Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 9:07 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS wrote:
I like what Matthieu Ricard has to say about how in Buddhism - reincarnation is not the rebirth of the self :

...
As it’s said, “There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.”

Hear hear.

BFS wrote:
Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness. "

Isn't a "stream of consciousness" the "thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths"? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
TMingyur wrote:
BFS wrote:
I like what Matthieu Ricard has to say about how in Buddhism - reincarnation is not the rebirth of the self :

...
As it’s said, “There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.”

Hear hear.

BFS wrote:
Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness. "

Isn't a "stream of consciousness" the "thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths"? :lol:


You left out an important word, part of that sentence, again. :roll:

conditioning

Aw come on! Anyone can find something absurd if they pull out bits and pieces and create a position to argue against - a position that doesn't even exist. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
Gotta say, you keep me on my toes! :twothumbsup: :hug:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
BFS wrote:
I like what Matthieu Ricard has to say about how in Buddhism - reincarnation is not the rebirth of the self :

...
As it’s said, “There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.”

Hear hear.

BFS wrote:
Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness. "

Isn't a "stream of consciousness" the "thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths"? :lol:


You left out an important word, part of that sentence, again. :roll:

conditioning

Aw come on! Anyone can find something absurd if they pull out bits and pieces and create a position to argue against - a position that doesn't even exist. :lol:



Is he speaking of a "stream of consciousness" or not?

You want to express that "stream of consciousness" refers to one life only? It ends with death? Or is it intended to mean to connect different lives. If the latter then my ironic-humorous "argument" applies.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
Quote:
"TMingyur"


Is he speaking of a "stream of consciousness" or not?


No. He is speaking of the "conditioning of a stream of consciousness" :


:rolling: :rolling:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS wrote:
Quote:
"TMingyur"


Is he speaking of a "stream of consciousness" or not?


No. He is speaking of the "conditioning of a stream of consciousness" :


:rolling: :rolling:


C'mon be serious.

Conditioning, okay. If this "stream of consciousness" is limited to the present life what does that mean in the context of "rebirth" it is mentioned?

It reads:
"Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness."

Conditioning is maintained, okay. But is it one stream of consciousness "Over successive rebirths" that is conditioned or many consecutive "streams of consciousness"?

He speaks of one (singular) and this is exactly why his explantion is reificationist fostering the clinging of the "I" to a seemingly permanent phenomenon "stream of consciousness".

The point is: You cannot escape this trap as soon as you want to explain what cannot be explained.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
stream of consciousness (citta-samtana) is a name which refers to a whole continuous succession of mental events (cittas & caitasikas). Each of these events lies within a causal progression, one conditioning the next. It is not a single mind which continues for some period of time. Though the stream gives the appearance of a single thing which continues, no entity (mind or any other) continues, through causality is not lost. This applies from moment to moment whilst "alive", and also through the process called "death", those these only refer to the physical aggregates, whereas the mind is basically undergoing the same process continuously, all the time.

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
The two extreme views to be avoided are that there is an entity which continues through this, eg. a mind which experiences all this, or a soul, etc.; or that at some point, when the mind ceases (usually at physical "death"), the mind does not continue, but ends there.
These are eternalism and annihilism, respectively.

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
Huifeng wrote:
... succession of mental events (cittas & caitasikas).

This I find semantically preferable.

Problematic I also find the saying that "consciousness" is sort of a "carrier of karma" or karma being imprints in "mind" or "consciousness" because this somehow fosters the imagination of a continuous "entity" other than a mere "succession of events".

Seems it is all about language and perhaps individually different "feelings" about terms.

There seems to be sort of an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:06 pm 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Posts: 2995
Location: British Columbia
A pigeon once flew from my backyard to it's home in the woods. What transmigrated? Feathers, beak, claws, wings all have changed by the time they arrive. The thing called pigeon is not found in any of its parts and the parts themselves are composed of always changing parts. There is no part or whole there that has arrived unchanged, nothing that left that arrives.
However, there is no doubt that something similar to the original pigeon has indeed arrived in the woods.

_________________
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
BFS wrote:
Quote:
"TMingyur"


Is he speaking of a "stream of consciousness" or not?


No. He is speaking of the "conditioning of a stream of consciousness" :


:rolling: :rolling:


Matthieu Ricard, after saying this, as quoted in earlier post:

"First of all, it’s important to understand that what’s called reincarnation in Buddhism has nothing to do with the transmigration of some “entity” like an autonomous “self”. It’s not a process of metempsychosis.
As long as one thinks in terms of entities rather than function and continuity of experience, it’s impossible to understand the Buddhist concept of rebirth. As it’s said, “There is no thread passing through the beads of the necklace of rebirths.”
Over successive rebirths, what is maintained is not the identity of a “person,” but the conditioning of a stream of consciousness. "

goes on to say this:


"In conventional terms, we can talk about an “individual” consciousness, even if the individual doesn’t exist as an isolated entity. The fact that there’s no such discontinuous entity being transferred from one life to the next doesn’t mean that there can’t be a continuity of functioning and a particular history.

That the self has no true existence doesn’t prevent one particular stream of consciousness from having qualities that distinguish it from another stream. The fact that there’s no boat floating down the river doesn’t prevent the water from being full of mud, polluted by a paper factory, or clean and clear. The state of the river at any given moment is the result of its history. In the same way, an individual stream of consciousness is loaded with all the traces left on it by positive and negative thoughts, as well as by actions and words arising from those thoughts. What we’re trying to do by spiritual practice is to gradually purify the river.

The ultimate state of complete clarity is what we call spiritual realization. All the negative emotions, all the obscurations that render the underlying wisdom invisible, have then been dissolved. It’s not a question of annihilating the self, which has never really existed, but simply of uncovering its imposture. Indeed, if the self did have any intrinsic existence we’d never be able to bring it from existence into non-existence."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS

despite the many words and fabrications the most honest way of seeing it (because of being the only conventionally valid one) is that we will cease to exist upon dying. Period. Let's just accept this.
This does not touch that the Buddha taught "re-birth". Let's see it this way: The caring for the one who will be born is just the most straightforward way of practicing caring for others because it is the most intuitive approach to somehow connect to oneself through skillful means the phenomenon we want to engender the motivation to care for.
Shantideva took this approach and even pushed it further to its ultimate "limit" when teaching "exchanging self and other".

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
TMingyur

Your words
Quote:
"Lets just accept this / lets just see it this way"
- make no sense to me, but that's just me.

You are free to see things however you wish; I may often agree with what you say, I may at times not, but in the end, wax on friend. :thumbsup: Whatever bakes your cake and works for you, cutting through your mental afflictions, is fine by me.

There are different teachings and schools of thought in Buddhism because beings have different dispositions. I really don't think that we have to all agree on everything all of the time.

Thanks for your valuable input.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS wrote:
TMingyur

Your words
Quote:
"Lets just accept this / lets just see it this way"
- make no sense to me, but that's just me.

These sayings are expressions of my favoring non-speculation and valid conventional cognition.
Non-speculation is not everbody's cup of tea, I know.

BFS wrote:
I really don't think that we have to all agree on everything all of the time.

Actually I think that disagreement (in the sense of merely "not sharing the same view") is more helpful.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:17 pm
Posts: 317
Quote:
Non-speculation is not everbody's cup of tea, I know.


Wax on ;)


Quote:
Actually I think that disagreement (in the sense of merely "not sharing the same view") is more helpful.




Each to his/her own my good friend. I personally see no sense in endlessly pulling things apart just in order to avoid merely agreeing, or endlessly arguing just for arguments sake.
Now a good discussion for wisdoms sake? - That's interesting, that's sweet, that's unique, rare, totally powerful and supremely delightful. Imo, of course. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
BFS wrote:
Quote:
Actually I think that disagreement (in the sense of merely "not sharing the same view") is more helpful.



Each to his/her own my good friend. I personally see no sense in endlessly pulling things apart just in order to avoid merely agreeing, or endlessly arguing just for arguments sake.

Don't say this. There is a lot of sense in not finding anything to settle down. Why? Because there actually is nothing on which one may settle down that does not fade away anyway.

BFS wrote:
Now a good discussion for wisdoms sake? - That's interesting, that's sweet, that's unique, rare, totally powerful and supremely delightful. Imo, of course. :D

Wisdom is relative. And a "good discussion" is one without agreement. Why? Because agreement is necessarily based on misunderstanding because it is simply impossible that two minds have identical perception.

Kind regards


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
Dwelling in imagination in interdependency with concepts. take them for real and no wisdom can be. Lets fill our pockets with "correct" own clouds and remain suffering.

Rebirth: what is alive?

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
muni wrote:
... concepts. take them for real and no wisdom can be.

That's why the wise taught to not take them for real but to take them for conventionally true only if verified by valid cognition :)

muni wrote:
Rebirth: what is alive?

Is the one who asks that dead or alive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
What is the one who asks, the asking and the asked?
Momentary empty processes contain no one who is death or alive.
No accumulations of karmic ripening other than in deluded body speech and mind.

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 1782
muni wrote:
Momentary empty processes contain no one who is death or alive.
...What is the one who asks, the asking and the asked?

A being who prefers to call her-/himself "muni" and who would not be able to post if not alive.

muni wrote:
No accumulations of karmic ripening other than in deluded body speech and mind.

Is your posting based on "body speech and mind" deluded or not?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 129 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kunzang 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