[Louthcoombutt]

Hello all, I have not introduced myself, but my name is Joe and I have been looking into Buddhism for quite a few weeks now, but before I begin, I think I need to tell you a short bit about myself before I rant on with questions otherwise some things may not make sense...

For beginners, I grew up in a Christian household, I was Christian through indoctrination of course, I never chose to be a Christian, but it was just the hand I was dealt and as a child you pretty much don't have much of a choice... As a young child, I was always a realist, always using logic for everything, never believing anything until I saw evidence for it, this can be a good thing and it can aswell be a bad thing too, but I started this way of thinking from the time I was very young and remain that way.

So back to what I was saying, I was always questioning things that were strange to me, which was pretty much everything in the Bible, it seemed like a whole lot of non sense to me, from the very beginning, although as a child I never really did question the idea of Jesus, but then again, I was a child... I was always told by the people at my church such as the youth ministers, the pastor, the fellow church goers and such not to ask so many questions, and that the Bible is not to be taken literally in all parts, one of my main questions at the time was that if this was the book of a God, why are sooo many things omitted... The answer was Jesus came and died for our sins, that is all I ever heard over and over and that what it all came down to was faith, that of course was a problem for me...

At the age of 15, one day I just decided that I had enough with all this faith stuff and the whole thing was pure non sense and decided not to associate myself with any religion because they all seemed to require faith, they claim things with no evidence whatsoever, I cannot accept that... Now to me 6 years later:

I am 21 and have considered myself an Atheist for the past 5 years, I look into religion every now and again, but that is just because I am very into Philosophy and sometimes it leads me there... I have been very into Atheist related books and documentaries and media of the such and I enjoy it quite a bit... Me being into Philosophy, I bumped into an interview with the Dalai Lama a few weeks ago, I always knew of him as this nice guy that seemed to be charming and had words of wisdom to say to people, but never really sat down and listened to him... By the end of the interview, I found myself watching every interview that there was available on youtube by the Dalai Lama and any Buddhist that I could find really... Soon after I found myself watching Documentaries of the Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, of his life and his journey and I just found it so amusing I thought to myself this is really inspiring....

There were things I had trouble with, such as another virgin birth, the Buddha being born by an elephant carrying a lotus flower and entering the Queens womb, but I was willing to put that aside for awhile, as tales and legends of the character seem to happen over time, especially when it comes to topics such as these... I was and have been entranced by Buddhism and their way of life for quite some time now, I have become a much happier person in general...

However today, I read over another aspect of the "religion" (if you will), that really bothers me sooo deeply now, just when I thought I found something that didn't incorporate faith or make any outlandish claims such as how the universe started and what happens when you die, etc, I bump into the topic of rebirth, now this I have an extreme problem with, another claim that is being made based upon what? Is there something that I am not understanding about this whole rebirth deal, because what I read seemed to be rather specific on details aswell, and that is why I seeked out these forums to find a Buddhist who I could get answers from that has more knowledge in the subject than I do... Could someone please lay this aspect of the religion out for me? Why is it believed? Is there a reason to believe it? etc... I would be much appreciative...

Also, if I offended anybody in this post, I apologize in advanced, I am not meaning to offend anyone of any faith, I just would like answers to better myself, my life...

[clitlyphype]

...just when I thought I found something that didn't incorporate faith or make any outlandish claims such as how the universe started and what happens when you die, etc, I bump into the topic of rebirth, now this I have an extreme problem with, another claim that is being made based upon what?

welcome JoeB

in Buddhism, the notion of rebirth is based in the reality of action (karma) & result (vipaka). for example, Buddha taught when a person performs a skilful action, they will 'appear' or 'take birth again' in a heavely world. the Buddhist word for heaven are 'sugatiṃ' & 'saggaṃ', which literally means 'a happy state'.

similarly, Buddha taught when a person performs an unskilful action, they will 'appear' or 'take birth again' in a state of deprivation or hellish world. the Buddhist word for 'deprivation' is duggatiṃ, which literally means 'a difficult state'. the word for 'hell' is 'niraya', which means 'to go to destruction'.

for example, often we can witness people & friends do things that lead to them ending up in a difficult state of self-destruction, such as getting addicted to drugs, gambling or acting in ways that destroy their relationships, health & wealth

therefore, to answer your question, the 'rebirth' teachings are based in the natural psychological laws of action & result. however, the Buddhist word/s generally translated as 'rebirth' do not have any literal meaning of a mind from one life being reincarnated into another body in another life

people interpret the 'rebirth' teachings according to their dispositions. most Buddhists interpret the rebirth teachings in a physical life-to-life way and other Buddhists interrpet the rebirth teachings in here-&-now psychological way

regardless of the interpretation, the fundamental truth remains that the actions performed now will create a mental result which takes 'birth' in the future

Why is it believed? Is there a reason to believe it? etc... I would be much appreciative...

the Buddhist scriptures explain that a person that believes in rebirth will shun unskilful bodily, verbal & mental actions (such as killing, stealing, lying, getting angry, etc) and will adopt skilful bodily, verbal & mental actions

Also, if I offended anybody in this post, I apologize in advanced, I am not meaning to offend anyone of any faith, I just would like answers to better myself, my life...

practising Buddhists should not take offense at criticisms of their views & beliefs. therefore, the only potentionally offensive inference you have made is that a Buddhist can take offense. but since Buddhists should not take offense, you have not offended anyone

as for liking better answers for your life, most, if not all of us, are the same as you. further, Buddhism has the answer to all relevent questions pertaining to human well being, whether materially, socially or psychologically

myself, i have been a practising 'Buddhist' for over 20 years. practising the teachings is vitally important to my life. i have done lots of meditation. but i have never once believed in literal rebirth. for example, i practise ethical (skilful) behaviour exclusively for the sake of non-harming & happiness. i practise meditation exclusively for the sake of here-&-now peace & well-being

whether one believes in literal rebirth or not does not really change the practises & behaviours that make up the Buddhist path. for many Buddhists, believing in literal rebirth motivates their practise but, whether you believe or not, the practise of Buddhism remains the same

in short, believing in literal life-to-life 'rebirth' is optional

welcome again. kind regards

element

[AdvertisingPo]

Hello JoeB,

Welcome to BWB !

Don't worry, we have a clause in the Code of Conduct (which everyone agrees to when they join the group) which states:

16. Buddhism Without Boundaries has no official policy concerning beliefs in rebirth/reincarnation. Everyone is very welcome here, irrespective of whether they choose to believe/disbelieve/ or take no fixed position on these matters.
Personally I have no fixed position on rebirth one way or the other because speculating about it is completely irrelevant to my practice of the path here and now.

We have had some discussion topics on rebirth/reincarnation in the past, but you would need to use our Search facility to find them - or look through the topic lists in the different forums.

I hope you enjoy your membership here.

With kind wishes

Aloka

[Xtatotvk]

Hi JoeBlow,

I identify with the atheist label and have a problem with literal rebirth or reincarnation. There are actually examples of Gautama Buddha arguing against the transmigration of a consciousness or a soul. Such as this one.
http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
You also don't need to accept every part of Buddhism as true to commit to the practice.

[Tyncneiff]

Thank you for the responses... It is just that they got so in depth about rebirth/reincarnation, with specific details, that I am not too sure how someone could claim to know such things...

Element, I understand what you are saying and it makes perfect sense, but when using that explanation to justify reincarnation, I just don't see much of a connection there...

Thank you.

[Queuerriptota]

Just thought I should add Ajahn Jayasaro says Buddhism is not a belief system it's an education system. I completely agree. I don't think anyone should accept anything on blind faith.

[traiffhetl]

Exactly, and I bumped into this while reading about Buddhism and I was so happy, it is exactly how I try to go about everything, and the main problem I have with belief systems today...

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

link: http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-h...dha/buddha.htm

[greekbeast]

Hi Joe,

Please could you give a URL reference link and use speech marks " " or use the quote facility in your posting box (looks like a speech bubble) for any quotes which you copy from elsewhere on the internet. Its also not a good idea to use 'Buddha Quotes' from quote sites because they are often inaccurate. Probably the best place to find translations of the Buddha's teachings from the Pali Canon is the Access to Insight website. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/help.html#map

I think your quote above is derived from the well known Kalama sutta AN 3.65 which you might like to read for yourself at the link below . Heres an extract from it:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness" — then you should enter & remain in them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

more at the link:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....065.than.html

with kind wishes

Aloka

[Qzmsdoem]

Hi Joe,

Please could you give a URL reference link and use speech marks " " or use the quote facility in your posting box (looks like a speech bubble) for any quotes which you copy from elsewhere on the internet. Its also not a good idea to use 'Buddha Quotes' from quote sites because they are often inaccurate. Probably the best place to find translations of the Buddha's teachings from the Pali Canon is the Access to Insight website. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/help.html#map

I think your quote above is derived from the well known Kalama sutta AN 3.65 which you might like to read for yourself at the link below . Heres an extract from it:




with kind wishes

Aloka

Sorry I usually do add quotation marks, I don't know why I didn't but I added them and provided a reference from where I got the quote, also, thank you for the site you provided.

[carinsurancess]

...thank you for the site you provided.

Joe

at the link, the Buddha's attitude towards reincarnation belief is also there, as follows:

'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

Kalama Sutta to understand Buddhism, it is important to be aware the Buddha arose in a society where the belief in reincarnation was common place. Buddha was one who sought harmony with the diversity within the world. this reported discourse to the Kalama Village, was the 1st time these people heard Buddha teach & the 1st time Buddha visited them

regards

[Amirmsheesk]

Hi JoeBlow,

I identify with the atheist label and have a problem with literal rebirth or reincarnation. There are actually examples of Gautama Buddha arguing against the transmigration of a consciousness or a soul. Such as this one.
http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
You also don't need to accept every part of Buddhism as true to commit to the practice.

So when people say that The Buddha remembered past lives when he was "still under the illusion of self", is that false?

[Darnisg]

So when people say that The Buddha remembered past lives when he was "still under the illusion of self", is that false?

The Buddha remembered past dwellings (not past lives) and he advised his disciples to consider any past recollection as merely a recollection of the aggregates - not self and not belonging to a self.

[slarceSelia]

So when people say that The Buddha remembered past lives when he was "still under the illusion of self", is that false?

When people say that The Buddha remembered past 'lives', it is those people that are still under the illusion of "self".

The scriptures do not report Buddha remember his past 'lives'. This is a mistranslation.

The scriptures report the Buddha remembered each time his mind ignorantly dwelt in adhering to something as "self" in the past. In other words, during his enlightenment to what is true, his mind recollected all of the times, in the past, his mind was under the illusion of "self"

For example, Buddha explained:

At Savatthi. "Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives [lit: dwellings; homes/alt: adherences] all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or one among them. Which five?

When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form.

Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling.

Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception.

Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications.

Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

Any feeling whatsoever...

Any perception whatsoever...

Any fabrications whatsoever...

Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....079.than.html For example, in the past, you may have believed: "I am a Christian". But today, you believe: "I am a Buddhist" or "I am an atheist".

The notions of "Christian" or "Buddhist" or "atheist" are just mental fabrications; mere mental concepts; mere thought constructions. The notions of "Christian" or "Buddhist" or "atheist" have no inherent reality in themselves therefore they cannot be "you" or define "you". Believing "I am" these mental concepts is called "becoming" in Buddhism.

So when Buddha saw his "past lives", the mind's past conditioning unravelled & deconditioned. His mind saw, in the past, it was under the illusion of self. This is unlike us, whose minds often continue to identify with what the mind believed it was, in terms of "self", in the past.

For example, the unelightened mind thinks: "When I was 7 years old, I was the fastest runner in the district". The mind does not think: "When this body was 7 years old, it was the fastest 7 year old running body in the district".

Kind regards

[gregmcal]

The Buddha remembered past dwellings (not past lives)...

Deshy is Sri Lankan and I am not sure what these terms mean in Singalese, which has a strong influence on Buddhism.

The term for 'past lives' is 'pubbenivāsā', which literally means 'past homes'. Example:

Kasturi Nivasa (Kannada: ಕಸ್ತೂರಿ ನಿವಾಸ, House of Fragrance) is a 1971 Kannada drama film. It is the story of an extremely generous man, who succumbs to his intention of being generous no matter what happens. The film stars Rajkumar, Jayanthi, K. S. Ashwath and Aarathi. This movie is often referred as one of the greatest Kannada movies of all time.

Wikipedia The passages in the scriptures where 'pubbenivāsā' is mentioned also include the word 'jati', translated as 'birth'.

But somehow, somewhere, over time, in Buddhism, these words where given materialistic/physical meanings where as, in India, their meanings were always related to social identity, as follows:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति Tamil:சாதி) (the word literally means 'thus born') is the term used to denote the thousands of clans, tribes, communities and sub-communities in India. It is a term used across religions. Each jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or tribe, although religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi = perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc. In any given location in India 500 or more jatis may co-exist, although the exact composition will differ from district to district.

Wikipedia For Buddha, spiritually, rather than socially, they related to 'self-identity', as follows:

'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?

This clinging to (appropriating) these five aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clung-to-aggregate, feeling as a clung-to-aggregate, perception as a clung-to-aggregate, fabrications as a clung-to-aggregate, consciousness as a clung-to-aggregate. This clinging to these five aggregates is the self-identification described by the Blessed One.

MN 44 Even in non-Indian cultures, the word 'nivasa' (home) is used as a source of identity. For example, if i meet Lebanese people and tell them my name, they say: "You are from the house of XYZ". Or the British aristrocacy are identified as 'The House of Windsor'.

In short, during the night of his enlightenment, all of the past identity attachments, locked away in the Buddha's memory banks, unravelled & lost their grip.

[uncoosesoge]

Oh boy, there seems to be more mistranslation and misunderstanding in Buddhism than in Christianity and Islam combined! What you say makes sense though Element and I seem to understand it more than other comments that I have read on this subject, though it makes sense that doesn't mean it's true, I just don't know how to get a true grasp of this with all these different views, people saying completely different things... I mean, myself speaking three languages I know how different a literal translation can mean to what was actually meant in the original language, but this seems to happen a little too often with nearly everything I seem to come across... "He said this, but what he actually meant was this."

[Wxrxnhar]

Oh boy, there seems to be more mistranslation and misunderstanding in Buddhism than in Christianity and Islam combined!

Thanks

I would support this view. Buddhism probably holds far more variance in interpretations than Christianity and Islam probably do. In fact, most Buddhists have never objectively studied the Buddha's words and follow various sectarian & guru traditions

I just don't know how to get a true grasp of this with all these different views, people saying completely different things...

The scriptures quoted show it accords with reason. For example, the scripture quoted states: "When seeing past nivasa, in reality, these past nivasa are just form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications & consciousness subjected to attachment. These things are not 'I', 'mine' or 'myself'."

That being the case, how can they be the Buddha's past lives or my past lives when Buddha said these recollections should not be taken to be "me" or "mine"?



But, still, such intellectual understanding, even if it is correct, is not so important. Instead, when the mind experiences the peace of non-attachment & freedom from egoism then it can verify Buddhism for itself. As I posted in another thread, BuddhaDhamma is to be verified experientially. Ultimately, all doctrinal interpretations have no relevance whatsoever. They are all forms of blind faith.

The scriptures explain:

Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"

No, lord.

Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?

No, lord.

Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen, & understood for yourselves?

Yes, lord.

Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in reference to this that it was said.

MN 38 ***

[Salliter]

...though it makes sense that doesn't mean it's true...

It is true because, when the scriptures are actually studied, they only have one predominant theme, as follows:

Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to. When a bhikkhu has heard that nothing is worth clinging to, he directly knows everything; having directly known everything, he fully understands everything; having directly known everything, he fully understood everything, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither pleasant or painful, he abides contemplating (observing) impermanence in those feelings, contemplating (observing) fading away, contemplating (observing) cessation, contemplating (observing) relinquishment (letting go). Contemplating (observing) thus, he does not cling to anything in the world. When he does not cling, he is not agitated, he personally attains Nibbana.

MN 37 as follows:

274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight.

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Maggavagga: The Path the scriptures themselves dismiss reincarnation & rebirth as essential teachings, as pure teachings & as teachings that are factors of the path that can lead to the goal. about reincarnation & rebirth, the scriptures report:

Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him and arisen fermentations increase.

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?'

MN 2 again:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit & results in acquisitions.

And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

MN 117 now, the path is practised for the ending of asava (defiled effluents/fermentations) & the ending of becoming (self-belief).

the reported words of the Buddha above, clearly state, to believe in rebirth sides with morality but, ultimately, is a defiled & unenlightened view

thus, if we are not prepared to have faith in the preserved scriptures then only our own spiritual insight can serve as the basis of trust

regards

element

[avarberickibe]

...though it makes sense that doesn't mean it's true...

about the term 'birth', the scriptures explain:

He assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness to be the 'self'. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

SN 22.81 about how suffering, i.e., sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair occur, the scriptures explain:

On seeing a form with the eye, he is infatuated with pleasing forms and gets upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't discern, as it has come to be, the mental release & discernment release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Engaged thus in compliance & opposition, he relishes any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it & remains fastened to it. As he relishes that feeling, welcomes it & remains fastened to it, delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is clinging. From his clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

MN 38 in more simple terms, the same process is explained:

He assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness , or form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness as in the self, or the self as in form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness . He is seized with the idea that 'I am form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness' or 'form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form, feeling, perception, fabrication &/or sense consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.

SN 22.1 'birth' is identifying with things to be 'me' & 'mine'

try to match this with our personal experience. in our experience, can suffering occur without taking something to be "I", "me" or "mine"?



when the 1st fully enlightened beings appeared in the world, the did so following this teaching:

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is feeling permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is perception permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"What do you think of this, O monks? Are mental formations permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, are they unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, those that are impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard them as: 'They are mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Now what do you think of this, O monks? Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, is that unsatisfactory or satisfactory?"

"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."

"Now, what is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is it proper to regard it as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'?"

"Indeed, not that, O Lord."

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever feeling, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that feeling must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever perception, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that perception must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever mental formations, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all those mental formations must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'These are not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

This the Blessed One said. Pleased, the group of five monks were delighted with the exposition of the Blessed One; moreover, as this exposition was being spoken, the minds of the group of five monks were freed of defilements, without attachment.

Indeed, at that time there were six arahants in the world.

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'" "And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, material becoming & immaterial becoming. This is called becoming.

SN 12.2 thus, how can the mind be enlightened when it still believes in "my" past lives given all such identifications are becoming?



And how is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered? He has abandoned the conceit of self, has cut it off at the root, removed it from is soil like a palmyra tree, brought it to utter extinction, incapable of arising again. Thus is the monk a Noble One who has taken down the flag, put down the burden, become unfettered.

MN 22

[Patabeamn]

about how suffering, i.e., sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair occur, the scriptures explain:

lastly, when the scriptures explain how suffering ends, they explain 'birth' ends. but they do not explain seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching & mental cognition end:

On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the mind-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

On hearing a sound with the ear...

On smelling an aroma with the nose...

On tasting a flavor with the tongue...

On sensing a tactile sensation with the body...

On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he isn't infatuated with pleasing ideas and doesn't get upset over unpleasing ideas. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the mind-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging. From the cessation of clinging comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

MN 38 kind regards

[Brainpole]

That is one hell of an explanation, I appreciate it... Looks like it took a span of an hour of your time..