DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - "the consciousness that is generated from previous lives"

**duncanalisstmp** · 09-24-2011, 10:20 PM

I don't see where the Buddha objects to "the whole shebang", as you put it. What he objects to is Sati's rejection of conditionality...

The Pali word is "Samsarati". Here is Bodhi's translation:

‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?” By contrast, Sati believed that You have to read more than one line. The Buddha also disagrees here:

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

The disagreement here is not about rebirth per se. Sure it is. Sati is using vinnana as a vehicle of reincarnation, the Buddha teaches that consciousness is momentary sensory awareness.

In Sati's view consciousness is some sort of independent entity which goes floating along from life to life, body to body. But in the Buddha's teaching, it arises (and re-arises, on and on until the cycle is broken) as part of dependent origination. In the Buddha's teaching, an instance of consciousness arises and fades away, never to "re-appear" again. Your asssersion is a reincarnation strategy, just as Sati's is.

I agree, but that's a different issue. The question here isn't "is rebirth plausible?" but "is it consistent with MN 38"? The question was whether Sucitto was repeating Sati's reincarnation heresy. He is. And it is clear that reincarnation/"re-birth" is not at all consistent with MN 38.

My point is that "generation of consciousness over many lives" follows exactly the same principle as "generation of consciousness over one life" and that both are in line with the Buddha's teaching. Making consciousness an Atman, the very sort of homunculus argument that the Buddha is refuting here. The Buddha never described vinnana like that. You are simply regurgitating Sati's heresy yourself.

09-24-2011, 10:20 PM	#12
duncanalisstmp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 396 Senior Member	I don't see where the Buddha objects to "the whole shebang", as you put it. What he objects to is Sati's rejection of conditionality... The Pali word is "Samsarati". Here is Bodhi's translation: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?” By contrast, Sati believed that You have to read more than one line. The Buddha also disagrees here: "Sati, what is that consciousness?" "Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there." The disagreement here is not about rebirth per se. Sure it is. Sati is using vinnana as a vehicle of reincarnation, the Buddha teaches that consciousness is momentary sensory awareness. In Sati's view consciousness is some sort of independent entity which goes floating along from life to life, body to body. But in the Buddha's teaching, it arises (and re-arises, on and on until the cycle is broken) as part of dependent origination. In the Buddha's teaching, an instance of consciousness arises and fades away, never to "re-appear" again. Your asssersion is a reincarnation strategy, just as Sati's is. I agree, but that's a different issue. The question here isn't "is rebirth plausible?" but "is it consistent with MN 38"? The question was whether Sucitto was repeating Sati's reincarnation heresy. He is. And it is clear that reincarnation/"re-birth" is not at all consistent with MN 38. My point is that "generation of consciousness over many lives" follows exactly the same principle as "generation of consciousness over one life" and that both are in line with the Buddha's teaching. Making consciousness an Atman, the very sort of homunculus argument that the Buddha is refuting here. The Buddha never described vinnana like that. You are simply regurgitating Sati's heresy yourself.
	Quote