On Rebirth - Is it the same guy?

[krodha]

You seem to be opting for a no self. Isn't there room for a non-self?

What about our Buddhanature....

“Non-self,” “not-self” and “the Buddha never said there is no self” are Thanissaro Bikkhu’s ideas. He treats anātman as an apophatic exercise, rather than what it actually is: a dharma seal. Many Theravadins parrot him and spread these misconceptions around the Internet.

[undefineable]

Nothing transfers from this life to the next. Not even traces, karma or anything else.

Does anything even transfer within lives? Might it be 'enlightening' (with a very small 'e' .. ) to imagine the skandhas+nidanas becoming 'shaken up' between lives - or perhaps thawed before freezing again-?

[Supramundane]

Supramundame, please don't hijack. There is no self.

Sorry, sorry:)

[Virgo]

The real fun part is reading down a list of enlightened individuals and figuring out the who's who of who's not who.

Virgo

[Malcolm]

Nothing transfers from this life to the next. Not even traces, karma or anything else.

Does anything even transfer within lives? Might it be 'enlightening' (with a very small 'e' .. ) to imagine the skandhas+nidanas becoming 'shaken up' between lives - or perhaps thawed before freezing again-?

Nothing transfers from this moment to the next moment, but the aggregates are serially connected, all the down.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Nothing transfers from this life to the next. Not even traces, karma or anything else.

Does anything even transfer within lives? Might it be 'enlightening' (with a very small 'e' .. ) to imagine the skandhas+nidanas becoming 'shaken up' between lives - or perhaps thawed before freezing again-?

Nothing transfers from this moment to the next moment, but the aggregates are serially connected, all the down.

It’s like a contagious yawn.
You see someone yawn and then you yawn.
There’s no yawn passed from person to person,
Yet one yawn becomes the impetus for the one that follows.

[undefineable]

Supramundame, please don't hijack. There is no self.

Sorry, sorry:)

Er... It's probably safely apophatic(...) to say that other 'things' (for want of a better word), yet to be truly clarifed (without long experience in meditation), are going on in the places where 'self' fails to appear.

Yes, mistaking alaya as a self is an error.

This (to my somewhat limited understanding of alaya) reminds me of my mid-childhood impression of people as 'strands of consciousness' -Penetrates a little deeper than the standard "personality = person = you" nonsense, but besides imaging an eternal continuity, it doesn't make the world (as contrasted with 'consciousness') seem a very welcoming place. I wouldn't recommend it

Malcolm, thanks for your answers. Many people (thinking of the writer of this post in particular...) haven't had the inclination to learn how to tell their skandhas from their nidanas, but there comes a time to learn

[Schrödinger’s Yidam]

(Sorry… that was a rhetorical question.
I should have simply said, “otherwise there would be no difference between alaya vijnana and atma”)

Yes, mistaking alaya as a self is an error.

I remember Conze saying that the Pali practitioners did indeed accuse Mahayanists of introducing Atman into the Teachings. According to Conze they thought it was heresy. So yes, that objection is seen and shared.

However my understanding of the difference between the two is in the definition of Atman. Atman is something that passes between lives that doesn’t change. The 8th consciousness is infinitely mutable, and since it is changeable it does not meet the definition of Atman.

The confusion comes from not making a distinction between continuity and consistency. There is continuity, hence the ability to remember past lives, etc. However there is no consistency, no limitation of something unchanging about how the being manifests. The previous Kalu R made the point by giving the example of a being reincarnating as an elephant, a bird, and then a fish. If “elephant-ness” carried over to the bird it would be too heavy to fly. If “bird-ness” carried over to the fish it would drown. Having an Atman (something unchanging) would limit how much the being could change. There’s no such limitation on the process or the being. In fact the beings nature is freedom. Atman would limit that.

[Padmist]

To Malcolm: Thanks for helping me, your non-student student.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Nothing transfers from this moment to the next moment, but the aggregates are serially connected, all the down.

1. The question for a lot of people, I think, is how do subjective value judgements apply, for example, that greed and anger are ‘negative’ things (or even that they are things at all) when there is no subjective ‘self’ actually involved.

2. One can think of the aggregates as say, a box of clothes, a uniform or costume for example, which has no “atma” owner, ultimately just pieces of sewn fabric. They only arise as the identity of a wearer when someone wears them. But what is that “someone”?

3. If a toddler, a suspected tulku perhaps, recognizes a string of beads that belonged to someone else who has died, and says, “these are mine” how does that work when, without a ‘self’ or truly existent “me” involved as a prerequisite, (something that carries over from one life to the next) that “mine” is an impossibility?

[seeker242]

What about #3?

Neither the same person, nor a different person.

[fckw]

Great. So characteristics carried through? Can we say then that Padmist is a totally different new persona and not in any way connected to that goat who died except that goats karma/characteristics/habits got transferred to the newly born guy (Padmist)?

No, you cannot say that.

No entity passes from this life to the next, but the aggregates of the life are serially connected to the aggregates of the next, so there is a continuum.

Buddhists rarely discuss whether the continuum or the aggregates are eternal or not, have an identity or not, or are subjected to time or not.

Because if the continuum is not eternal then every now and then someone would not be reborn, that is cause and effect would be disrupted. And this not at all due to reaching enlightenment.

Or if the continuum is not subjected to time then you could be reborn in the past.

And so on. Plenty of logical loopholes. I personally consider this to be simply metaphysical speculation, quite comparable to the number of angels on the tip of a knife.

[Malcolm]

Great. So characteristics carried through? Can we say then that Padmist is a totally different new persona and not in any way connected to that goat who died except that goats karma/characteristics/habits got transferred to the newly born guy (Padmist)?

No, you cannot say that.

No entity passes from this life to the next, but the aggregates of the life are serially connected to the aggregates of the next, so there is a continuum.

Buddhists rarely discuss whether the continuum or the aggregates are eternal or not, have an identity or not, or are subjected to time or not.

That’s just not true. They are beginningless, momentary, identyless, and subject to time.

[Malcolm]

3. If a toddler, a suspected tulku perhaps, recognizes a string of beads that belonged to someone else who has died, and says, “these are mine” how does that work when, without a ‘self’ or truly existent “me” involved as a prerequisite, (something that carries over from one life to the next) that “mine” is an impossibility?

Even tenth stage bodhisattvas have enough of a trace of the knowledge obscuration to have not discarded the habit of imputing a nonexistent “I” onto their aggregates, when not resting in equipoise on emptiness. This is much stronger on the lower bhumis.

Basically, the yogacarins assert a carrier medium, the alaya. This is rejected by Madhyamaka.

[undefineable]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/alaya-vijnana

It seems the alaya is also subject to change... {"it's turtles all the way down" if we're not careful I guess[?]}

All this begs the question (given that impression Buddhist doctrine can give of asserting a timeless backdrop to object-consciousness) of where the Buddhist picture of 'primordial awareness' fit into the picture. Skandhas purified of Self-concept perhaps?

[Malcolm]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/alaya-vijnana

It seems the alaya is also subject to change... {"it's turtles all the way down" if we're not careful I guess[?]}

All this begs the question (given that impression Buddhist doctrine can give of asserting a timeless backdrop to object-consciousness) of where the Buddhist picture of 'primordial awareness' fit into the picture. Skandhas purified of Self-concept perhaps?

What do you mean by “primordial awareness?” It’s not at all clear. Ye shes?

[undefineable]

What do you mean by “primordial awareness?” It’s not at all clear. Ye shes?

I meant the quality of being aware - "before" (-behind which-) it becomes awareness/consciousness of some particular thing. My point being that it can be unclear (at least with some authors) whether Buddhism accepts any such thing - despite the kind of 'objectless' meditation typical in the Mahayana at least.

'Ye shes' sounds more particular to enlightened consciousness. And as for Rigpa... that's probably a bit beyond me, though others' mileage varies...

[Malcolm]

What do you mean by “primordial awareness?” It’s not at all clear. Ye shes?

I meant the quality of being aware - "before" (-behind which-) it becomes awareness/consciousness of some particular thing.

Doesn’t exist. Even the word does not permit it. Consciousness is always with objects.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Nothing transfers from this moment to the next moment, but the aggregates are serially connected, all the down.

Can you talk more about this here “serially connected” business? What does that mean?

[Malcolm]

Nothing transfers from this moment to the next moment, but the aggregates are serially connected, all the down.

Can you talk more about this here “serially connected” business? What does that mean?

It means that the aggregates are a continuous steam of momentary events, the preceding moment being the cause of the next, hence they are serially connected. This is stated quite clearly by Nāgārjuna in the Verses on Dependent Origination. He writes:

6) Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing has transfers.

Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, perception, formations, and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next.