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

**VZF74G0M** · 09-25-2011, 02:34 PM

But again, the problem here is not kamma and rebirth.

Sure it is.

The problem is that Sati has fallen into one of the two extremes rejected by the Buddha: namely, that the one who experiences the result of kamma is the same as the one who produced the kamma. The Buddha discusses this in the Aññatra Sutta: The Buddha does not address "the same one" in NM 38. The Buddha addresses vinnana and how it arises and ceases and is not the entity that reincarnates and is subject to karmic retribution as Sati and you claim.

Sati believes that "the same consciousness" transmigrates from life to life, producing kamma and experiencing vipaka. This is clearly the first extreme mentioned above. The Buddha is addressing speculative views in the Aññatra Sutta, in the same way that he addresses other speculative views in, for example, the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. It is not the same thing.

Both these suttas are similar in that they concern wrong views based on a notion of self, while setting forth the Buddha's distinctive teaching of dependent origination. What do you think a "notion of self" is?

True, but each instance of consciousness conditions a succeeding instance of consciousness; thus there is continuity. This is not what the Buddha teaches. You are assuming an "abhidhammic" notion of "continuation of consciousness".

Otherwise our experiences would be very strange indeed. What makes you think it's not?

I have made no such argument -- quite the opposite. Yes you have. It doesn't matter how much equivocating, making up, and playing shell games you do over the definition of the "entity" that supposedly reincarnates and how, you are still stuck with a need for an entity, a "you", that reincarnates.

The point is that an Atman is unnecessary. You seem to be arguing that kamma/rebirth can only be explained in terms of an Atman or homunculus I am pointing out that however you want to make up the story in order to try to make it look like it fits into the Buddha's liberative teachings, it is still a made-up story.

-- a stance which contradicts the Buddha's presentation of the Middle Way. Not at all.

09-25-2011, 02:34 PM	#18
VZF74G0M Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	But again, the problem here is not kamma and rebirth. Sure it is. The problem is that Sati has fallen into one of the two extremes rejected by the Buddha: namely, that the one who experiences the result of kamma is the same as the one who produced the kamma. The Buddha discusses this in the Aññatra Sutta: The Buddha does not address "the same one" in NM 38. The Buddha addresses vinnana and how it arises and ceases and is not the entity that reincarnates and is subject to karmic retribution as Sati and you claim. Sati believes that "the same consciousness" transmigrates from life to life, producing kamma and experiencing vipaka. This is clearly the first extreme mentioned above. The Buddha is addressing speculative views in the Aññatra Sutta, in the same way that he addresses other speculative views in, for example, the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. It is not the same thing. Both these suttas are similar in that they concern wrong views based on a notion of self, while setting forth the Buddha's distinctive teaching of dependent origination. What do you think a "notion of self" is? True, but each instance of consciousness conditions a succeeding instance of consciousness; thus there is continuity. This is not what the Buddha teaches. You are assuming an "abhidhammic" notion of "continuation of consciousness". Otherwise our experiences would be very strange indeed. What makes you think it's not? I have made no such argument -- quite the opposite. Yes you have. It doesn't matter how much equivocating, making up, and playing shell games you do over the definition of the "entity" that supposedly reincarnates and how, you are still stuck with a need for an entity, a "you", that reincarnates. The point is that an Atman is unnecessary. You seem to be arguing that kamma/rebirth can only be explained in terms of an Atman or homunculus I am pointing out that however you want to make up the story in order to try to make it look like it fits into the Buddha's liberative teachings, it is still a made-up story. -- a stance which contradicts the Buddha's presentation of the Middle Way. Not at all.
	Quote