[Barryrich]

Hey guys,

So I understand that more or less a 'goal' of Buddhism is to break free from the cycle of rebirth. Through placing attatchment on life, we will continue the cycle of suffering, so it is in our best interest to break free from that cycle..

But my question is why would anyone want to break free from the cycle? What happens if/when we do break free? Since we are not-self... Would breaking free from rebirth not just mean that we cease to exist? Is living a suffering life still not better than not living at all?

I dont have a suffering life, so I cannot fully put myself into someone's shoes that does. But I would still think experiencing life is better than not? And, for the most part, everyone always has the option of suicide if their life is truly unbearable...

Which brings me to another subquestion... Wouldn't someone who totally hates [their] life, and wants to kill themselves because its SOO miserable to them not be reborn?

(If it makes any difference, personally I dont believe in rebirth. I accept it as a possibility, but not as a fact. But either way, my main question remains: what happens after you break the cycle [or if there is no rebirth]?) Is there any texts or anything relating to life after the cycle is broken? Admittedly, I am pretty ignorant on the topic of rebirth.

Thanks

[jacknates]

The only thing we break free of is suffering. When the mind starts thinking it's about existence, about destroying a soul-like "self" that keeps coming back, then it fights against the idea. That's not what it's about (there's no soul or self to begin with, these are just thoughts we cling to that cause suffering). Everything you are now will continue on after you die, forever changing and becoming new things, just as animal and plant matter changed to become you. This is regardless of whether you suffer or not, it's simply the Dharma, the way things are.

The "rebirth" that ends is the craving and attachment of the mind to an ever-changing reality. The struggle against how life really is. It's just a change in your thoughts, in your world-view or view of life. That's all. Let go of this idea of existing forever; that is one form of dukkha, wanting eternal life. You impose a soul where there's no soul to be found, and then you try and protect it. With this view, you'll forever remain in a state of suffering. Let it go!

We're not changing anything about what happens after death. We're changing our experience of life right now, whether we're at peace and able to help others be at peace, or whether we still strive and struggle and seek answers. When we're free, we've found the answers and the mind settles, it calms and becomes bright and pure, free and radiant. There's nothing left to do, no more seeking pleasures just for the sake of pleasures etc., except to live in service of the whole of life.

[secondmertg]

Hi Balgore,

I really don't know what will happen after we die. I have taken the rebirth issue as a happening in this life. So when I read about rebirth in the teachings of the historical Buddha I can see that at any moment we [our mind] give rise to a renewed sense of self and through this is how I try to be mindfull and aware of it.

[Mehntswx]

If one begins with the idea that this body is one thing, and then when it dies, consciousness takes up again in another thing, this is not accurate. You have already left that body that you were born with and you have yet to enter that body that you will die with, and by leaving and entering, I mean the continuous flow of cognitive events that is thought to be the 'self'. Actually, it never comes or goes anywhere.

Suffering is a word that means "Dukkha" which is really the sense of always wanting the situation to change into something better, which could also be called dissatisfaction. We even get dissatisfied with what we want. For example, if you are hugging a long lost friend, even though this is wonderful, at some point you want the hug to stop. Why? It has nothing to do with the hug. Only the mind is tired of the hug now and wants something else, like lunch or something. So, this is actually what 'Dukkha' means. It's not like you have to be writhing in pain.

So, what happens when you are free from the cycle of coming and going, free from suffering, is that you are a buddha. The only difference between someone who is a buddha and someone who is not a buddha is that Buddha is not suffering.

[Andoror]

The "rebirth" that ends is the craving and attachment of the mind to an ever-changing reality. The struggle against how life really is. It's just a change in your thoughts, in your world-view or view of life. That's all.

Suddenly came to my mind this story:

Subhuti was Buddha's disciple. He was able to understand the potency of emptiness, the viewpoint that nothing exist except in its relationship of subjectivity and objectivity.
One day Subhuti, in a mood of sublime emptiness, was sitting under a tree. Flowers began to fall about him.
"We are praising you from your discourse on emptiness," the gods whispered to him.
"But I have not spoken of emptiness," said Subhuti.
"You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not heard emptiness," responded the gods. "This is the true emptiness." And blossoms showered upon Subhuti as rain.

Zen Flesh, Zen Bones,
Paul Reps

[papadopul]

Re: what happens after death, these are actually some of the questions the Buddha regarded as unskillful:

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. Source: Sabbasava Sutta

I'm usually not a fan of setting aside questions, but in this case, the answers you're looking for are unknowable and any conclusions you come to are liable to be misguided or misleading.

On the question of why would someone actually want to free themselves from samsara... not everyone does. Not everyone who heard the Buddha speak was compelled to take him as their teacher. Most of us are practicing a somewhat less ambitious form of the Buddha's teaching: not so much the liberation from the cycle of suffering-laden rebirths, but freedom from the mini-rebirths (of identity) that lead us to suffering in this life, here and now. You may not feel sufficient sorrow or pain in your life to be bothered, but many will.

[HagsPusia]

Twelve step programmes speak of self will run riot ... and Buddhist explanations about the unsatisfactoriness of pursuing ongoing strengthening of a fixed concept of " I, mine and yours " are in sync with my life experiences.

[fiettariaps]

Great feedback guys, thats a lot of good input. Each of you had a slightly different thing to say and it all made sense. I think I was mislead by the words themselves "free from rebirth", when really it seems the true intention/idea is to just be "free from suffering" and "free of attatchment [to life]". Clinging on the concept of self and life is surely madness and will only lead to constant and further suffering/disasstisfaction. So I believe I understand better now, the idea is to free yourself from that senseless clinging (because whether I am reborn or not, or reborn as something different.. I still wont be "me" as I am in this life anyway).

Thanks guys

[ElegeExcest]

Hi Balgore,

I like very much the Upajjhatthana Sutta or the "Subjects of Contemplation". It is a short and very usefull sutta so to start to practice mindfulness. There the historical Buddha talks about "being intoxicated with..." One of those intoxications is to life and is explained in a wonderfull way.

[Mmzmptvk]

You got it Balgore. Way to go!

[Candykiss]

You might find this an interesting read, Balgore:

'Anatta and Rebirth' by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Bo...nd_Rebirth.pdf

[evennyNiz]

Since we are not-self

Good question.

I'm possibly the only Buddhist who would say that it's better to proceed with the assumption that self exists. In doing so we allow ourselves the opportunity of honestly investigating what is there.

If we proceed from the point of view that we are not-self, then we run the risk of it becoming a philosophical stance without any experiential element.

This matters because theory (even if correct) is no match for the power of self in all it's glory. If we can discover what is at work behind the process, we can discover what the opposite of this process is - ie unbinding.

Without at least glimpsing this, how can anybody answer these questions for themselves in a convincing way?:
Would breaking free from rebirth not just mean that we cease to exist? Is living a suffering life still not better than not living at all? Namaste
kris

[Lenkapuppia]

We will cease to exist. Now, what happens when we do not accept this fact?

[Numbiydq]

Good question.

I'm possibly the only Buddhist who would say that it's better to proceed with the assumption that self exists.
Namaste
kris

No, you're not the only one. I do not believe (although I have no proof either way) that the Buddha taught that there was no "self" - that, in some sense, each of us is an unidentifiable part of some cosmic all-encompassing "something", or a tiny speck in some massive community of organisms, any one of which has no distinct identity except for some "conventional" tag or label. Glibly saying that we have a "conventional self" simply begs the question of what exactly is meant by "conventional" (I have a feeling no one will be able to define this word in any way that makes sense without referring to the self). That said, this whole business about "no self" has not an iota of effect on my sense that Buddhism has some great things to teach.

[Xewksghy]

I do not believe (although I have no proof either way) that the Buddha taught that there was no "self" - that, in some sense, each of us is an unidentifiable part of some cosmic all-encompassing "something", or a tiny speck in some massive community of organisms, any one of which has no distinct identity except for some "conventional" tag or label. Glibly saying that we have a "conventional self" simply begs the question of what exactly is meant by "conventional" (I have a feeling no one will be able to define this word in any way that makes sense without referring to the self). That said, this whole business about "no self" has not an iota of effect on my sense that Buddhism has some great things to teach

I think the teachings on not-self are being misunderstood. Nobody has said that the idea of a self doesn't exist for us on a day-to day level, nor that we don't exist as individual human beings. The teachings on not-self are simply to help us to let go of the causes of stress/unsatisfactoriness/ suffering. (dukkha)

We also tend to forget that the Buddha lived a very long time ago and spoke from the personal experience and understanding which had freed him from delusion, rather than from a modern day scientific approach. I'm reluctant to bring this issue up again in yet another thread, because we already have 2 recent ones on the subject, plus its occured in other threads too - and I'm at a loss to know what to suggest now, other than checking the resources already offered....and meditating.

Buddha said:


"Whatever is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. And what is not yours?

"The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Forms are not yours... Eye-consciousness is not yours... Eye-contact is not yours... Whatever arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.

"The ear is not yours: let go of it...

"The nose is not yours: let go of it...

"The tongue is not yours: let go of it...

"The body is not yours: let go of it...

"The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.

Ideas are not yours... Intellect-consciousness is not yours... Intellect-contact is not yours... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it.

Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.

"Suppose a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches, & leaves here in Jeta's Grove. Would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self nor do they pertain to our self."

"In the same way, monks, the eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit... Whatever arises in dependence on intellect-contact, experienced either as pleasure, as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit.

(SN 35.101 - Na Tumhaka Sutta: Not Yours)


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....101.than.html

[Natashasuw]

Thanks for that Aloka-D. Hadn't read it before.

[Lilji]

Having the experience of depersonalisation, derealization or lack of a sense of self often lead individuals into emotional instability, mental illness and in need of psychiatric care rather than able to study and practice the principles of Buddhist teachings

[13spebampiliece]

We will cease to exist. Now, what happens when we do not accept this fact?

Whether we believe that we shall cease to exist or not or whether we accept our 'beliefs' as 'facts' alters nothing at all. Absolutely nothing.

The only thing that will yield any kind of result is open investigation. We need to carefully observe what is actually occurring within our continuum. In the Anapanasati sutta Buddha demonstrates the mode of investigation.

The "self" people mostly discuss is a worthless hypothesis - truly meaningless. It is a straw man - set up to be knocked down or believed in. The self (I prefer the word process) we need to investigate is what is appearing to our consciousness. It is mutable and transitory and entirely mundane.

It's as if we need someone to grab our heads and force us to look at this because it's the last thing anyone wants to do. Any theory or idea or intellectual flight of fancy is preferable, as we "control" them and evaluate them and can be 'comfortable' with them. Pointless.

With anapanasati you become a mere witness to a process - the actual process of becoming. It's not 'your' process, it does not rely on you and you are not bound by it. You are dependent arisen within it, that is all - no big deal.

The very finest instructions I have ever found in the suttas are these:
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord." The "Sun" here is the light of awareness.

Taken from the Atthi Raga Sutta (Where There is Passion)
http://buddhasutra.com/files/atthi_raga_sutta.htm

Perfectly sums up what is experienced and the approach to take towards it:
"Where there is no passion for the nutriment of consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow...

Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, and death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair. This means not getting attached or repelled by what is observed. Release it and let it go. That way, that which is seen, is seen and not grasped and sullied by notions of "mine" or "not mine".

Namaste
Kris

[diemeareendup]

Wonderful Kris ... thanks for that - I have been washing the dinner dishes and started to try and compose in my mind a response discussing how we can engage this type of control in relation to our experiences, and returned to find your post

[Qxkmsxsx]

In a question and answer session at Amaravati last year, Ajahn Sumedho said that not-self, emptiness, and the unconditioned, were basically all about the same thing. (or words to that effect)

In his book 'Don't Take Your Life Personally' he says:

"What does it mean to realise desirelessness, cessation, emptiness or non-self? (viraga, nirodha, sunnata, anatta) These are all abstractions; they are words that point to but cannot define. Realisation therefore has to come through intuition. This is what I emphasise and encourage now in the way that I teach. I see that people often don't have enough confidence or trust in their own experience of emptiness and non-self. It is so easy to fall back into the questioning mode - What is it? - and want to objectify it in some way, want to pin it down or turn it into some kind of mental object that can be verified and proven, maybe scientifically. "