Should you believe in rebirth? Whatever!

[dayunbao]

@tuvok

If nothing crosses over then what’s the point of getting out of the “round of rebirth”? “You” are not in it, so you don’t need to get out.

Speaking personally, it was the suffering I’ve experienced in this life and the desire to free myself of it, not anything related to future lives, that got me practicing Buddhism. The reason I’ve stuck with Buddhism is because I found that my experience aligned with what the Buddha taught about dukkha, it’s origin, and how to stop it. In general, why people become Buddhist and start practicing is very personal and unique to the individual. However, whatever the specific reasons are, I think one should base their decision to accept Buddhism on trying out the teachings and seeing them work in their own minds. Trying to first validate a concept like rebirth, and only then start practicing, probably won’t lead anywhere. I don’t know if either Martin or tuvok consider themselves Buddhist yet, or have begun a regular meditation practice. If they haven’t started meditating and cultivating mindfulness, I’d say start there, see if you agree with what the Buddha taught, then come back to the idea of rebirth later.

The EBT (Early Buddhist Teachings) crowd probably aren’t going to go into deep, complicated philosophical discussions about the mechanics of rebirth. Avoiding that kind of thing is one of the hallmarks of the EBT. So you might not get your answers here. Trying to find parallels in biology or physics isn’t going to lead to satisfactory results, either, I think. I’m a big fan of science, but in the end whatever parallel someone claims to have found will be handwavey at best. Tibetan Buddhism has mountains of texts discussing very subtle philosophical points related to consciousness and rebirth. The Mind/Consciousness Only School (Yogacara), which was very influential in later Mahayana and tantra, developed a complex model of consciousness with 7 layers, and claims to understand how things like kamma are passed from one life to another. Buddhist tantra carried the idea even further. The Tibetans continue to study all of this. So, you can check out what they have to say. It will probably take a couple of years to read and begin to digest all that material. However, I doubt it will remove all of your doubts.

[tuvok]

@anon56826743

“You” are not in your life, so why don’t you throw all your possessions away and abandon your duties? After all, there won’t be a “you” in the future to suffer the results.

Oh, but I am in my life. I know that first-hand. It’s just that I’m an evolving process, not an eternal entity. When the body lives there is consciousness, when it dies - that disappears too (actually it does disappear every night for most, except for those who can sleep with consciousness turned on, but let’s not get into that ). What I said is that if it’s not you that is reborn, then you are not in the round of rebirths (contrary to being in life, which we definetely are). So what is being freed here?

@anon56826743

As I understand, it’s similar with rebirth, except more drastic.

And that’s what I have problem with. There is a lot of me, both physically and mentally that continues from moment to moment. Some thinks get shed (as in the video of the dying cell posted here some time ago) over time until the whole process stops at death. That process is clear. Process for rebirth is not at all. If nothing gets transferred, then that is not rebirth, it’s good old physical cause-and-effect.
You water the seed and a plant grows and creates more seeds. You have sex and a baby is born, grows up and has more babies. That’s not rebirth, at least not the way it is usually sold. There is nothing metaphysical here.

[tuvok]

@stu

spooky action at a distance …

I’ll just quote wiki on this:

If “action” is defined as a force, physical work or information, then it should be stated clearly that entanglement cannot communicate action between two entangled particles (Einstein’s worry about “spooky action at a distance” does not actually violate special relativity). What happens in entanglement is that a measurement on one entangled particle yields a random result, then a later measurement on another particle in the same entangled (shared) quantum state must always yield a value correlated with the first measurement. Since no force, work, or information is communicated (the first measurement is random), the speed of light limit does not apply (see Quantum entanglement and Bell test experiments). In the standard Copenhagen interpretation, as discussed above, entanglement demonstrates a genuine nonlocal effect of quantum mechanics, but does not communicate information, either quantum or classical.

(I bolded the most relevant parts).

People like to use quantum mechanics to explain consciousness or metaphysics. Usually this fails badly.

[stu]

I believe that Ajahn was using it as a metaphor in the video. Try and take another listen to what he was saying with this in mind.

[tuvok]

@dayunbao

Speaking personally, it was the suffering I’ve experienced in this life and the desire to free myself of it, not anything related to future lives, that got me practicing Buddhism.

Me too. Buddhist goal is usually described in two ways:

• freedom from suffering
• freedom from rebirth

I never had any problems with the first one.

@dayunbao

Trying to first validate a concept like rebirth, and only then start practicing, probably won’t lead anywhere.

Personally I have no need to validate it, I don’t need that concept. What I hope for is that people stop selling this as truth if they can’t prove any of it.

One thing is to claim that it is in the EBTs - it is there, it’s hard to claim otherwise. There are also many miraculous and mystical things there too. No problem with that - until you start to claim that it is an ontological fact. If you do want to state that it’s true - then please supply the evidence.

@dayunbao

I don’t know if either Martin or tuvok consider themselves Buddhist yet,

I don’t need to put labels on myself. I meditate and it’s cool.

@dayunbao

So you might not get your answers here.

As I mentioned above, I’m not looking for answers. I want people to live up to their claims. I want people to be precise in the words they use.

[Martin]

I tend to switch off when people introduce quantum mechanics into discussions like this. It’s usually pseudo-science.

[Martin]

I was questioning the notion of “disembodied” craving, or craving as a sort of abstract natural force.
Craving is what sentient beings do, not what clouds do.

[Martin]

That’s a completely different discussion. I was just observing an inconsistency in the way the suttas describe consciousness. Usually consciousness only arises in dependence on sense-base and object, but occasionally it’s described more like an existing entity, as with the seed example.
In any case, it’s clear from MN38 that it’s not consciousness that “wanders on”.

So it’s back to the basic questions: “What is reborn?” and “How is that information” ‘transmitted’ from one life to the next?"
I don’t think the EBT address these basic questions, hence the speculative metaphors you see in discussions like this.
It seems like later schools tried to address these questions by adding on more types of consciousness, eg “store-consciousness”

[Martin]

It’s precisely the negation of a “soul” in Buddhism that makes rebirth difficult to explain, IMO.

[Ficus]

This exchange is getting a bit testy, so just a reminder that the forum encourages you to …

Be agreeable, especially when you disagree

Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said. It’s fine if you do wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it: the Buddha said we should praise what should be praised, and criticize what should be criticized. But remember the advice of the Araṇavibhaṅga Sutta (MN 139): criticize ideas, not people.

Please avoid:

• Name-calling.
• Ad hominem attacks.
• Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content.
• Knee-jerk contradiction.
• Passive-aggressive tactics.
• Psycho-analysing other commenters.
• Threatening people with kammic retribution!

Feelings can be hurt without anyone changing their minds, so agree to disagree and let’s keep to the topic in discussion without resorting to interpersonal tussles.

[stu]

@Martin

That’s a completely different discussion. I was just observing an inconsistency in the way the suttas describe consciousness. Usually consciousness only arises in dependence on sense-base and object, but occasionally it’s described more like an existing entity, as with the seed example.

I find it consistent. For me, something can be dependant on other things and at the same time be an entity. In fact I find it hard to imagine any entity that isn’t dependant on other things. There can certainly be a lag between something coming into existence due to some conditions and then going out of existence once those conditions have gone. But if you don’t find these things consistent then fair enough.

@Martin

In any case, it’s clear from MN38 that it’s not consciousness that “wanders on”.

Well, not the very same consciousness, no. Hence the seed growing in the field of kamma analogy. When the seed grows and comes to fruition another seed (not the very same seed) is sown in the field.

“Yes, reverend,” Sāti replied. He went to the Buddha, bowed, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”

“Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”

“Sāti, what is that consciousness?”

“Sir, it is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”

[faujidoc1]

Let’s all keep in mind that the question of Rebirth without a Self is one of the metaphysical points generations of Buddhist philosophers have been discussing for 2500 years without a satisfactory outcome! We’re hardly likely to come up with the definitive answer on D&D!

That said, what each of us will perhaps be able to come to terms with is a explanation that works for oneself. The advantage of Dhamma discussion is that we can upgrade/ refine our view so that it it comes closer to the Reality we are as yet unable to grasp. If we did grasp it, we would be Arahants, wouldn’t we?

[stu]

@faujidoc1

If we did grasp it, we would be Arahants, wouldn’t we?

This dependent origination is deep and appears deep. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating this teaching that this population has become tangled like string, knotted like a ball of thread, and matted like rushes and reeds, and it doesn’t escape the places of loss, the bad places, the underworld, transmigration.

[Adutiya]

@Martin

I haven’t yet found a satisfactory answer in the suttas to that basic question: “What is reborn?”

I think people conceptualize and describe this in different ways. For me, the key to beginning to understand the answer to this question was understanding namarupa/vinnana, particularly in Dependent Origination.

In MN 38, the Buddha excoriates the monk Sati for misrepresenting what the Buddha taught by espousing that it’s the very same consciousness that is reborn. In other words, that consciousness is a thing, an essence or soul of a person. This gets to the heart of the notion of self that impedes our liberation.

So often the Buddha describes consciousness (vinnana) as a process rather than a thing. In his book on Rebirth, Analayo deftly and succinctly defines the mutual reciprocal dependence of namarupa (name-and-form) and vinnana (consciousness). Here are some excerpts from his book:

"In early Buddhist thought, “consciousness” stands for the mind’s ability to be conscious of something. “Form” represents the material side of experience. “Name” stand for the functions of the mind apart form consciousness.

According to a definition found in [SN 12], “Name” stands for the following mental factors:

• feeling
• perception
• intention
• contact
• attention

In the context of the early Buddhist analysis of experience, “feeling” represents the hedonic feeling tone of experience in terms of it being pleasant, painful or neutral.
“Perception” stands for the matching of experience with concepts and thereby for cognition and recognition.
"Intention” covers the purposeful dimension, that which reacts to experience or its potential.
"Contact” ensures the conjunction of the other factors in experience, their coming together in a particular time and space instant with the material dimension of contact taking the form of the experience of resistance and the nominal dimension of contact taking the form of designation.
"Attention” is responsible for noticing and observing a particular aspect out of of whatever experience is experienced.

These aspects of the mind in conjunction are responsible for the coming into being of “name”, that is, for the formation of concepts, for how we refer to and name things, be this mentally or verbally, and categorize them. Therefore feeling perception, intention, contact and attention taken together make up the “name” part in the compound name-and-form.

The range of name-and-form as the conceptual and material aspects of experience encompass the whole gamut of what is experienced by consciousness. Here name as well as form depend not only on on each other but also on consciousness. This process together is that which provides the context of what our “consciousness” is aware of.

This reciprocal conditioning of consciousness and name-and-form presents a basic matrix of experience, a continuous interplay between consciousness on the one hand and name-and-form on the other that, according to the early Buddhist analysis, build up the world of experience. The reciprocal conditioning between consciousness and name-and-form explains the continuity of one’s experiences during life without an unchanging agent. It thereby functions as the counterpart to the early Buddhist doctrine of notself, anatta, according to which there is no permanent entity in any aspect of experience. In early Buddhist thought, the assertion of the doctrine of notself does not imply a denial of the existence of anything subjective in experience. It only means that the subjective experience is a process devoid of a permanent entity, that it is a changing stream of consciousness that depends on a changing process of name-and-form, and vice-versa."

I hope this helps you to begin to answer this question!

Here is another discussion on this topic if you wish to explore:

What is it that is reborn?

Buddhism argues that there is no permanent soul and that an individual person is just an ever-changing-interdependent-process-of-mind-and-matter. It would seem obvious then to say that the ever-changing-interdependent-process-of-mind-and-matter ends at death. In other words, when a person dies, that is the end. But Buddhism insists that death is not the end and somehow a person continues on through rebirth either in this realm or one of the other numerous realms. That obviously begs the quest…

[faujidoc1]

Great summary, and thank you for getting us back on topic!

Recently, I’ve been toying around with the idea of sentient beings wandering from life to life in Samsara as being somewhat akin to Virtual Machines running on a Cloud such as Microsoft azure.

Here the Virtual Network / Network interface would be represented by the External/ Internal sense bases. Since the VM has no actual reality, all it will ever know is the input it receives from this interface… this constant input/output is what keeps the VM embodied (Consciousness/ Namma-Rupa). VMs can start running and terminate at any point, all the data about the VM (kamma, memories, etc) is stored within the Cloud and the VM can be instantly reconstructed in a different virtual location (apparent Death and Rebirth). VMs can run different OS (species) interacting in different kinds of networks (planes of existence) and the resources available can change (results of kamma)… if a VM loses enough resources it will necessitate a change in OS (bad kamma). The only way the sentient VM can get out of the trap of the Samsaric cloud is to develop the wisdom to switch its processing off… at that point, it will go beyond the Cloud and reach the previously indistinguishable and unfathomable True Reality… Nibbana.

In such a structure there would be 3 different frameworks of reality - the reality of the Sentient VM which experiences the physical world, Birth Death etc, the reality of the Sentient VM that has awareness of its impermanent, non Self nature and can appreciate that everything it experiences is a dependently originated process, and the reality of the Sentient VM that has gone beyond all that to understand the empty nature of the Cloud itself.

Now, this is just a thought experiment meant to incorporate the various points of view seen on this topic. … still, makes one wonder doesn’t it? No wonder the Buddha said

SN12.15
“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.”

[rcdaley]

Ehipassiko, friends.

I just live by this, elementary Buddhist style.

When that noble disciple has a mind that’s free of enmity and ill will, uncorrupted and purified, they’ve won four consolations in the present life. ‘If it turns out there is another world, and good and bad deeds have a result, then—when the body breaks up, after death—I’ll be reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ This is the first consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out there is no other world, and good and bad deeds don’t have a result, then in the present life I’ll keep myself free of enmity and ill will, untroubled and happy.’ This is the second consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things happen to people who do bad things, then since I have no bad intentions, and since I’m not doing anything bad, how can suffering touch me?’ This is the third consolation they’ve won.

‘If it turns out that bad things don’t happen to people who do bad things, then I still see myself pure on both sides.’ This is the fourth consolation they’ve won.

• SuttaCentral

[Erika_ODonnell]

@Martin

I was questioning the notion of “disembodied” craving, or craving as a sort of abstract natural force.
Craving is what sentient beings do, not what clouds do.

A notion I remember having when I first startet getting into Buddhism was the sense that the inner world of the mind was exempt from the natural world, not part of it. That is, while the external world of matter had to follow the laws and regulations of causality, the internal world of the mind did not.

This view gels pretty well with the non-ecological-ness of Western thought in general. We tend to view ourselves, humans, and society as something apart from nature, not subject to natural laws, not plugged into the biophysical flows of energy and matter that make up both the world and ourselves (but we are, mind and body, actually just pieces of the world floating around in the world )

I remember having (what I feel was) an a-ha moment, that wait, why would my internal world of thoughts, feeling, experiences, etc. not be governed by natural laws? A thought is as much a part of nature as a stone or a leaf. There’s no mental space that’s outside of reality.

I think intellectually at least, it makes sense that if we are just world-processes made from the stuff of reality, it doesn’t make sense to take credit for it. Like, you wouldn’t say “to be composed of mostly carbon and water is what sentient beings do” because it’s weird to take credit for that.

Or like, hey, check out all this calcium in my bones , I did that!

[Radius]

@Martin

“What is reborn?”

My current understanding (of Anatta) is that there’s nothing to be reborn. ← That’s the trippy part right there.

There’s much I don’t know, but one thing that I do know is that life is dukkha as @dayunbao commented somewhere upstream. For me, the jury is still out on rebirth but if there’s no continued existence after this ‘station of consciousness’ then I see no reason to prolong the dukkha.

To thine own self be true. It's all that any of us can do.

Condensing many words into few, I grew up Christian/Catholic but had the beginnings of doubts starting from mid-teens. There was one question above all others (details would add nothing here) that I spent years soul-searching*, researching, asking devout lay people and priests in multiple countries. I know the parrot responses, but when I slowed them down (for me personally), they don’t stack up. When the fate of ones eternal soul may be at stake, acknowledging doubt is scary as. I was unable to, as you say, “find a satisfactory answer” to a core element of that doctrine and ultimately had no authentic option but to walk.

[Radius]

@sujato

Believe in rebirth, don’t believe in rebirth, whatever. But don’t try to pretend that it’s not what the Buddha taught.

For me, this ^^ is the take-home message from this essay.

[cdpatton]

@sujato

But there’s a subtle, almost snarky humor in the way the Aggaññasutta skewers the pretensions of the brahmins.

The story that always stands out for me is the one about Mahābrahmā fooling himself into believing he created everyone else in DN 1. I mean, at the very least, it’s sarcasm. There was a really humorous scene in EA 24.5’s version of the Buddha taming the nāga. I can’t read it without imagining the audience having a chuckle at Kāśyapa’s reaction when the Buddha shows him the tame nāga.

It does seem to happen when dealing with the beliefs of non-Buddhists like the brahmins and ascetics.