding dependent arising right?). Is there some sort of Sutta or Sutra where the Buddha addresses exactly this subject? The subject of what happens at death?

I just go in loops trying to understand this cause certain Buddhist's I've talked to said you must get Right View correct FIRST or you will not be liberated and all your meditating will be in vain.

[hamsterdance]

I am also curious about that blogger's reply to someone who said he was reading Uzdavinys. I had been considering getting some of Uzdavinys' books.

The more I read this Aryan Buddhism blog the more confused I am about what it is that the Buddha actually taught. What is getting purified via meditation?

http://aryan-buddhism.blogspot.com/2012 ... greek.html

His reply:

First off, you ought to stop yourself from going further on this train of thought. Before you know it you may end up suffering a far worse inner state than the webmaster here.

While Philosophy And Theurgy is informative, it unfortunately pimps the traditionalist view, which is sickening. They view the individual as little more than an unfortunate necessity emanated from the One to which he will one day return. The webmaster at Kathodos also subscribes to this view and sees embodiment just as cynically (likely because he has never known true friendship, family, or racial kinship). His argument against modern buddhism, which is honorable, is all for nothing in the end. Whether he argues against the modern interpretation of anatta or not, his metaphysical understanding tells him that the individual amounts to nothing because he is anihilated post-mortem having realized his inner-most self as the One and (only) God. Ultimately, he shares the bed with the same atheistic liberal buddhists that he fights against. This "oneness" subtext is frankly a destructive current not only destroying the individual, but the entire world.

The traditionalists have never been able to fight their way out of the reality of the "other" or the "thou" which makes the "One" truly whole and able to be beheld. Without this "other" there is no "One" only an impersonal blob that cannot know even itself. Hence this bi-unity of the individual (wholly separate yet wholly God) is an eternal reality. In other words, the individual is an eternal theophany of the One that once unleashed from that uncondtioned One can NEVER be reduced back to its original state. If that weren't true, the very multiverse, from gross to subtle would collapse.

[Nothing]

From your OP, this is the most interesting bit at the very end:

“There is, an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, and an unformed. If there were not monks, this unborn, unoriginated, unmade and unformed, there would be no way out for the born, the originated, the made and the formed.”

[lobster]

if a blog, dog or sutra causes pain
then loop elsewhere

In this we give birth to the karmic causes of a better life affirmation
Buddhism is not a death cult . . . unless we so choose . . .

[gregkavarnos]

Before getting worked up and confused about what "webmaster" is saying, ask yourself: "What are their qualifications for saying what they are saying? (ie are they qualified to be talking about the subject?) What is/are the source/s of what they are saying? (ie Are they just making it up? Are they talking from (enlightened) experience? Are they basing their views in scripture?)

[Seishin]

Taken from the blog:-

This blogs author is a Neoplatonic Platonist; such that to call oneself a “Buddhist” is self-degrading and implies superficial nihilistic Humanism. He is an expert in Neoplatonic Platonism, and utterly shuns modern ‘buddhism’ such that its connotation is spiritually and metaphysically negative.

Speaks for itself really