[padlabtard]

Why won't you answer the question, "And why can't the flame be the Physical Karma you have created throughout your entire life, perhaps the understandings/teachings/personality traits that you left with your children, and the like?"

[seekfrieddy]

First off in post #3
I also know that many, including myself, believe in Buddhism as purely psychological/philosophical, with no real belief in any sort of 'continued existence', like your Mind, or your Conciousness. If you do not believe in 'continued existence' then how do you believe in rebirth?
Just asking not attacking.

I believe I did answer the question, but I'll try again.

The flame is the Mind and it's Karma/physical actions. Each of the things you mentioned are products of actions. Now the Karma they produce would be either positive or negative. Hence leading to the Minds next existence in the realm of it's Karmic actions.

[jobsfancy]

No. Your not answering the question at all. And I believe you know this. You are 'telling' me your opinion. I am simply asking if this 'alternative' can 'also' be correct...

"And why can't the flame be..."

You see there. I am clearly asking 'why', why can't it be the alternative I have proposed?

"with no real belief in any sort of 'continued existence', like your Mind, or your Conciousness."

You see there. I am clearly saying 'continued existence' of the self, of my person. I said nothing of my impact or influence, which I believe to be what the Buddha had originally meant by Rebirth. Why else would he have taught 'Rebirth', and not 'reincarnation'?

[LasTins]

Also. In my opinion, I feel that Doctors and Scientists have already concluded that the mind is nothing more then the wiring of the brain, the processes of neurons and electrons or whatever, that your personality/mind is simply made up of your Genetics, the impact to you from your environment (Society, Culture, Mental/Physical Diseases), your thoughts, your actions, and your speech, but to a greater degree, your environment and thoughts.

This is a valid point, but the science that I practice (and arguably the science that the Buddha practiced) does not use any sort of reductionism, as implied by "the mind is nothing more then [sic] the wiring of the brain."

Mind is an emergent property of the brain. It emerges therefrom, but cannot be reduced thereto. Similarly, a sense of self emerges from a conglomeration of skandhas (aggregates: form, feeling, perception, impulses, consciousness), but cannot be reduced to any of them. In the same way, a chariot "emerges" from a combination of wheels, axels, rods, etc., none of which - when taken alone - constitute a chariot.

Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10)

"Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....010.bodh.html In a sense, a whole is "greater" than the sum of its parts, but only insofar as it aquires new characteristics that its parts lack in isolation.

As for rebirth, I am in agreement that the mind itself cannot transfer from one body to another, as proposed by some rebirth theories.

[tramdoctorsss]

I wanted to know everyones opinion on this.

So to those out there, which is the one you personally feel is correct, and why? Hi musicizgod,

IMO, neither of the two is correct. For consiousness to exist it is needed its object of consiousness. Once this object of consiousness fades, consiousness fades too. We can verify that in our daily life.

If the object is remembered by mind it is just that: a mental fabrication held by the mind as an idea of what was the object of consiousness. In neuroscience this is a property of brain function.

The influence of a person in the world is not consiousness but social construction of historical events. The social influence of an important person is only possible in accordance with the social agreement of what has to be remembered or what is possible to be remembered but is not about the consciousness of that person.

The case of the flame is just about the rise of temperature that provokes the other flame to "appear". If you keep at a distance both candles the one will never light the other.

[KRbGA0Bg]

I probably should have worded it differently, Abhaya. And yes, Esho, I realise what I had said, and he did indeed give his opinion, but then I asked if an alternative could also be correct, and he never answered it, but ignored it entirely. And i'm not entirely sure what your trying to say. Personally, when I say mind, I mean the personality, what is transferred supposedly, not the object of the mind, or 'what is the mind?'. And yes, a property of brain functioning. The mind results from the brain, IMO, and that of everyday science.

The influence was in reference as to what the Buddha had meant in that analogy. And again, no idea what you are talking about. I have influenced my sisters, my mother, my step father, and they me, just by their words and actions. That is what is meant by influence. And continued influence would be Grandfather to father, to son, as well as the writings of great minds today.

"The case of the flame is just about the rise of temperature that provokes the other flame to "appear". If you keep at a distance both candles the one will never light the other."

Again, no idea. Just being honest. But I disagree nonetheless with the interpretation. That is your own right though. Again, I never meant to attack theseeking1, just simply had a hard time trying to get him to answer a question. In the end, we will most likely all leave here with our own viewpoints.

[scoundtrack]

in post #2 I said
As "influence" is the memory others have of you and really isn't a rebirth so to speak. To me this is a legacy, memory or possibly something you wrote like a book. This would be a physical action, Karma.

Also your person, physical body not the mind or consciousness, does not continue. That would be reincarnation.
Rebirth is the existence of the Mind into it's next existence in which ever realm it is reborn into.
The Buddha's Mind, after the physical existence, was Reborn into His Pure Land.

This is not my opinion, this is what is taught in Gelug. Which I am a student of and believe to be true.

[Audi_z]

In terms of "consciousness transference", the Buddha of the Pali Canon was very clear. In his instructions to Sati the fisherman's son, he admonishes Sati for his mistaken view that the same consciousness is reborn. The entire discourse is worth reading, and the introductory comments are helpful for placing the discourse in context. Part of it is excerpted below.

Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38)

So the Blessed One told a certain monk, "Come, monk. In my name, call the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son, saying, 'The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti.'"

"As you say, lord," the monk answered and, having gone to the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son, on arrival he said, "The Teacher calls you, friend Sāti."

"As you say, friend," the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son replied. Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....038.than.html This is the perspective of the Buddhism that relies on the Pali Canon.

[mincarlie.frymyer]

Wait. Now I get it! Lol. Your saying if they do not connect, the cycle of Rebirth is ended?

[SingleMan]

Thank you, Abhaya, truly. That link is clearing up alot for me. I think I should have been more clear on my own words, and I apoligize if I wasn't.

[ticfarentibia]

And gotchya Esho. I understand much better now.

[JJoon077]

I think the big 'issue' I personally have is the idea that our Karma/Conciousness/Mind is transferred to another being. This is just improbable according to todays science on the brain. I was actually confused onto exactly what Rebirth itself was. Because aside from Rebirth, there are still these ideas of say, Bodhisattvas, beings that are consistently reborn into the world to help teach us. On a philosophical level, this is believable. But saying that this person is the way he/she is, is because of a past Mind coming into the body, is unrealistic.

[invasuant]

As for opinions, I am personally agnostic (literally "not knowing") on rebirth. I haven't made up my mind one way or the other. Both options given in the OP are valid interpretations, and each may be useful in different contexts, being more or less suitable for people of different dispositions. I enjoy investigating both rather than dismissing one or the other upon first inspection.

Ultimately, however, speculation about rebirth must be set aside.

Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2)

"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?'

[...]

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....002.than.html Bhaddekaratta Sutta (MN 131)

You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached.
Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. Ardently doing what should be done today, for — who knows? — tomorrow death. There is no bargaining with Mortality & his mighty horde.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....131.than.html Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140)

'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....140.than.html To be overly concerned with rebirth is to be disconnected from our current reality.

[IRYzouNv]

And gotchya Esho. I understand much better now.

Ups... sorry, I deleted the post because I thought I was not being clear enough.

More less it was like this musicizgod,

First case:

Rebirth (Influence, Elements): This means that the only thing, in the opinion of the person, to be reborn, is our influence onto the world that we leave, in what we do and say. And the Elements that we are made up of, which continue to exist even after the decay of our bodies.

The influence of a person in the world is not consiousness but social construction of historical events. The social influence of an important person is only possible in accordance with the social agreement of what has to be remembered or what is possible to be remembered but is not about the consciousness of that person.

Second case:

Rebirth (Concsiousness Transference): This means that your conciousness, or personality, your Karma, is transferred to another being, until the ending of Samsara by that conciousness. A prime example of this type would be the Dalai Lama, and his continued rebirth/reincarnation? For consiousness to exist it is needed its object of consiousness. Once this object of consiousness fades, consiousness fades too. We can verify that in our daily life.

If the object is remembered by mind it is just that: a mental fabrication held by the mind as an idea of what was the object of consiousness. In neuroscience this is a property of brain function.

Then I commented the case of the flame which is very popular when the rebirth issue appears, but for me it makes no case because it doesn't really explains anything.

The case of the flame is just about the rise of temperature that provokes the other flame to "appear". If you keep at a distance both candles the one will never light the other. At the end, litteral rebirth is in the realm of believe.

[banditorfv]

To be overly concerned with rebirth is to be disconnected from our current reality.

I think this is a very important point, and one lost on those who consider belief in literal rebirth a prerequisite to being a real Buddhist.

[layevymed]

Originally Posted by Abhaya To be overly concerned with rebirth is to be disconnected from our current reality.

I think this is a very important point, and one lost on those who consider belief in literal rebirth a prerequisite to being a real Buddhist. Yes indeed.

My own opinion is that there's no point in speculating about past lives or rebirth after I'm dead because its completely irrelevant to my present life and to my practice here and now.

[Konidurase]

If one cannot pin down this so called "self" as real, the question of who is reborn becomes irrelevant.



"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....002.than.html


The king asked: "When someone is reborn, Venerable Nagasena, is he the same as the one who just died, or is he another?"

The elder replied: "He is neither the same nor another."

"Give me an illustration!"

"What do you think, Great King? When you were a tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, were you then the same as the one who is now grown up?"

"No, that infant was one, I, now grown up, am another."

"If that is so, then, Great King, you have had no mother, no father, no reaching, no schooling! Do we then take it that there is one mother for the embryo in the first stage, another for the second stage, another for the third, another for the fourth, another for the baby, another for the grown-up man? Is the school-boy one person, and the one who has finished school another? Does one commit a crime, but the hands and feet of another are cut off?"

"Certainly not! But what would you say, Reverend Sir, to all that?"

The elder replied: "I was neither the tiny infant, newly born and quite soft, nor am I now the grown-up man; but all these are comprised in one unit depending on this very body."

"Give me a simile!"

"If a man were to light a lamp, could it give light throughout the whole night?"

"Yes, it could."

"Is now the flame which burns in the first watch of the night the same as the one which burns in the second?"

"It is not the same."

"Or is the flame which burns in the second watch the same as the one which burns in the last one?"

"It is not the same."

"Do we then take it that there is one lamp in the first watch of the night, another in the second, and another again in the third?"

"No, it is just because of the light of the lamp shines throughout the night."

"Even so must we understand the collocation of a series of successive dharmas. At rebirth one dharma arises, while another stops; but the two processes take place almost simultaneously (i.e. they are continous). Therefore, the first act of consciousness in the new existence is neither the same as the last act of consciousness in the previous existence, nor it is the another."

"Give me another simile!"

"Milk, once the milking is done, turns after sometimes into curds; from curds it turns into fresh butter; and from fresh butter into ghee. Would it now be correct to say that the milk is the same thing as the curds, or the fresh butter, or the ghee?"

"No, it would not. But they have been produced because of it."

"Just so must be understood the collocation of a series of successive dharmas."

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut045.htm


"Now, this is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....148.than.html

[biannaruh]

Yes indeed.

My own opinion is that there's no point in speculating about past lives or rebirth after I'm dead because its completely irrelevant to my present life and to my practice here and now.

The Buddha also said that by not regarding the first four precepts and not living in mindfulness of your actions, makeing negative/harmful choices, one will be reborn in the animal or hell realm. I will add the source when I get back to my computer after work. So how would this not relate to your presant existance/practice?

[mbaueee]

The Buddha also said that by not regarding the first four precepts and not living in mindfulness of your actions, makeing negative/harmful choices, one will be reborn in the animal or hell realm. I will add the source when I get back to my computer after work. So how would this not relate to your presant existance/practice?

I don't understand your comments. How am I not regarding the first 4 precepts and not being mindful of my actions by saying that belief in rebirth is irrelevant to my daily life?


The 5 Precepts are:


1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

2. Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.

3. Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.

4. Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech. (lying and abuse)

5. Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

[Edqpdnuu]

I'm sorry, I guess I worded that wrong.
What I meant was more to say, that our daily lives and our practice should be of a concern to us as both regard what/ where our next rebirth would be.
I don't really understand how someine who is a Buddhist wouldn't want to believe in rebirth unless one believes they will achive Enlightenment in this life time. Which has happened according to the scriptures. Unless one chooses not to believe there is anything after this existence.
Or they are a Pure Land practitioner, who believes that with proper meditation and chanting they are reborn in a Pure Land.