This is a great question and I will try to answer it as simply as I can. Even if you are all skandhas, you feel pain in sickness, old age, missing loved ones, not being able to get what you want and death etc., don’t you? If you answer yes, then you understand what suffering is.
It is already clearly explained. Nibbana is the cessation of suffering as explained above. It is the end of continuity as Mr.X or Mr.Y without a foreseeable future.
Nibbana can be variously described. It is called ending of tanha because it is tanha for Mr.x that make Mr. x Mr.Y. Nibbana can also be called ending of identity because it is identity as Mr.X that is the culprit for actions. For example, Ravi does everything for Ravi. Even these comments are made by Ravi for Ravi’s benefit. So Nibbana is the end of this unnecessary and meaningless continuity.
With Metta
This is a question I pondered upon for a long time. The Buddhism does not offer you any solace in what concerns afterlife, indeed. And for me, it is a strong - albeit purely emotional - proof of the Buddhism being true because it doesn’t try to pander to our instinctive eternalistic cravings.
The answer to this question is I think in the Buddha’s words about His ministry: He only taught about suffering and the end of suffering. If you realize how deeply the suffering runs into the fabric of your existence, then you will probably want to end it, and the Noble Eightfold Path is the only way to end all suffering for good. Even if you will not be able to eliminate all suffering in your lifetime, you may reduce it by following the Buddhadhamma, so even if there is no continuity of identity between lifetimes, you may still experience positive results of your practice here and now (I know I have).
You may not care about your future lives because of the anatta doctrine but you definitely care about ‘you’, whose existence you (in the generalized sense) take for granted and cherish so much, experiencing suffering in this very lifetime. Living a virtuous Buddhist life feels vastly superior to any immoral lifestyle one may try - and I speak from my own experience. So I trust the Buddha that the further you follow on that path in this very lifetime, the less suffering you will experience in the end.
Besides, the Buddha showed us with His own example that the further you go on this path, the more you care about other beings - and this may also extend to your new identity in your future lifetimes. So, even if you don’t care about Mr. Y now, you will care about him after you have advanced on the path.
Well, the fact that you care about the i-ness / mine-ness and ‘enjoying this life’ is exactly what the Buddha saw as the root cause of suffering. For Him, every single detail in the world of sankharas, every sublime pleasure, every jhana, literally everything was just a piece of shit when you look close enough. So, there was no sense in enjoying this life because ultimately you cannot do it. This is a deeply disturbing thought, but accepting it is a very important step on the path of liberation from suffering.
You may not agree, you may feel that there are a lot of things to enjoy in your life. You may even try and enjoy them. You may also lead an immoral life and bank on a possibility that you will not reap the resulting negative kamma in this lifetime - you may even win in this casino of life. Nothing and nobody prevents you from doing so. But if you want to minimize your suffering in this lifetime, the Dhamma is the way to go.
Good comment Vstakan, and to add to your casino point:
let’s think about the assumed best case scenario of life, that someone wins the lottery of life and gets the best hand in life, they have the best health, billions of dollars, good looks, charismatic personality, etc… would the dhamma apply to them? I would say even more so, as the bigger or higher they are, the harder they fall in the end.
All those good things they are attached to will be taken from them by impermanence, it will all be lost, and if they cling to those things their emotional state will be pure hell when those things are lost. Just look at how many rich celebrities die to drugs or suicide because the more they attain materially the more empty they feel. Robin Williams for example had to pay so much in alimony, that he was in debt and had to take on movies just to afford his wife’s expensive life style. Same with Robert Deniro. These people are tormented as a result of their wealth. Often young people who get rich quick end up killing themselves due to overdosing and depression, like Avicii and many other musicians.
When you’ve had the finest food and material in life and that still doesn’t solve dukkha, and in fact makes it worse, that leads to depression in a lot of rich people.
Warren Buffet is a billionaire, but he lives a very frugal life and still lives in his original home, but even he can’t escape old age, sickness, death and karma. And what if rebirth is actually true? then he has to play that entire game all over again and relearn everything, sounds terrible.
So no conditioned outcome is good enough, as it is Impermanent.
First of all, I think you raise an excellent issue. In a way, in order to believe in the Buddhist afterlife-care I need already to believe the position of the deluded identity stuck in samsara. And why would I believe it? Because samsara-theorists tell me so. They say: “You don’t know it, but some delusion of you is infinitely old. This is causing you issues you don’t even see, in future lives you don’t see, and your only chance is to drop out of the delusion, so that in the future, which you don’t see, you can blissfully disappear.”
I have also not seen a satisfying response to it so far, and don’t have one either. My sense is that a viable promise would have the form of: “Do you suffer now in any way? I can show you how to take care of any potential suffering in the future. Full disclaimer: You won’t be there to enjoy the non-suffering any more”.
But then, if any potential future-life suffering disappears along with the experiencer - that doesn’t touch other “people’s” suffering. What is gained in the big picture if a select few drop out? They don’t enjoy the non-suffering, and the one’s who continue to suffer don’t partake in the release of the few.
Not saying this is the only way to look at it, but it’s worth to take it seriously
Topic of afterlife in its essence, for us(not for high minds), is speculation and a view.
We take faith in what Buddha said about it.
Same as Nibbana - about it being worthy, we don’t know. But we make choices to believe in it.
We can only quote sutta on this, which is only valuable if one has faith in Buddha over their own mind.
It occurs to me that OP point 1 essentially deals with who, and point 2 deals with what. There’s been a few posts on when e.g.
What if we contemplate further than a few weeks out - not as far as the next life, but right at the very end of this one. i.e. Instead of
…we consider it as the doctrine of redeath . I reckon once is already plenty.
There are people who say ‘dying is just another moment in life like all the others’, but personally I suspect it will seem more significant; the pragmatic thing to do is to prep for it.
Mendicants, there are these three cravings. What three? Craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence.
Unfortunately, even the 3rd option will be no solace on my deathbed because as this guy commented:
I must almost be at the quote quota, but one more:
Because aside from dying in my sleep, I can’t imagine a better state to be in than ‘I’ve let go of everything, am ready to die, but am also ready to (re)live if that turns out to be a thing’. The N8FP appears to be my best option to achieve that goal.
Because Mr. Y will experience the fruits of Mr. X’s kamma. It doesn’t really matter if Mr. Y remembers what was done or not. Kamma bears fruit whether we like it or not, whether we remember it or not, whether we identify with it or not. It’s an impersonal process, a law of nature. It doesn’t care about your opinion.
If you’re having trouble with this teaching now, that’s OK. Put it aside and come back to it later. Views change as you get older.
The ‘very end of this one’ might be less than ‘a few weeks out’
But this is the problem isn’t it? I’ve never known a death that wasn’t tinged with sadness and loss. Even the Buddha had unenlightened beings morn for him! And of course, that jaramarana suffering is directly caused by birth - Ajahn Chah once suggested that we should cry when someone is born rather than when they die.
If we can’t be compassionate to our potential future-selves and not put them through (if we’re very lucky) old age, (almost always) sickness and (most definitely) death, then who are we going to be compassionate towards?
I am not sure if you know that research (conducted by Dr. Ian Stevenson, Jim Tucker and many other researchers) has carefully investigated children who remember and report past lives. In these studies, children who present with memories of previous lives are extensively interviewed and if they give specific names or locations (cities, towns), the previous life individual is traced and verified using death certificates and autopsy records, etc. They have studied thousands of such cases (there are many academic articles and books written by these researchers).
These studies reveal that our likes and dislikes, attitudes and inclinations get passed on to the next life – see for example the following article:
Stevenson, I. (2000). The phenomenon of claimed memories of previous lives: Possible interpretations and importance. Medical Hypotheses, 54, 652–659.
So, if we don’t reach enlightenment in this life, any practices (and insights) we develop in this life will be beneficial for our next life (this would answer your question “why bother”). In one book of Dr. Jim Tucker (‘Life before life’?), it is stated that some children report having existed in different realms (non-human) and he says that it is difficult ignore these statements in the context of other statements that the same child has made (on previous human births) that have been verified.
Also, regarding your comments – you need to separate conventional reality from ultimate reality. Evolution (and scientific understandings) are about conventional reality, and samsara is about ultimate reality. Samsara is a process where causes and conditions are constantly leading to other causes and conditions – i.e., “continuity without identity.” Ultimate reality is understood through meditation practices rather than by applying simple logic.
But the suttas do show a clear sense of continuity between lives. It’s not that the being reborn is another being with a different sense of continuity. The stream of continuity is the same.
For example Ugga gives the Buddha tasty food in hopes of a better rebirth, and then dies is reborn and the Buddha talks to him as a deva like he’s the same being.
Then, after expressing his appreciation to the householder Ugga of Vesālī, the Blessed One rose from his seat and left. Then, some time later, the householder Ugga of Vesālī passed away. After his death, the householder Ugga of Vesālī was reborn among a certain group of mind-made deities. On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Then, when the night had advanced, the young deva Ugga, of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jeta’s Grove, approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, and stood to one side. The Blessed One then said to him: “I hope, Ugga, that it is as you would have wished.”
“Surely, Bhante, it is as I had wished.”
If the person being reborn was a completely new being, with no sense of continuity from the previous life, then the exchange above would have not happened. The new being wouldn’t know who the Buddha was, and the Buddha wouldn’t address him by the same name and continue the same conversation from his previous life.
By the way, the Buddha is a total bro in that sutta, hooking a householder up with a great afterlife when he totally could have just been like “nah, not helping you get a better afterlife, it’s also impermanent, just go for Nibbana or leave me alone” instead he’s like, “yeah sure, go enjoy your heavenly state adventure before you attain nibbana down the line”.
Thanks for the replies. I found some comments helpful and some not so much.
Here is how finally I have come to answer it to somewhat satisfy myself.
Next birth, even if human or higher is no real comfort as I had mentioned in my original post.
But that is the reality - especially since Buddha says dukkha cannot be said to be svayamkatam or parakatam (wrought by oneself or wrought by another).
For that would side with either uccheda vada(destruction) or sassada vada (externalism); Or as later pali tradition puts it, the one reborn is ‘na ca so, no anyo’ - neither the same nor different.
That is why Suttas also say do not think about whether I was before and whether I will be in the future . It neither offers comfort, nor is it useful.
This is also why even householders/lay followers need to work for nibbana and not just be satisfied with doing good/merit- or as AN 5.176 Piti sutta puts, from time to time practise Jhana.
(kālena kālaṁ pavivekaṁ pītiṁ upasampajja vihareyyāmāti which is defintely a reference to Jhanas)
Nibbana is desirable because it is a deathless state - amata.
It does not carry a sense of I/Mine which always arise with respect to the body or senses or related thought. But it does have a self-awarness(or itself-awarness) which in later mahayana/vajrayana traditions is called svasamvedana (see Dzogchen philosophy, for example); This concept can be traced back to the mahasamghikas and their simile of a lamp to say that : it is in the very nature of consciousness to not only light other things but also light itself, just like a lamp lights other things but also itself.
The amata-dhatu ie. the deathless-element (see cula-sakuludayi sutta/mahamalukyaputta sutta for the term) realised during jhana is that pure consciouness not clinging to the five senses or thoughts or to the body - but it is still self-aware, though devoid of a sense of I/Mine.
It is a peaceful and desirable state, and to be experienced by oneself. Realising anatta and staying in this state is nibbana.
This amata-dhatu is same as the nibbana-dhatu which is unborn, uncreated etc and it is the universal consciouness/universal alaya (to use Lankavatara concept) from whence the 6 sense based consciousness (eye-consciousness etc) arise like waves in an ocean.
These six-consciouness arise according to causes/conditions and are anatta.
Nibbana entails nirodha/cessation of these six types of consciousness which arise dependently, and realising tathataa/suchness/true nature which is beyond them.
(This explanation is of course using mahayana concepts but we can still draw this out from Pali sutta passages. This is also very close to Peter Harvey’s conclusion in his book Selfless Mind)
Note:
(a) My understanding of the much contested text:
‘vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato pabham’
Correct reading should be sabbato pabham - luminuos all-round - not paham or apaham.
‘Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ,
Anantaṃ sabbatopabhaṃ;
Ettha āpo ca pathavī,
Tejo vāyo na gādhati.’
Reason:
Similarly worded passage says - ‘tamo tattha na vijjati’ - ‘darkness does not exist there’.
Yattha āpo ca paṭhavī,
Tejo vāyo na gādhati,
Na tattha sukkā jotanti,
Ādicco nappakāsati,
Na tattha candimā bhāti,
Tamo tattha na vijjati.
(Ud. 1-10: Bāhiyasuttaṁ)
This is of course in addition to the famous phrase ‘pabhassaram cittam’.
(b) I am aware that Ven Bhante Sujato and Ven Bhikkhu Brahmali do not subscribe to nibbana as any form of consciousness; I have great respect and admiration for them but I feel without this explanation, nibbana is just not desirable enough (for me!) to justify any effort, let alone letting go of sensual pleasures.
. I reckon once is already plenty.
