Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:05 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Posts: 1466
Location: Europe
Ah :smile:

_________________
Metta, Karuna, Mudita, Upekha
*** om vajra krodha hayagrīva hulu hulu hūm phat**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Posts: 2845
Seishin wrote:
I have a genuine question which I'm interested in hearing other peoples ideas and answers;

In the Sutras, Nirvana is described as a birthless/deathless beyond the realm of samsara of birth and death. I understand the 'moment-to-moment' idea of rebirth and that Nirvana, in this instance, is to be free from the changing clinging ego and is born and dies from 'moment-to-moment'. My question is though, with the above idea of rebirth, wouldn't death bring about 'Nirvana' (ie being free from the birth and death of the 'I' in moment-to-moment)?

Gassho,
Seishin


Again, the dilemma here is a subtle belief in the existence of a self.
Suppose you write a book, and the book is reprinted, and read by people for many years after you have died.
Did the book suddenly disappear when you died? Did the ideas you expressed in the book die?
No, they re-emerge in the mind of another person, the one who reads that book
because the causes are there for that to happen (more people are born and read, and more books are published, etc.)
But if those conditions do not arise, or if you had never written that book,
then that would not happen in the future.

Likewise, when you die, everything that you have "put into motion", so to speak,
continues as long as the conditions are there.
Some would argue that when the physical brain dies, then the conditions are not there.
That view is based on the idea that the elements in the physical brain cognitively witness their own chemical activity,
which is essentially saying that a the brain thinks, "I am a brain", except that it goes through the complicated process of creating a "me" character first.
A sort of performer, playing a role, who imagines possession of a brain and says "my brain".
It is the theory that the brain produces the experience of thought.
But if the brain produces the person, how can the person say '"my brain"?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?

It's like saying that the impersonal circuits and hard drive inside a computer
imagine themselves to be the user of the computer.
The brain certainly produces neurochemical interactions and electrical charges and so forth
that are experienced as sounds, as emotions, and as dreams and abstract ideas.
But who is the one interpreting that chemistry as "personal experience"?
This is the question Buddhism raises.
And it answers that nothing exists (meaning being an indivisible, finite cause)
which can be identified as that "who" .
It is merely the ground of awareness arising with phenomena
and when that awareness arises in a confused way, you have beings trapped in the samsaric projections of their own thoughts (which is the essence of karma)
And the thing to keep in mind is that karma and rebirth are only happening as aspects of confused mind.
When the mind is no longer confused,
and when awareness arises unobstructed, you have buddha.

"post mortem" rebirth means what?
the results of causes previously set into motion. That's all.
It's not 'reincarnation' of a self.
.
.
.

_________________
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.


Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:23 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am
Posts: 1468
And I don't disagree with that. But there are those who believe that this process continues after this formation of aggregates (ie Seishin) has dissolved, and there are those who believe that this process ceases to continue after this formation of aggregates has dissolved. I am asking, the second camp what they believe vis-a-vis my question regarding moment-to-moment nirvana.

_________________
http://tendaiuk.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Seishin wrote:

Probably no surprise, but this is how I've been taught also.

What I'm struggling with is if there is no post-mortem rebirth, and nirvana is being free from moment-to-moment rebirth, isn't death equivalent to nirvana in this instance?


Oh, now I follow you.

It seems to me that the teachings of karma & dependent origination fall apart entirely if one is completely unwilling to accept the possibility that there may exist something outside our very limited capacity to think and reason, which is to say, world systems apart from this one, lives beyond and before this one, &c.

But I'm not the one who needs to answer this question, as I'm not among the rebirth-deniers.

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 4:36 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:53 am
Posts: 1468
Yes, sorry for not making it clearer to start with :emb:

_________________
http://tendaiuk.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:15 am
Posts: 227
This seems like a go thread to post this.






Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:32 am
Posts: 9
Is being in a coma, where one has no consciousness proving that afterlife is fake? I am arguing with an atheist and he constantly keeps bringing up this point to prove that consciousness ceases after death.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:43 am 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
Sariputta wrote:
Is being in a coma, where one has no consciousness proving that afterlife is fake? I am arguing with an atheist and he constantly keeps bringing up this point to prove that consciousness ceases after death.



He has no idea if there's consciousness there or not, his whole argument rests on the conjecture that "consciousness" is only blips on a screen and measurable brain functions, a claim that has some serious holes philosophically.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 7:11 am
Posts: 614
Location: Oregon
Consciousness is one of the five skandhas, subject to impermanence, not-self, and suffering.

_________________
Namu Amida Butsu


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 2776
Quote:
Over at Dhamma Wheel someone wrote:

m0rl0ck wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-21098.html
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=14140&view=unread
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... #pid386773
Very likely, this is a drive by posting. Gandy will probably not again darken our door.


So gandy is an atheist spreading the Bad News :jumping: man thats hilarious.
Next theyll be going door to door in cheap suits :rofl:


Why is it that some atheists feel the need to proselytize? I know why Christians proselytize; they want to help people by saving them from the lake of fire. I know why Muslims proselytize; there are no infidels in paradise; but why would an atheist feel the need to proselytize? It is just this one life (according to them), who cares if people waster their time in churches, temples, mosques; what concern is it to them?

Because, some of them are quite evangelical about wanting to save us from the gods, buddhas and ceiling cats
Because, some of them care so much about truth and facts that they feel others should likewise too
Because, some of them want something to do on a Sat, Sun and public holiday
Because...

_________________
TWTB BIES OCB DDM BWF


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group