What happens when a Buddhist dies?

[Dancing David]

More power to you Jan!

There are many different parts of the buddhist canon. They are written in many different ways by many different people at many different times. The official canons were written down long after the death of the buddha, and people got together and recited many of the buddha's teaching, those that very one agreed upon became part of the canon. It continues to grow, for anything that leads to the buddha is helpful.

I am not sure where historical scholars would put the teaching of the buddha in his former lives, I just know that reincarnation goes agains the teaching that there is no self or atman.

But to each thier own, there are many mystical paths of the buddha and there are many sceptical paths of the buddha. And I think that he frequently preached the truth as he saw it, there is no self, attachment to self leads to suffering, the eight way path leads to an end to suffering.

The sad thing about buddhism is that it didn't become wide spread again until the modern era, I think that much suffering could have been done away with had the teachings of the buddha been heeded.

"Be ye lamps unto yourselves!"

 

[Cinorjer]

All I am asking is: does anybody know at least one version of Buddhism being consistent?

If you had a library full of books written by various philosophers down through the centuries, would you expect everything they wrote to be consistent? Some monks had a more perfect understanding than others, that's all. The sutras were written to instruct the monks and people of the time, and used parables and metaphors familiar to them. Also, for most of its history, Buddhism was a religion where only monks in the temples would have even bothered to read them. For the common people, Buddhism was incorporated into their existing religious practices and beliefs, and being Buddhist was mostly a matter of praying to Buddha, following some guiding principles, and helping to support the monks and local temples.

Buddhism is something you do, a way of life, not a set of rules or cosmology or beliefs. The particular teachers you listen to today are as important as the old books, which are the recorded words of past teachers. The canon is a reference library, that's all. The Dharma is a living thing, not a bunch of words in a book.

 

[Grommitt]

Buddhism is something you do, a way of life, not a set of rules or cosmology or beliefs

How does one "do" Buddhism?

This suggests that Buddhism is a form of behavior. Forms of behavior can be placed on a list of things one does. If one consistently behaves according to this list , what makes this different from rules?

A Buddhist teacher would ask who it is that is doing the "doing"?

 

[Cinorjer]

How does one "do" Buddhism?
I do it by getting up, going to work, coming back home to my wife, eating, and going to sleep. Along the way I try to fulfill my purpose: to help all beings.

This suggests that Buddhism is a form of behavior. Forms of behavior can be placed on a list of things one does. If one consistently behaves according to this list , what makes this different from rules?

Because the doer cannot seperate himself from what is being done. But you know that. Alas, the moment I try to put my understanding into words, it becomes hopelessly inadequate.

A Buddhist teacher would ask who it is that is doing the "doing"?

I don't know, either. A deep bow to you.

 

[Grommitt]

Consider this quote by the late Alan Watts:

"The nub of all these Oriental Philosophies is not an idea, not a theory, not even a way of behaving, but a way of experiencing a transformation of everyday conciousness so that it becomes quite apparent to us that this is the way things are."

Many Westerners have difficulty grasping the Oriental view that Buddhism is experential and not dependant on words and texts. One may study the texts to get the gist of it, but this is meaningless without the experience. The texts merely point the way...the experience is something beyond the words.

This concept may smack of mysticism to Westerners which is understandable. The fact is, the practice is a cortical, logical way
of realizing what you already know but have not yet realized that you know it.

Essentially, there is no need to embrace anything. There is no need to believe anything. You already have everything you need. The practice of Buddhism is just one way of realizing this.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

I always loved the afterlife concept in terry pratchet's discqorld novels. Your afterlife is whatever you think it is, quite simple. If you have no notion of hell, you cannot possibly go to hell. Of course, if fundy evangelists tell you there is a hell, and that's where you're going, you might just believe them and end up there. This is why it is imperative to shoot evangelists on sight.

 

[jan]

If it seems self-contradictory to you, then I will suggest that you have grasped the essence of it. It is meant to be contradictory.

Zen obfuscation. The earlier writings mentions sometimes that the essential experience is beyond words, but never that it is self-contradictory. It seems to me as if the Buddha was spreading the Buddhism by teaching, that is, by words (the idea of teaching without words is, as far as I know, at least one and a half thousend years later).

And if you allow contradictions, the Logical Goddess will catch you, and horrible things will happen, and hell will break lose, and your religion will become disrespected by skepticts.

I mentioned the Pāli Canon since I like its rational approach: it encourages you to think over it. Of course, if contradictions are okay, anything goes.

More power to you Jan!

There are many different parts of the buddhist canon. They are written in many different ways by many different people at many different times. The official canons were written down long after the death of the buddha, and people got together and recited many of the buddha's teaching, those that very one agreed upon became part of the canon. It continues to grow, for anything that leads to the buddha is helpful.

I am not sure where historical scholars would put the teaching of the buddha in his former lives, I just know that reincarnation goes agains the teaching that there is no self or atman.

But to each thier own, there are many mystical paths of the buddha and there are many sceptical paths of the buddha. And I think that he frequently preached the truth as he saw it, there is no self, attachment to self leads to suffering, the eight way path leads to an end to suffering.

The sad thing about buddhism is that it didn't become wide spread again until the modern era, I think that much suffering could have been done away with had the teachings of the buddha been heeded.

"Be ye lamps unto yourselves!"

Thanks. I keep trying to be my own little lamp, but so far it doesn't lead me to Buddhism. I agree that we can not know what the historical teachings of Buddha looked like, and I also agree that anything worth a shot is not bound to be fixed in a historical state, without the ability of progression.

The problem remains that, as far as I can see, the most appealing and interesting kinds of Buddhism deny the existence of a self (and the arguments are so convincing that I would say it is justified to count the Buddha as a precursor of David Hume or modern Materialism), but on the other hand, they also have this reincarnation thinglet, or if they don't, they are something like "do anything exactly as a non-Buddhist would do".

If you had a library full of books written by various philosophers down through the centuries, would you expect everything they wrote to be consistent? Some monks had a more perfect understanding than others, that's all.

I asked to explain one consistent version, preferably the Pāli version, since it happens that this is the version I am most interested in, but if you can't serve that, I would be happy to take anything else. It's fine that Buddhism is just a method and so on and so on. But I am not interested in becoming a Buddhist, I am interested in Buddhism from a philological stance. So is it possible to explain Buddhims in a way I can understand?

And we are not talking about a minor point in one writing that is inconsistent with another writing from a different century and country. I would assume for most people in the world calling themself Buddhists reincarnation is not just a trivial, negligible point, so the ease most of you deny that there is a problem could be considered to be a bit arrogant.

I am also aware that there are no holy Buddhism writings with an authority that is comparable to the claimed authority of the Bible or the Koran. Nevertheless, the ease with which historical writings are abandoned in favour of your own ideas about Buddhims is a bit astonishing. Accidently, I am interested in what the historical teaching of Buddhism is. As I said before, I would be well able to make up my own religion if I had any inclination.

I always loved the afterlife concept in terry pratchet's discqorld novels. Your afterlife is whatever you think it is, quite simple. If you have no notion of hell, you cannot possibly go to hell. Of course, if fundy evangelists tell you there is a hell, and that's where you're going, you might just believe them and end up there. This is why it is imperative to shoot evangelists on sight.

Lucky me! It means that nonexistence will be mine without years of meditation.

 

[sackett]

Would you like to have a Zen experience?

Would you like to have another?

 

[Cinorjer]

It's fine that Buddhism is just a method and so on and so on. But I am not interested in becoming a Buddhist, I am interested in Buddhism from a philological stance. So is it possible to explain Buddhims in a way I can understand?

Certainly. All schools of Buddhism derive and have as their heart the Noble Truths. The Noble Truths are written in the form of a doctor's examination of a patient. It goes:

First Noble Truth: (The Complaint) The problem is that your life contains suffering (usual translation of "dukkha", but also translates as sour or unpleasant).

Notice the Buddha did not say the problem is that we need to please God, or stop sinning, or learn how to get along with each other, or any such thing. He directly pointed to the real problem. We are unhappy. If we weren't unhappy, then there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

Second Noble Truth: (The Diagnosis) This suffering is caused by desires.

The desire for life to be something it is not. The desire to be free from pain. If you have everything that makes you happy, then the desire for this happiness to last forever. The desire for security, for excitement, even the desire not to desire. The list is endless in the variety and flavors of desire. Not getting what we desire results in suffering, and no one can get everything they desire. Thus, everyone suffers.

Third Noble Truth: (The Prognosis) This suffering can be cured.

It would be a strange religion indeed if we said "And that's the way it is. Deal with it."

Forth Noble Truth: (The Prescription) This cure can be accomplished by the extinguishing of desires, through living the Eight-Fold Path.

I leave it to your research to read up on the eightfold path. But this is Buddhism in a nutshell. Plumb the depths of the Noble Truths, and you have understood the Buddha.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Jan asked me to post a responce to this thread and thought it best to just post the following from this site http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/nutshell.html#14
Buddhism in a nutshell..

May you and all be beings be well and happy.


Anatta or Soul-lessness

This Buddhist doctrine of re-birth should be distinguished from the theory of re-incarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).

If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."

To prove the existence of endless felicity in an eternal heaven and unending torments in an eternal hell, an immortal soul is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, what is it that is punished in hell or rewarded in heaven?

"It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science."

Buddhists do agree with Russell when he says "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears."

Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible atom. "For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a living body and other occurrence which take place after that body is dead."

As C.E.M. Joad says in "The Meaning of Life," matter has since disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all, it is no longer known.

The so-called atoms, it seems, are both "divisible and destructible." The electrons and protons that compose atoms "can meet and annihilate one another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both as regards shape and position than that of a thing."[11]

Bishop Berkeley who showed that this so-called atom is a metaphysical fiction held that there exists a spiritual substance called the soul.

Hume, for instance, looked into consciousness and perceived hat there was nothing except fleeting mental states and concluded that the supposed "permanent ego" is non-existent.

"There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other -- of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity."

Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."

Dealing with this question of soul Prof. James says -- "The soul-theory is a complete superfluity, so far as accounting for the actually verified facts of conscious experience goes. So far no one can be compelled to subscribe to it for definite scientific reasons." In concluding his interesting chapter on the soul he says: "And in this book the provisional solution which we have reached must be the final word: the thoughts themselves are the thinkers."

Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head. Even today a man holding a public position dare not question it."

The Buddha anticipated these facts some 2500 years ago.

According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of Kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process.

Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul.

It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning.

Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an Atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.

"The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.

If there is no soul, what is it that is reborn, one might ask. Well, there is nothing to be re-born. When life ceases the Kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form. As Bhikkhu Silacara says: "Unseen it passes whithersoever the conditions appropriate to its visible manifestation are present. Here showing itself as a tiny gnat or worm, there making its presence known in the dazzling magnificence of a Deva or an Archangel's existence. When one mode of its manifestation ceases it merely passes on, and where suitable circumstances offer, reveals itself afresh in another name or form."

Birth is the arising of the psycho-physical phenomena. Death is merely the temporary end of a temporary phenomenon.

Just as the arising of a physical state is conditioned by a preceding state as its cause, so the appearance of psycho-physical phenomena is conditioned by cause anterior to its birth. As the process of one life-span is possible without a permanent entity passing from one thought-moment to another, so a series of life-processes is possible without an immortal soul to transmigrate from one existence to another.

Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is Santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The Kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by Kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future -- is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.

 

[jan]

Cinorjer,

thanks for your persistence (what an unbuddhistic word).

1. Certainly our life contains suffering. Is this suffering unbearable? I, personally, don't think so, so I don't complain. But the idea of this kind of life with its suffering and its joys going on and on forever is a bit frightening.

2. "Desire" is explained in less abstract terms in non-Cinorjer versions of Buddhism, as desire of the eye, desire of the ear, and so on. "The desire for life to be something it is not" is rather complex. Another possible translation instead of "desire" would be "thirst".

3. Curing the suffering: you could shoot yourself (oh my nonexisting god, I sound like a Christian fundie: "why don't you atheists commit suicide?"). Or admit that life isn't that bad. Or take more drugs. Obviously, if reincarnation is real, some of these cures are more effective than others.

4. The eightfold path. Let's start with "Right View" (id est, "Samma Ditthi"). Where do I get this Right View? Out of the blue? I would assume to get enough Right View for liftoff some study, some learning is required.

I would like to add a quote from the Majjhimanikāyo (although it doesn't seem to be very popular here), from chapter 10 (sorry, I had to google to find an english translation, I guess it's not the best available):

"Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference [=the four noble truths] in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return."

"Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return.

[...]

"Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return."

Seems as if "non-return" was deemed important by earlier Buddhists. And if you have it at hand, you may also check the previous chapter, how Sāriputto nitty-gritty explains the concept of "Right View" (which happends to contain the four noble truths and the eightfold path):

"And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation, generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact -- this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."

I don't want to start a pissing contest here ("who knows the most Buddhistic texts?"), and as I mentioned earlier, I know that the sources these quotes are taken from don't have the same status than the gospels; nevertheless enough people took them serious, so I was wondering whether it is possible to give them a consistent interpretation.

Pahansiri,

thanks you replied. I just happened to notice your post, but since I have to go to bed now, I will have to read it tomorrow.

 

[CFLarsen]

What happens when a Buddhist dies, you ask?

He snuffs it. He's pushing up the daisies. He's not "resting". He won't be responding to his 9 o'clock alarm call. He's not "stunned". He's not pining for the fjords. He's not bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

And it's not because he's a Norwegian Blue, major.

He's bleedin' demised. He's passed on. He is no more. He has ceased to be. He's expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. He wouldn't "VOOM" if you put 4 millions volts through him. His metabolic processes are now history. He's off the twig. He has kicked the bucket, he has shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. He is an EX-BUDDHIST!

And this is neither a pun or a palindrome.

End of story.

Proof otherwise? No? OK. And now, for something completely different. The larch.

The larch.

Or, if you like, a man with three buttocks.

Life is so beautiful.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What happens when a Buddhist dies, you ask?

He snuffs it. He's pushing up the daisies. He's not "resting". He won't be responding to his 9 o'clock alarm call. He's not "stunned". He's not pining for the fjords. He's not bein' tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

And it's not because he's a Norwegian Blue, major.

He's bleedin' demised. He's passed on. He is no more. He has ceased to be. He's expired and gone to meet his maker. He's a stiff. Bereft of life, he rests in peace. He wouldn't "VOOM" if you put 4 millions volts through him. His metabolic processes are now history. He's off the twig. He has kicked the bucket, he has shuffled off his mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. He is an EX-BUDDHIST!

And this is neither a pun or a palindrome.

End of story.

Proof otherwise? No? OK. And now, for something completely different. The larch.

The larch.

Or, if you like, a man with three buttocks.

Life is so beautiful.

Well said, Claus. Still, you have to be careful of your "synonyms" for death. Stuff like "he's passed on", "gone to meet his maker" and "joined the bleedin' choir invisible" are liable to make people think you believe there is an afterlife, spirits, or similar.

 

[shemp]

bump

 

[Cinorjer]

I'm always willing to answer to the best of my ability any questions about Buddhism, but at this point I should probably point out that I have only a few years sitting at the feet of people who spent most of their life learning to teach the Dharma. I have no "inka", or teaching authority. And in Buddhism, the transmission of this authority from past to future teachers is very important. What I am giving is the result of listening to the same questions being given to my own Teachers time and again.

1. Certainly our life contains suffering. Is this suffering unbearable? I, personally, don't think so, so I don't complain. But the idea of this kind of life with its suffering and its joys going on and on forever is a bit frightening.

I don't like the usual translation of the First Noble Truth as "Life is Suffering". It would be a short, brutal life indeed if that were always true. People have good and bad times, usually. But one person's suffering effects others. It is a big problem in the world.

2. "Desire" is explained in less abstract terms in non-Cinorjer versions of Buddhism, as desire of the eye, desire of the ear, and so on. "The desire for life to be something it is not" is rather complex. Another possible translation instead of "desire" would be "thirst".

"The desire for life to be something it is not" is not complex, when you think about it. It just defines the problem. Rich people suffer as much as the poor, they just have different desires. A man with a large, loving family suffers as much as the orphan, he just has different desires. And if the poor suddenly become rich, they don't stop suffering. They just end up with different desires. No matter what our life, we are never satisfied.

3. Curing the suffering: you could shoot yourself (oh my nonexisting god, I sound like a Christian fundie: "why don't you atheists commit suicide?"). Or admit that life isn't that bad. Or take more drugs. Obviously, if reincarnation is real, some of these cures are more effective than others.

Killing yourself is one way to end the suffering, of course. But that way causes even more suffering for those people who know and love you. You can take drugs and be happy for a while, but you eventually need more drugs and cause even more suffering in your life. The only way to deal with it is at the cause: the desires.

4. The eightfold path. Let's start with "Right View" (id est, "Samma Ditthi"). Where do I get this Right View? Out of the blue? I would assume to get enough Right View for liftoff some study, some learning is required.

The first step is neccessary before the others, and the hardest. People don't really want to change. They want the world to change to suit them. Beginning a life of living the Eightfold Path requires a shift in the way you think, the way you view yourself and the world around you. You can read all the sutras, and argue endlessly about one point or another, but the Dharma is not found in words. In my own school of Buddhism, the question you must answer is "What are you?" If you say that you are unhappy, or confused, or want to be enlightened, then what is this "you" that suffers and feels desires?

I would like to add a quote from the Majjhimanikâyo (although it doesn't seem to be very popular here), from chapter 10 (sorry, I had to google to find an english translation, I guess it's not the best available)SNIP)

Getting back to the original point of the post, the Buddhist rebirth is not the same as the Hindu reincarnation. Our self is an everchanging function of various elements in constant motion. In effect, you are being reborn constantly, already. The body constitutes one important element of that "I" in "I am". These elements do not just disappear, in that nothing is truly destroyed. The body decomposes or is turned to ash, for instance. But the "self" we speak of is not a soul or atman, a separate thing that exists unchanging after death. So the best answer to give to what happens after death is "I don't know".

 

[jan]

Pahansiri,

thanks for posting this link. I would say it is indeed a good starting point to get informations about Buddhism.

I am not perfectly certain whether Buddha anticipated David Hume, since it is difficult (as others here pointed out correctly) to trace what the teachings of Buddha have been, but it seems to be correct. This is the main reason why I think Buddhism is of more philosophical interest than absurd sounding mythologies like, say, Bramaism or Christianism.

Let's see if I am now able to avoid the following dilemma (and since both ends of the dilemma are obviously absurd, I assume it is a false dilemma):

i) Rebirth means that some kind of immortal, unsplitable soul is reborn, but we want to avoid to say so.
ii) Some kind of energy is reborn. Why should I care? What does it have to do with me?

If I understand it, the Santana is something that has a cause (desire, perceptions, greed, the body needed to maintain it). If those causes vanish, the Santana vanishes. Since it has causes and requires these causes to maintain, it can't be eternal. I agree with it, seems to be very reasonable assumptions (and any Materialist could sign them too). If someone is able to stop the production of desire, then Santana may vanish. Okay. But if the body stops working, I (and UnrepentantSinner and CFLarsen) would aspect the Santana also to vanish.

Now, if the Santana continues after death, I would say i) applies, Buddhism is some kind of ancient, outdated metaphysics, it has an immortal soul, although it avoids this term.
If the Santana doesn't survive death, I would say ii) applies, I see no reason why I should care about rebirth, and Buddhism (in its Zen variant) is just some kind of very roundabout psychotherapy at best.

Now how does the canonical interpretation differ from i)?

As far as I see:

a) There is no central self to attribute the experiences to, just the thoughts, perceptions, emotions &c.

b) Those experiences changes every moment, every experience lasts only a tiny amount of time.

c) And the flow of these experiences can be ended by ending the causal chain that leads to them (that is, end desire, and you end the flow, and bye-bye immortality).

But we still have

e) This flow of experiences (that means, Santana), is not ended with physical death.

Therefore it is possible for the Buddha to talk about his former lifes.

Now I may concede that a)-c) makes rebirth different from reincarnation. Is this all that makes the difference, or is there more to it?

It also seems obvious to me that e) makes Buddhism a metaphysical claim (that is, from my point of view, just another boring religion). As far as I see, the theory of Kamma (Karma) is the culprit. I can't see any evidence for such a form of moral causation. I agree that every good or bad deed has its effects, but I see no evidence that those effects are related to the deed in a moral way (I could behave according to the ethical rules of Buddhism and still be the cause of desastrous consequences).

But perhaps this could be the subject for another thread. For now, I would be happy enough to understand how a consistent interpretation of Buddhism is possible.

CFLarsen, DanishDynamite, Shemp,

I didn't expect some kind of Spanish Inquisition. I confess the heading of this thread exposed it to your wit. But the fact that a Buddhist decomposes after his death doesn't answer what happens to him (or anybody else), according to Buddhism. Even if you don't agree with Buddhism, I would say it is nevertheless a valid question of cultural sciences to ask what Buddhistic beliefs are. It may be a boring question (even some Buddhists seem to be bored with it), but a valid question nevertheless.

Cinorjer,

perhaps you are a more empathic person than me: I ask "why should I care, what is the benefit for me in this, how can I avoid being exposed to suffering", while you ask "how can I avoid to cause suffering".

I have no problem with your answer about what happens after death (that is, "I don't know"). But do you think nobody can know? Not even the Buddha? And that this answer makes you a Buddhist (instead of, say, a sceptic)?

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

The person and beyond

According to Buddhism, there is the person and behind the person is mind. The person is a series of affects (causal), and it is a user illusion. The mind, however, is absolute.

I think therefore i am .... a person

Mind is non-local, i.e. it is not localized in the brain. The same mind that i have is the same mind that you have and the same mind that everyone else has, and the same mind that all sentient beings have. The purpose of Enlightenment is to realize this and to know the basis of everything. it is said that when one can know how it works one is awaken and thus liberated from the cycle of cause and effect.
How can you know the basis of everything? Because you are able to realize what is the cause and what is the effect. This realization is not of a conceptual nature. It is a realization of being. Knowing without thinking.

We die because our lives are an effect.
There are no accidents.
karma (cause and effect) is not punishment or reward...it just is.
This, then, becomes an important matter. If you are ignorant about this, you can become a professional assassin, a hunter trapping and killing animals, beat little old ladies and take their purses, cause general mayhem with the idea that these will pass and all you will get is the thrill and the reward of such actions. If you are ignorant about cause and effect, you can never imagine that this anguish that you cause will become part of your future reality.

A soul is defined as something that is personal and yet eternal.
with this strict definition the buddhist do not believe in a soul. A Buddhist believes that everything that is personal is cause, and everything that is cause has a beginning and an end. Hence the Buddhist vs Hindu debate of soul vs no-soul, the atma and the anatta.
There are five components to your person which are called the Skandhas. These are said to be forever changing. What eventually survives is what you have cause, which can be said to be a ripple in the mind stream, awaiting not reincarnation but rebirth. If you know, i.e you are enlightened, you can choose between allowing the effects to reshape another life or exit the cycle of cause and effect.

oh...one more thing

It was never the intention of Buddha to worship, sit and theorize, or just to be good. Rather, the message was so you too can know directly, by means of meditation.

 

[Cinorjer]

I have no problem with your answer about what happens after death (that is, "I don't know"). But do you think nobody can know? Not even the Buddha? And that this answer makes you a Buddhist (instead of, say, a sceptic)?

I'm a skeptic by nature and a Buddhist by choice. My personal belief is that our consciousness does not survive death, so that no one - not even the Buddha - can know. The Buddha was just a man, after all. A most remarkable man with an insight that changed the world, but the whole point of Buddhism is that each and every one of us has the same potential. What the Buddha experienced, so can you or I. Being a man, what he knew was limited to what he could experience.

But the whole question is irrelivent to what it means to be Buddhist. The Buddha taught about Suffering, it's cause and elimination. So far, the discussion has been about the end of life. Let's take the question and turn it around. Where were you before you were born? Instead of asking where you go to after death, what was your face before you were born? After all, we have yet to experience death, but we all experienced birth. So what were you doing before you arrived on this world? The question makes as much sense, and should be easier to answer.

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

Conciousness

Conciousness (vijana or vinnana) is one of the five skandhas which is causal and is ever changing. Buddhism does not state that conciousness is permanent, eternal or absolute.

 

[Pahansiri]

Greetings jan


Pahansiri,

thanks for posting this link. I would say it is indeed a good starting point to get informations about Buddhism.

You are welcome. Yes it is, there are many including this site http://www.buddhanet.net/qanda.htm which is a good first site.

I am not perfectly certain whether Buddha anticipated David Hume, since it is difficult (as others here pointed out correctly) to trace what the teachings of Buddha have been, but it seems to be correct.

Is it difficult to completely trace the teachings of the Buddha, to a point this is correct but not completely. The Pali Canon (Tipitaka) is the Pali language texts which is the or closets to the language the Buddha spoke. These form the doctrinal groundwork of Theravada Buddhism.

As we know the Buddha did not write down his teachings as none did in that time as oral transmission was what all did.

From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/postcanon.html

The Tipitaka (Pali Canon) assumed its final form at the Third Buddhist Council (ca. 250 BCE) and was first committed to writing sometime in the 1st c. BCE. Shortly thereafter Buddhist scholar-monks in Sri Lanka and southern India began to amass a body of secondary literature: commentaries on the Tipitaka itself, historical chronicles, textbooks, Pali grammars, articles by learned scholars of the past, and so on. Most of these texts were written in Sinhala, the language of Sri Lanka, but because Pali -- not Sinhala -- was the lingua franca of Theravada, few Buddhist scholars outside Sri Lanka could study them. It wasn't until the 5th c. CE, when the Indian monk Buddhaghosa began the laborious task of collating the ancient Sinhala commentaries and translating them into Pali, that these books first became accessible to non-Sinhala speakers around the Buddhist world. These commentaries (Atthakatha) offer meticulously detailed explanations and analyses -- phrase-by-phrase and word-by-word -- of the corresponding passages in the Tipitaka.

I do not believe anyone believes that everything contained in the Tipitaka, which is huge and 11 times larger then the ON and NT, is exactly the words or the Buddha or just commentary from him. But it is clearly based in his teachings. The passing of teachings and the keeping them very close to what was first thought was tradition. We see the Guinness book of world records list the 2 men with the greatest memories living today as 2 Buddhist monks who can recite the entire Tipitaka word for word.

This is the main reason why I think Buddhism is of more philosophical interest than absurd sounding mythologies like, say, Bramaism or Christianism.

For me I seek to not call anything one may hold dear as absurd. If they seek to believe what they do and respect others there is no need to be unkind, if they seek to demand to you that you are lost, blind, dumb etc then it is still best to always be respectful and logical. To be free from emotion and demonstrate to them their beliefs may be flawed and or contradictory etc is always best. Be full or respect and driven by logic and not emotion. It is REALLY best to simply smile and wish them well and walk away but I am still for the most case wrong for allowing my ego to seek debate. Lol Old jocks die hard.

Let's see if I am now able to avoid the following dilemma (and since both ends of the dilemma are obviously absurd, I assume it is a false dilemma):

If we start with a blind or unclear assumption something is absurd and do not seek “all” available information or look fully at or into the thing and are driven by emotion or a need to be right or prejudice then it is the assumption that is absurd not the thing or belief etc.

First before I go on lets look closer at what the Buddha is or did not say about “self” .


Here is a great article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html entitled “No-self or Not-self?”

This is a very short read and well worth reading. A quick excerpt:

In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

Again it is a short and good foundation as to this.

i) Rebirth means that some kind of immortal, unsplitable soul is reborn, but we want to avoid to say so.

A “soul” a self would need be a fixed unchanging thing. It could not contain any other thing, element etc but just “itself”. It could not be shaped or influenced by anything other then just itself. If it was it would not be “self”. Not fixed and unchanging.

There is nothing in this reality, this world, this universe that is in and of itself, self.


I am of the belief that there is “something” that the karma attaches to and or breaks free from this karma etc. What I and others call the true nature of mind. Free from the illusions of self, desires, cravings etc.

This true nature of mind I guess we can call a “thing” ( for lack of a better word as to my limited intellect) this true nature of mind is not “me” not Mark Bertrand/Pahansiri. Is it the true nature of mind the Buddha nature that is “contained” within the rather slow witted being writing this..lol I believe so. It is unique or unlike all other true nature or minds, other Buddha natures? Not at all.

Like a drop from the ocean it is still like all other drops. Like a wave if you will in that ocean if you will. The wave will arise and seem to different from the ocean, tall white crest etc but it is impairment and falls as it arose and again is just ocean. Raising and falling raising and falling always back to its true nature. The reality is it was always in it’s or it’s true nature it was just blinded, confused thinking it was “wave”.

ii) Some kind of energy is reborn. Why should I care? What does it have to do with me?

Karma. Allow me to say this. If my belief is wrong and the materialist is right and after death there is nothing. Or my belief is wrong and the Christian or other God based belief is right and after death I must face a God who is angry and filled with self desires and ego, angry because I did not believe in him.

I do not care both are irrelevant as to how I will live my life. That being seeking to do what is good and right. To not cause suffering to myself or any living thing. To have loving kindness respect and compassion for myself and all beings and the earth etc.

To do what is good and right from a belief of say fear of a God is not moral, to do so from a desire to please “him” or from desire for reward is not moral.
Conversely to believe because there is nothing after this and so my actions do not matter is I believe blind and uncaring and illogical. I do believe “I” live on. Every time I help another, when I plant the seed of kindness though my actions, I live on. When my child becomes much of what he has because what I thought him and what he sees me do, I live on. He helps others and it just keeps moving.

I can not tell you what to believe nor do I desire to convince you or make you do anything. I have no such power, no one controls another without their permission.

If I understand it, the Santana is something that has a cause (desire, perceptions, greed, the body needed to maintain it). If those causes vanish, the Santana vanishes.

I am not sure what you mean as to Santana? You mean Carlos? Kidding.

If by Santana you mean Scriptures of Sanatana Dharma? That is Hinduism


Do you mean samsara? The realm of rebirth? I.e.Transmigration; the round of rebirth and death ?

Here is a good read about that http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samsara.html


Yes we believe that when one realizes “their” true nature of mind this cycle and its suffering ends. Karma is powerless and then meaningless.

Since it has causes and requires these causes to maintain, it can't be eternal. I agree with it, seems to be very reasonable assumptions (and any Materialist could sign them too). If someone is able to stop the production of desire, then Santana may vanish. Okay. But if the body stops working, I (and UnrepentantSinner and CFLarsen) would aspect the Santana also to vanish. .

What has the body to do with it? You are not your body. The body is comprised of completely non “you” elements. It is impermanent. As a Materialist I know and respect you and others believe mind and body are one unit and self dependent.

I can not with unshakeable facts prove you are wrong as you can not with unshakeable facts prove I am wrong.

We believe or most Buddhist believe that like energy and matter the true nature of mind is not created or destroyed. Again I can not prove this and there are others far more intelligent and versed in Buddhism them I that could do a far better job of addressing this for you.

Now, if the Santana continues after death, I would say i) applies, Buddhism is some kind of ancient, outdated metaphysics, it has an immortal soul, although it avoids this term.

Again If by Santana you mean Scriptures of Sanatana Dharma? That is Hinduism You are confusing the two.

As I have demonstrated Buddhist do not believe in a ‘soul” a fixed self. It is not avoiding anything.

If the Santana doesn't survive death, I would say ii) applies, I see no reason why I should care about rebirth, and Buddhism (in its Zen variant) is just some kind of very roundabout psychotherapy at best.

As you wish.

I also do not really “care” about rebirth as it is not the driving force behind my actions, the force is compassion. As to karma in this birth and how it relates to your actions cause and effect is clear and a solid reality. Does it carry over I do not demand this is truth but do believe so. I can not prove it to you with clear solid facts as you can not prove it does not.

To attack something simply because you do not believe it yet you can not prove it not truth is as silly as what you would consider a Christian saying a man could live in the belly of a fish for 3 days and it was true because the Bible says so.

Now how does the canonical interpretation differ from i)?

As far as I see:

a) There is no central self to attribute the experiences to, just the thoughts, perceptions, emotions &c.

b) Those experiences changes every moment, every experience lasts only a tiny amount of time.

c) And the flow of these experiences can be ended by ending the causal chain that leads to them (that is, end desire, and you end the flow, and bye-bye immortality).

But we still have

e) This flow of experiences (that means, Santana),

yes if I or Buddha or Buddhist were Hindu, but we are not.

is not ended with physical death.

Therefore it is possible for the Buddha to talk about his former lifes.

Now I may concede that a)-c) makes rebirth different from reincarnation. Is this all that makes the difference, or is there more to it?

It also seems obvious to me that e) makes Buddhism a metaphysical claim (that is, from my point of view, just another boring religion).

As to “another boring religion” it seems you are allowing prejudice/ emotions drive your thoughts. Anything “religion” is automatically wrong, boring, the followers “lost” “blind” etc. You are starting to sound like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell etc.

Yes after it is said the Buddha attained enlightenment/ awakening he spoke of seeing such things. No statements of these past things were a set “Him” simply stops along a trip. I have done many things in this life, I am none of these things and they are not me.

Again I ask you not to believe anything as I can not prove what he said or what a enlightened mind sees or thinks as I am not in such a state. You can say you do not believe it and I respect that. If you demand that there is no way it is or can be fact I will be happy to see your facts to prove your statement of fact.

As far as I see, the theory of Kamma (Karma) is the culprit.

Buddhist view of Karma : Cause and effect. kamma (Skt. karma): Intentional acts that result in states of being and birth. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/kamma.html

I can't see any evidence for such a form of moral causation. I agree that every good or bad deed has its effects, but I see no evidence that those effects are related to the deed in a moral way (I could behave according to the ethical rules of Buddhism and still be the cause of desastrous consequences).

You do not believe that if you kill someone there is not an effect? Tell lies, No effect? Steal, no effect? Have sex that brings harm to self or another, no effect?

Even if do something that no one ever finds about there is a suffering effect in this life. The sometimes or sometimes only occasional nagging of “ what is anyone finds out” the suffering of feeling you did wrong or that you may soon be outed at any time. Karma or the effect can be as subtle as that but it is still there and still suffering still effect.

But perhaps this could be the subject for another thread. For now, I would be happy enough to understand how a consistent interpretation of Buddhism is possible.

Perhaps by learning all of it and with an open mind?

What is science is looking with an open mind and not fearing to be wrong or learn a new. I fear no truth I do not fear being wrong as if something is truth and proven to be so and it is not what I believe I am a fool to not believe it.

Conversely I do not just blindly dismiss things because I do not believe it. I must look deeply, long and hard that being after thinking do I really car, is it important.


I leave you with The Kalama Sutta



"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay

(i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it from a long time).



Do not accept anything by mere tradition

(i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations).



Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors

(i.e., by believing what others say without my investigation).



Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures.



Do not accept anything by mere supposition.



Do not accept anything by mere inherence.



Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons.



Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions.



Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable

(i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted).



Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us

(therefore it is right to accept his word).



"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to min and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.



"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."


May you be well and happy.