[dyestymum]

Dear friends,

I found this article at The Buddhist Channel and it was originally in the Sunday Times.

I'm interested in your responses to the article and accept that there might be a range of different views. Its fine if you don't necessarily agree with each other, I'm not looking for any particular position, just curious about what you have to say.



Buddhist reflections on death and rebirth


By Rajah Kuruppu


" From the earliest of times, men have speculated on the question why we are born and why we die. In ancient times, phenomena such as rain and fire were attributed to gods associated with them.

There was a creator god responsible for birth and another for destruction. With the passage of time, there developed the concept of one God, all powerful and omnipotent, who is responsible for our birth and who would judge our life at death and reward or punish us for our good and harmful actions, respectively.

The answer in Buddhism for our birth is that we are caught in a cycle of births and deaths called Samsara, whose beginning is inconceivable. The Buddha declared that it is because of our delusion of the true nature of things, that we have the desire for life at the moment of death where ordinary people grasp for life.

Consequently, we are re-born and continue our journey in Samsara with all its unsatisfactory features characterized by Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta — impermanance, unsatisfactoriness and absence of a permanent, unchanging, eternal, self or soul.


Man consists of mind and body and from a Buddhist standpoint what happens at death is that the physical body ceases to function. But what happens to the mind which is the other part of man? The mind is a flow of thoughts. It has no location in the physical body and the Buddha did not indicate where the mind is actually located.

With the death of the physical body, the mind does not cease nor the mental forces and energies. In fact, in Buddhism, it is said that the will, the desire, the thirst to live is the greatest force and the greatest energy in the world and does not stop with death but continues to manifest itself in another form, producing re-existence which is called re-birth.

Presented differently, the most precious thing for all living beings is their own lives. They would fight to the last or run away to save their lives. Proceeding from the known to the unknown, it could be presumed that at the moment of death although man is physically weak to resist death, he would mentally attempt to survive and is unlikely to face death with calm resignation.

The desire for life is so strong that man will mentally grasp (upadana) another viable place such as the fertile ovum in a mother's womb since the present body can no longer support his life. Thus, the psychological process of life (bhave) will continue in the newly found place and birth (jati) would soon follow.

This is the process explained in the Buddhist Law of Dependent Origination. Conditioned by craving, grasping arises; conditioned by grasping, becoming arises; conditioned by becoming, birth arises; conditioned by birth, old age, disease and death arise."


continued:

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....8,9629,0,0,1,0

[zlZ95pjt]

Reconciling these ideas with anatta and anicca just seems like an awful lot of work for relatively little practical reward. It seems to me from reading this and some other postings on BWB that reincarnation and anatta & anicca are two great tastes that do not, in fact, taste great together. Together they make no sense.

I mean, I am certain there are other people who have figured out how to hold these precepts in their heads at the same time. I'm having a hard time keeping anatta and anicca far enough away from the idea of reincarnation to entertain it for long, though. I keep asking myself questions like a child would ask. They say a child can ask questions wise men cannot answer, and this is one of those cases. These are the innocent little kid questions that hit me when I read this stuff:

"But what's the mind that persists? How long does it persist in this way? Can it persist forever if the person does not enlighten and free themselves and if it can persist forever without enlightenment then is anicca still true?"

It's been my experience that if a dogma can't survive the questioning of a child, it's gonna have a rough time with me. My questions aren't any easier. =P

[JRixlcvF]

The problem with the view that this article expouses is that it removes the whole meaning out of D.O.

D.O. is about how suffering arises due to grasping in the here and now.

D.O. helps us understand the process of how suffering comes to be and, therefore how to overcome it. The Buddha taught that people could overcome their suffering here and now. The problem with the D.O. = rebirth as a slug view is that it removes all that from the here and now and makes the whole Buddhist enterprise to be about stopping suffering in some future distant life, with only minimal benefit reconised in the present moment

In my view this is nonsense and furthermore it hinders people from seeing the whole point of Buddhadhamma and how to effectively use it to cross the river

metta

[SM9WI8oI]

Man consists of mind and body and from a Buddhist standpoint what happens at death is that the physical body ceases to function. But what happens to the mind which is the other part of man? The mind is a flow of thoughts. It has no location in the physical body and the Buddha did not indicate where the mind is actually located. This is also a problem since it seems to expouse a view of the mind/counsciouness which can exist independtly of a physical body. This is not what Buddha taught. He said there can be no counsciouness without

Base of contact
External form
Contact between them


So for example you have

Eye
External form (flower)
Contact between them

which then gives rise to visual counsiouness. However in the above view counsciousness can just float around regardless of these three things, somehow independent.

Another issue is that this independence would make counsciousness eternal, since its outside of conditionality (if it were in it then it would have to adhere to the Buddhas criteria above). This smells a little Atmanish to me


metta

[MFSSCW2c]

Sometimes is hard to let go the idea of an everlasting stuff. I think it can be threatening. An everlasting stuff in someway is the ultimate attachment resource that mind has at hand so to delight in it.

Practice here and now, sit just because and leave the rest work by itself...

[houkbsdov]

"But what's the mind that persists? How long does it persist in this way? Can it persist forever if the person does not enlighten and free themselves and if it can persist forever without enlightenment then is anicca still true?"

What is anicca plz? Not something I presume...

[stoneeZef]

From the earliest of times, men have speculated on the question why we are born and why we die.

Great way to start the topic! So much to say... haha, don't think I can get any of it together.

[ionitiesk]

Hi KoolAid,

Annica = impermanent


There's a dictionary in the Study Links section.


D.

[MilenaJaf]

It seems that the purpose of belief in death & rebirth is to expand our perceptions... to begin expanding beyond the limitation we impose with our thoughts or egos or whatever. Esp. in Buddhism where the teaching of no-self co-exists with the idea of rebirth... it's a total paradox! Someone once said that a paradox is a truth standing on its head... Zen Buddhists and Taoists both seem to use paradoxes to facilitate insight.

To me the concept of death & rebirth in Buddhism is pointing to the same thing as the Zen Koan, "What did your face look like before your parents were born?" When rebirth is not seen as dogma, it is a total paradox of anatta, but that does not mean we should throw it out. It means it has something to teach us. I think that when we begin to understand death & rebirth in an experiential way, then we begin to experience anatta. We begin to know the meaning of the koan. As in:

You cannot describe it or draw it,
You cannot praise it enough or perceive it.
No place can be found in which
To put the Original Face;
It will not disappear even
When the universe is destroyed.
— Mumon


quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_face

[KeettyGlots]

Hi KoolAid,

Annica = impermanent


There's a dictionary in the Study Links section.


D.

Ok, guess i'll have to bookmark it.
:-P


Thanks

[triardwonvada]

This just occurred to me....
death = anatta
rebirth = nirvana

...wish I could communicate better.

[Bejemoelemymn]

"But what's the mind that persists?

There isn't one.

How long does it persist in this way?

Until it is gone, or for no time at all. Depends on your perspective.

Can it persist forever if the person does not enlighten and free themselves and if it can persist forever without enlightenment then is anicca still true?"

Great question!! I can't answer it for you, lol. But am happy to share my personal view, maybe it will have some meaning... maybe not.

I think deluded mind can persist indefinitely, not forever. Eventually it will cease, or metaphorically speaking, die. Enlightenment will dawn. Actually this goes on every moment, it's just that when a delusion dies it is usually replaced by another (rebirth). I think slowly through this process wisdom is gained even if the veil of confusion/suffering gets thicker for a while. But if we are skillful and practice, we can reduce suffering/confusion each time (gain a better rebirth) making the journey shorter and easier. Eventually there will be a final death... followed by rebirth in the form of a Buddha. But even the Buddha's form must disintegrate. That does not mean that wisdom disintegrates... it doesn't even exist, so how could it! (parinirvana)
It is our original face that belongs nowhere, nowhen, and can be possessed by no one. Apparently, not even by the universe according to the Chan master...

So there is definitely anicca and it is consistent w/ all things... but our original face is not a thing, so it is not impermanent. All of this is speaking metaphorically of course... I think.
LOL I have been trying to reverse my perceptions: taking metaphors literally, and literalities metaphorically. So I get confused... maybe that means it is working! LOL, to what end I don't know, LOL.

[secondmertg]

Buddhism is so confusing because it is such a literal practice, it is easy to miss the metaphors! Certain other religions I automatically take everything as enormous metaphor b/c literal understanding is so silly it is downright bizarre. Oddly enough, I really don't think there is any difference b/w literal and metaphorical interpretations... except that metaphors recognize that they are interpreting, whereas literal views think that there is no interpretation. Then again I'm not even sure if that distinction exists...

Glad this is the beyond belief forum, heheheh. Ok I am done being silly now, I swear!