another question about rebirth

[clyde]

I have a question about rebirth to help me understand how others understand it.

I’m reading Bhikkhu Analayo’s well-written book, “Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research”. I’ve read Part I. The Early Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth and Part II. Debates on Rebirth. It’s all quite interesting, very informative, especially about early Buddhism, and generally helpful. The book has helped me better, more deeply understand the terms mind stream, or continuum, or, as Bhikkhu Analayo presents it, “a process of being conscious” in the context of rebirth.

A question arose for me about how others understand those terms. Do you understand “a process of being conscious” (or any other such term) as without parts or compound with parts?

That’s it. That’s the question.



P.S: I agree with Bhikkhu Analayo when he states that while he is “sympathetic to the idea of rebirth,” he doesn’t view rebirth as a crucial issue and if rebirth wasn’t true (or for me, if my current understanding wasn’t true), it “would not result in a major change in my personal lifestyle and practice.”

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

I remember when I first encountered Buddhism my first teacher was a senior student of Ajahn Chah

I was reading Ajahn Chah in the park read about Samsara immediately couldn’t doubt it became certain of it.

As I practiced Karma and Rebirth just became obvious intuitively.

So I think it’s intuitive not intellectual but the more you practice the more obvious Karma is.

[PadmaVonSamba]

A question arose for me about how others understand those terms. Do you understand “a process of being conscious” (or any other such term) as without parts or compound with parts?

Parts may come and go, but it’s the flow of consciousness that drops off and then picks up again.

Like the flow of an ever changing river that drops over a waterfall, then picks up again down below.

[mikenz66]

I remember when I first encountered Buddhism my first teacher was a senior student of Ajahn Chah

I was reading Ajahn Chah in the park read about Samsara immediately couldn’t doubt it became certain of it.

As I practiced Karma and Rebirth just became obvious intuitively.

So I think it’s intuitive not intellectual but the more you practice the more obvious Karma is.

This sounds something like Bhikkhu Sujato’s conversation with Stephen Batchelor:

[Traditional Dhamma, Secular Dhamma - Stephen Batchelor and Bhante Sujato - YouTube]


There is an interesting contrast between Stephen’s denial of rebirth via logic and Bhikkhu Sujato’s comment that he became intuitively convinced of something bigger than one life in the car park of the leper colony south of Chiang Mai on Christmas day of 1992. You can watch about minutes 38 to 43 if you are in a hurry.

Mike

[Johnny Dangerous]

Its not a “thing” per se at all. It can’t be found, let alone taken apart.

[Malcolm]

A question arose for me about how others understand those terms. Do you understand “a process of being conscious” (or any other such term) as without parts or compound with parts?

The mind stream is a rosary of moments, empty and unceasing. It doesn’t cease even in buddhahood, but rebirth ceases because of liberation from afflictions.

[Malcolm]

P.S: I agree with Bhikkhu Analayo when he states that while he is “sympathetic to the idea of rebirth,” he doesn’t view rebirth as a crucial issue and if rebirth wasn’t true (or for me, if my current understanding wasn’t true), it “would not result in a major change in my personal lifestyle and practice.”

As already pointed out, and as Analayo points out, rebirth is the central issue the Buddha sought to address.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

I remember when I first encountered Buddhism my first teacher was a senior student of Ajahn Chah

I was reading Ajahn Chah in the park read about Samsara immediately couldn’t doubt it became certain of it.

As I practiced Karma and Rebirth just became obvious intuitively.

So I think it’s intuitive not intellectual but the more you practice the more obvious Karma is.

This sounds something like Bhikkhu Sujato’s conversation with Stephen Batchelor:

[Traditional Dhamma, Secular Dhamma - Stephen Batchelor and Bhante Sujato - YouTube]


There is an interesting contrast between Stephen’s denial of rebirth via logic and Bhikkhu Sujato’s comment that he became intuitively convinced of something bigger than one life in the car park of the leper colony south of Chiang Mai on Christmas day of 1992. You can watch about minutes 38 to 43 if you are in a hurry.

Mike

Looks interesting thanks Mike

[Matt J]

A lot of people don't like to hear this, but this is simply one of those things that is resolved not intellectually, but with instruction and practice over a long period of time.

[PadmaVonSamba]

this is simply one of those things that is resolved not intellectually

Because…?

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

this is simply one of those things that is resolved not intellectually

Because…?

It’s beyond the scope of the intellect

[PadmaVonSamba]

this is simply one of those things that is resolved not intellectually

Because…?

It’s beyond the scope of the intellect

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

Because…?

It’s beyond the scope of the intellect

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

Ok give me an intellectual answer that satisfies this problem of understanding karma and rebirth

To add, if you have an insight that is beyond the scope of the intellect it then become the domain of the intellect to think about. The intellect just deals with the senses it can’t go beyond itself.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It’s beyond the scope of the intellect

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

Ok give me an intellectual answer that satisfies this problem of understanding karma and rebirth

Okay. But first, tell me, are you talking about some kind of rebirth of a “self” or of that which is not a “self”?

“Self” here refers to an intrinsically existent being, one which arises outside of dependent origination.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

Ok give me an intellectual answer that satisfies this problem of understanding karma and rebirth

Okay. But first, tell me, are you talking about some kind of rebirth of a “self” or of that which is not a “self”?

“Self” here refers to an intrinsically existent being, one which arises outside of dependent origination.

Buddhism teaches Not Self so in terms of karma and rebirth. But it also teaches beings are owners and heirs to their Karma. So I would say while there’s no self there’s Karma owned by the continuum. At this point my intellect is struggling

Obviously for most Buddhists a sense of self pervades a lot of time but can’t be located or found if searched for.

[Nicholas2727]

It’s beyond the scope of the intellect

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

Ok give me an intellectual answer that satisfies this problem of understanding karma and rebirth

To add, if you have an insight that is beyond the scope of the intellect it then become the domain of the intellect to think about. The intellect just deals with the senses it can’t go beyond itself.

I can say for me personally listening to some of Alan Wallace's talks on consciousness and rebirth have helped me understand these ideas. Intellectually understanding it and experientially is different no doubt, but the intellectual/logic side of the arguments he brings forward helped clear away doubts for me.

[Nicholas2727]

This book could be of interest for some as well. I have not read it yet so I can't comment on it, but it seems like a great option to read.

https://www.shambhala.com/rebirth.html

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

Not necessarily, if one can satisfy oneself with an intellectual answer.

Ok give me an intellectual answer that satisfies this problem of understanding karma and rebirth

To add, if you have an insight that is beyond the scope of the intellect it then become the domain of the intellect to think about. The intellect just deals with the senses it can’t go beyond itself.

I can say for me personally listening to some of Alan Wallace's talks on consciousness and rebirth have helped me understand these ideas. Intellectually understanding it and experientially is different no doubt, but the intellectual/logic side of the arguments he brings forward helped clear away doubts for me.

I did think of one intellectual argument for it when the debate was on here before

The Dharma itself can’t be destroyed so there has to be a continuation so there can’t be annihilationism eaten by worms game over. But the argument leaves open eternalism which is also incorrect. Then you could talk about the illusory nature of things. Just something I thought of

[PadmaVonSamba]

Buddhism teaches Not Self so in terms of karma and rebirth. But it also teaches beings are owners and heirs to their Karma. So I would say while there’s no self there’s Karma owned by the continuum. At this point my intellect is struggling

Obviously for most Buddhists a sense of self pervades a lot of time but can’t be located or found if searched for.

One thing to consider is that (contrary to popular belief) karma isn’t a moral function. It’s not a system of rewards and punishments.

Anyway, getting back to an intellectual understanding of rebirth which is satisfactory, these are my arguments (based on Nagarjuna, et al):

I think that conclusions drawn from logical deduction sufficiently meet the criteria of an intellectual answer.

First (for the purpose of this discussion, anyway), let’s define rebirth as the arising of a particular steam of consciousness directly resulting from a specific previous stream of consciousness.

Also, let’s define ‘stream of consciousness’ as a succession of moments of awareness.

1. it can be argued that consciousness cannot arise out of a non-conscious base. For example, awareness cannot be spontaneously produced from water or salt or fat or amino acids (the composite elements of the brain).

2. it can be argued that any moment of awareness necessarily follows a previous moment of awareness.

3. it can be argued that since the physical body is constantly changing, that a flow of consciousness is not dependent on a consistent, unchanging physical body and thus not dependent on a physical body at all, even if what consciousness is aware of (objects of consciousness) are the sensory stimuli which depend on a changing physical body. (Included here since physical death of the body is generally the first hurdle to acknowledging rebirth).

Based on this, there is at least possibility that a continuing process of awareness beyond the extinction of the physical body is not only possible, but the best explanation for the arising of consciousness in the first place.

[Konchog Thogme Jampa]

Buddhism teaches Not Self so in terms of karma and rebirth. But it also teaches beings are owners and heirs to their Karma. So I would say while there’s no self there’s Karma owned by the continuum. At this point my intellect is struggling

Obviously for most Buddhists a sense of self pervades a lot of time but can’t be located or found if searched for.

One thing to consider is that (contrary to popular belief) karma isn’t a moral function. It’s not a system of rewards and punishments.

Anyway, getting back to an intellectual understanding of rebirth which is satisfactory, these are my arguments (based on Nagarjuna, et al):

I think that conclusions drawn from logical deduction sufficiently meet the criteria of an intellectual answer.

First (for the purpose of this discussion, anyway), let’s define rebirth as the arising of a particular steam of consciousness directly resulting from a specific previous stream of consciousness.

Also, let’s define ‘stream of consciousness’ as a succession of moments of awareness.

1. it can be argued that consciousness cannot arise out of a non-conscious base. For example, awareness cannot be spontaneously produced from water or salt or fat or amino acids (the composite elements of the brain).

2. it can be argued that any moment of awareness necessarily follows a previous moment of awareness.

3. it can be argued that since the physical body is constantly changing, that a flow of consciousness is not dependent on a consistent, unchanging physical body and thus not dependent on a physical body at all, even if what consciousness is aware of (objects of consciousness) are the sensory stimuli which depend on a changing physical body. (Included here since physical death of the body is generally the first hurdle to acknowledging rebirth).

Based on this, there is at least possibility that a continuing process of awareness beyond the extinction of the physical body is not only possible, but the best explanation for the arising of consciousness in the first place.

I agree

Also

Karma is not a system of rewards/punishments because there is no self/entity governing it.

However the more I practice the more obvious it becomes in how it covers absolutely everything with nothing escaping. Although of course we can purify with Dharma practice.

But of course we have the power of delusion and samsara so we like to stick pins in ourselves and others therefore creating more karma and suffering in a future time.

Nice debate

Thanks