[Arximedus]

"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Can you please point me to where you got this translation from?

[wJswn5l3]

...Nagasena's teachings about rebirth are particularly interesting to me. He gives similes about how rebirth can happen without transmigration (reincarnation).

What exactly is your understanding of this "rebirth"?

[ulw7A8Po]

"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

What could be a better translation of the same sutta you are referring to is here:

Vaccha, at the time this body is laid down and the being is not born in another body, I say the supportive condition is craving.

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-...tavaggo-e.html Notice that it does not say "rebirth" but merely "birth". From my understanding, what the Buddha says here is that "craving" is the supportive condition for "birth" and this "birth" is the mental birth of the ego-self (a body). As long as there is craving, ego-self appears again and again. It makes perfect sense.

You seem to be interpreting the sutta as, when a being dies (leaves this "physical body") and is someone who has not eliminated defilement altogether, then taking his mental craving as a supportive condition, the being is reborn in another body?? Am I right? No matter how much you try to interpret this with similes or examples, it still sounds at lease remotely resembling to "reincarnation." If not please explain the process directly without being so vague about it.

[nermise]

As long as there is craving, ego-self appears again and again.

Could be that there is where the illusion of a stream apears to our mind.

[esenesesinas]

What could be a better translation of the same sutta you are referring to is here:



Notice that it does not say "rebirth" but merely "birth". From my understanding, what the Buddha says here is that "craving" is the supportive condition for "birth" and this "birth" is the mental birth of the ego-self (a body). As long as there is craving, ego-self appears again and again. It makes perfect sense.

You seem to be interpreting the sutta as, when a being dies (leaves this "physical body") and is someone who has not eliminated defilement altogether, then taking his mental craving as a supportive condition, the being is reborn in another body?? Am I right? No matter how much you try to interpret this with similes or examples, it still sounds at lease remotely resembling to "reincarnation." If not please explain the process directly without being so vague about it.

Please read #15 on the previous page, by daverupa. That's the source of the excerpt you're mistaking as my position. My statements were made against that view, not for it. If you read my response to his post, it should be clearer.

[Frdsdx26]

What exactly is your understanding of this "rebirth"?

Perfectly mundane and perfectly in line with the current principles of physics. That there's no 'thing' to be reborn in the first place. No new 'thing' comes into being in childbirth and no 'thing' is lost when the body systems decouple. The conservation laws of physics aren't violated. Matter and energy combine temporarily, then keep going their merry ways. It's OK to describe people and minds as emergent properties, because emergent properties aren't fundamental entities; they're dependent upon matter and energy for their quasi-existence.

Rebirth is a hi-jacking of the pre-existing concept of reincarnation, just as the Buddha hi-jacked the term 'kamma' and made it mean something quite opposed to the original. Reincarnation pre-supposes entities and essences that might transmigrate; rebirth doesn't. The simile of the poetry teacher is the clearest example to me. Phenomena replicate, not people, because there are no people (selves) in the first place. That replication of phenomena is rebirth, as far as I can tell at the moment. Of course, my understanding will change over time.

[DP5Ups8o]

Reincarnation pre-supposes entities and essences that might transmigrate; rebirth doesn't.

Understood

Phenomena replicate, not people, because there are no people (selves) in the first place. That replication of phenomena is rebirth

Say a person lives a good life in society. Even after his death, the things he did or said would remain and evolve in society. If you build a house, many generations will live in it. If you write a book, many generations will read it. If you teach your kids, they will become parents and tech their own kids. It goes on... Is this what you mean by replication of phenomena?

[corolaelwis]

Yes, that and more. Other abstract things, emergent phenomena, are included. For example, you beat your kid and make her into a distrustful, angry person, which affects her relationships for the rest of her life, potentially, which affect innumerable people in a potentially infinate number of ways. Patterns of behavior tend to replicate. Not in a strict deterministic way, but tendencies.

To the best of my understanding, even what we commonly consider to be solid objects are only representationally real, not things-in-themselves. Even our corporeality is a mental construct. Useful, even necessary, but it creates an illusion of certainty and continuously existant entities. I've found this to be a position consistent with ordinary observation as well meditative absorption experiences.

[fount_pirat]

For example, you beat your kid and make her into a distrustful, angry person, which affects her relationships for the rest of her life, potentially, which affect innumerable people in a potentially infinite number of ways. Patterns of behavior tend to replicate. Not in a strict deterministic way, but tendencies.

We were talking about this as a stream of consciousness. Like the case of the poem. The poem is not consciousness nor a stream. It is a mind object.

The harm that the kid feels is not because a stream of consciousness ; it is a feeling because she/he remembers a past event, as an image of being hurt. An image that is an object of mind-consciousness. I don't think that those are streams but objects of mind/eye/... consciousness.

[asivisepo]

We were talking about this as a stream of consciousness. Like the case of the poem. The poem is not consciousness nor a stream. It is a mind object.

The harm that the kid feels is not because a stream of consciousness ; it is a feeling because she/he remembers a past event, as an image of being hurt. An image that is an object of mind-consciousness. I don't think that those are streams but objects of mind/eye/... consciousness.

I'm also confused by the difficulty. Maybe the word "metaphor" means something different to you than it means to me? I'm not saying that consciousness is really a stream, nor is a poem. It appears to be streaming because the infinitesmally small thought-moments are sequenced by the mind into an ongoing, coherent event. That's necessary for organisms to behave coherently with the environment in order to survive.

Also, if you reify even thought objects into entities that persist through time, you're making the same mistake as reifying a person out of experience. Every memory is a new event, not the same event repeating itself. Yet its pattern is the result of an experience, so it's not completely random, either.

When you hear a poem and then recite the poem, it's not really the same poem. It's a completely new event, patterened after and dependent upon the hearing of the poem the first time. Poems aren't entities any more than people, and the repetition of patterns experienced as people is the rebirth of the person.

As far as I can tell.

[rozettasmolanov]

The Cha Chaka Sutta (M148) tells us:

"Dependent on mind and mind objects [could be the "poem case" as mind object], mind-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is feeling, dependent on feeling there is craving.

[...]

If one were to say, craving is self, this is not fitting. For the arising and passing away of craving is seen [discerned].

Where is re-birth from this "passing away" if it has passed away?

[staisacic]

Poems aren't entities any more than people, and the repetition of patterns experienced as people is the rebirth of the person.

Here is where I get stuck, FBM. Maybe is just about semantics. The teachings of Buddha are very accurate about rebirth. What I experience when reading a poem is just an image, as a mind object... not a rebirth of any person, even if the poem is recited by someone... what really happens are mind objects seducing mind as a sense organ. In the unaware mind it can be the case of the birth of self... why re-birht?

[Lafclaria]

The Cha Chaka Sutta (M148) tells us:

"Dependent on mind and mind objects [could be the "poem case" as mind object], mind-consciousness arises. When the three meet, there is contact. Dependent on contact, there is feeling, dependent on feeling there is craving.

[...]

If one were to say, craving is self, this is not fitting. For the arising and passing away of craving is seen [discerned].

Where is re-birth from this "passing away" if it has passed away?

I'm not sure I understand you. I'm not saying craving or anything else is self, and I'm not saying self is reborn. I don't see a self to be reborn. I don't think people are reborn because I don't think that people are selves or entities at all. There is the arising and cessation of phenomena, but phenomena aren't, by definition, entities. Phenomena can be reborn when they are picked up on and repeated, or even just aspects of them. Maybe that's the source of our confusion?

In other words, to say that there is rebirth is not equal to saying that there are people or selves that are reborn.

As is commonly known, suttas can seem to contradict each other here and there because the Buddha adapted his words to the audience. If the suttas where the Buddha talks about rebirth of persons, then maybe his immediate audience was incapable of understanding a more advanced teaching. Anatta and rebirth are not contradictory, because phenomena are reborn, not selves.

Sorry if I'm not explaining my ideas clearly enough!

[Clilmence]

Here is where I get stuck, FBM. Maybe is just about semantics. The teachings of Buddha are very accurate about rebirth. What I experience when reading a poem is just an image, as a mind object... not a rebirth of any person, even if the poem is recited by someone... what really happens are mind objects seducing mind as a sense organ. In the unaware mind it can be the case of the birth of self... why re-birht?

It seems to me that you're reifying "poem", "image" and "mind object" as if they were fixed entities. Instead, they are fleeting, transient phenomena. I don't have a problem with saying that they're reborn when they are picked up and reproduced. Nor do I have a problem with the common expressing "giving birth to an idea." It's just a way of using language as a tool to point to an idea. The word isn't the idea, just a pointer.

[wrenjmerg]

Yes, that and more. Other abstract things, emergent phenomena, are included. For example, you beat your kid and make her into a distrustful, angry person, which affects her relationships for the rest of her life, potentially, which affect innumerable people in a potentially infinate number of ways. Patterns of behavior tend to replicate. Not in a strict deterministic way, but tendencies.

Ok so you beat your kid who, let's say, turns out to be an angry, bitter person who beats his own kids who in tern become bitter, spiteful people. How does this explain rebirth?

[verizon]

To the best of my understanding, even what we commonly consider to be solid objects are only representationally real, not things-in-themselves. Even our corporeality is a mental construct.

I disagree. It makes no sense to think that the world does not exist outside of our sensory sphere imo. You leave home to work. The house is no longer within the scope of your sensory experiences. Does that mean the house cease to exist?

[Jourgenz]

Perfectly mundane and perfectly in line with the current principles of physics. That there's no 'thing' to be reborn in the first place. No new 'thing' comes into being in childbirth and no 'thing' is lost when the body systems decouple. The conservation laws of physics aren't violated. Matter and energy combine temporarily, then keep going their merry ways. It's OK to describe people and minds as emergent properties, because emergent properties aren't fundamental entities; they're dependent upon matter and energy for their quasi-existence.

Rebirth is a hi-jacking of the pre-existing concept of reincarnation, just as the Buddha hi-jacked the term 'kamma' and made it mean something quite opposed to the original. Reincarnation pre-supposes entities and essences that might transmigrate; rebirth doesn't. The simile of the poetry teacher is the clearest example to me. Phenomena replicate, not people, because there are no people (selves) in the first place. That replication of phenomena is rebirth, as far as I can tell at the moment. Of course, my understanding will change over time.

I see, but then why call it :"re-birth", which has become synonymous with the abhimahavajrya "reincarnation-by-another=name"?


The ambiguity of using the term is no small source of confusion in discussion of the Dhamma.

[EnvellFen]

To the best of my understanding, even what we commonly consider to be solid objects are only representationally real, not things-in-themselves.

That is Vedantism. It can be disproved by simply walking out in front of a city bus.

[ladleliDypenue]

If the suttas where the Buddha talks about rebirth of persons, then maybe his immediate audience was incapable of understanding a more advanced teaching. Anatta and rebirth are not contradictory, because phenomena are reborn, not selves.

FBM, can you quote those suttas about more advanced teachings where Buddha exposes that Anatta and rebirth are not contradictory? Maybe this can give some light into the discussion.

[Injurnerona]

I don't have a problem with saying that they're reborn when they are picked up and reproduced.

So, if I photocopy a text or an entire book... is the idea "reborn"? Isn't the idea is just there as an sense object of mind?