What happens when a Buddhist dies?

[epepke]

Does he die in a forest, where no one can hear?

Is he eventually eaten by the Kwakiutl, which would be a case of one clan happing?

 

[thaiboxerken]

This it what puzzles me: it seems to be so obviously self-contradictory that I am certain I missed something.

Don't beat yourself, or your unself, up over it. Most, if not all, contain contradictions despite being the infallible truth.

 

[jan]

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

My initial draft had only a "S?"-abbreviation. I was replacing it hastily before cut&paste&posting it, and this quote

The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is Santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity.

stuck in my mind, with the known result of me sounding like being obsessed with the further fate of Carlos. I should have been using a neutral english word, like "flux", instead. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with the canonical translations of certain technical terms, so I am sometimes uncertain how to translate a specific canonical German translations to its specific canonical English counterpart. Consider me wearing a paper bag.

 

[jan]

Don't beat yourself, or your unself, up over it. Most, if not all, contain contradictions despite being the infallible truth.

If you encounter an ancient theory that needs a bit more of interpretation than recent theories, you often have two possibilities: assume that this old theory is completely nuts, or that you have failed to understand it.

Of course it is possible that the old theory is completely nuts. But as a methodological rule, it is more fruitful to assume that your interpretation is incomplete. This methodological rule may lead to a professional deformation. You may find many philologists being convinced that everything Plato or Heraclitus said are words of golden wisdom, like a Hendrix fan being convinced that even the shallowest bootleg recording of his idol is an indispensable masterwork. But if you dismiss everything that needs a bit of interpretation, you may dismiss all the fun. The Pāli Canon seems to be well organized and contains some stunning examples of sound and careful reasoning, so the (possible) interpretation that this is just crap leads you nowhere. You might miss the fun.

 

[jan]

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.

Perhaps. Some quotes indicate that Buddha considered worshipping a good thing. Some quotes say otheriwse. Some quotes indicate that Buddha recomended to sit and theorize about his tenets. But anyway, I am not a disciple. Whether I am good or not is another story, in this thread I want to theorize about Buddhism.

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

It seems a bit to me as if this "mind" is your invention. Are you sure this is Buddhism? Okay, I want to avoid the True Scotsman Fallacy, so this may be the Genuine Antonio Alejandro Buddhism, and I have no reason to believe that this is worse than any other kind of Buddhism. How do you know this mind exists (besides meditation)? And how does this mind help you to be reborn? If I understand your theory of mind and person correctly, it would be impossible to say that a particular former life belongs to me, but not to you, that is, all my former lifes are also your former lifes. Is this correct?

 

[jan]

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.

I agree that Mr Gotamo was a remarkable man. It happens that I want to know what his theory about life, the universe and everything was. I think some of those things I found in the deliverance are true (for example, the nonexistence of the self seems to be a remarkable insight, and, as Pahansiris's quote shows, you can interpret Gotamo as a precursor of recent theories). But this doesn't make me a Buddhist. And it seems defendable to me that Gotamo teached that you need some theory to achieve the goal, although he didn't recommend to theorize about some other questions (like metaphysical questions, certain cosmological questions, or certain mundane questions).

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.

You certainly know that there is a lot of quarrel about what we have been doing before birth. Plato, for example, thought he could prove that your existence doesn't start with your birth, while Materialists hold that there is no evidence that our story started before birth, and the Pāli Canon occasionally mentions that the Buddha had been a mighty kind in a former life, and that he was able to remember this. And so on and so on.

 

[jan]

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

After meditating a bit, I would now say, that from my point of view, reading the Pāli Canon/Tipitaka is a better starting point. If you start reading there, it is more likely you find an original new interpretation.

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.

On the other hand, the distance in time is much larger than between Jesus and NT. Nevertheless, I would say some parts being fables and mythological additions are rather obvious to spot, so I don't see a major problem here. I don't know whether the non-ornamental parts, so to speak, are the genuine tenets of Gotamo, but since they are all we have, I guess we should handle them as genuine.

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.

I would say that a believer requires respect, but not her belief. If I wouldn't say that I think a specific belief is absurd, the believer would miss the chance to reevaluate her stance. But I will try to behave. Also, my ratings of certain theories are certainly a disgression and should not be the topic of this thread.

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.

Since I don't remember this place, it would be helpful if they would quote the Buddha correctly (Book&Chapter as a minimum).

It sounds a bit like "it's a cure, not a philosophy, so I don't have to answer this". I have no problem if the Buddha refuses to answer questions about cosmology, since they are obviously off-topic. And I would agree that there are certain questions that can't be answered with a simple yes or no. I still would say that it has some importance whether a certain cure is consistent and based on correct assumptions about the world. And I would tend to say that the first two classes of questions should suffice to classify any question.

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”.

I guess the same applies as to Antonio Alejandro: is the wave reborn? Although, this seems to be a bit at odds with the "No-self or Not-self?"-article. If you decided that it is unnecessary/unfruitful/forbidden to talk about this subject, shouldn't you stick to that?

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.

Just for the records: you are saying that Buddhism indeed makes some metaphysical claims that makes it incompatible with Materialism?

Be prepared that many of the other JREFers might be tempted to tell you something about "evidence", "doubt", "rule of parsimony", "burden of proof" and so on.

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 would say that this is a bit of a distortion of what many Materialists believe. But more on that later on.

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

At least they have proper quotes.

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 would say that there are different schools of Materialism. Some claim that you are your body. Others say that the notion of "I" is just some kind of folk-psychology not to be taken seriously, so there is no question left (therefore, "who am I?" is in the class of questions that deserve an analytical answer).

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.

Let me use this occasion to tell you that you did an excellent job in explaining all this, at least as far as I am affected.

I am afraid this sounds a bit like "it's a belief. I don't have to prove it or gather evidence, since it is a belief". See, I understand why Cinorjer wants to avoid such a belief.

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.

For example, I would consider this an excellent explanation. I guess I will have to chew on this a while.

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?

Please note, I said "I agree that every good or bad deed has its effects...". So asking me "You do not believe that if you kill someone there is not an effect?" seems to be a bit pointless.

Many religions have some sort of moral causal connection: if you behave bad, your life will be miserable, if you behave good, your life will be good.

see Intentional action

"These five things are welcome, agreeable, pleasant, and hard to obtain in the world. Which five? Long life... beauty... pleasure... status... rebirth in heaven... Now, I tell you, these five things are not to be obtained by reason of prayers or wishes. If they were to be obtained by reason of prayers or wishes, who here would lack them? It's not fitting for the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life to pray for it or to delight in doing so. Instead, the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life should follow the path of practice leading to long life. In so doing, he will attain long life, either human or divine...(Similarly with beauty, pleasure, status, and rebirth in heaven)..."
-- AN V.43

Compare, for example, the discussion between Job and his friends: Job claims to have followed the commandments of god, his friends claim that this can't be true: since Job suffers, he must have done evil.

You certainly know the theory that cause and effect are governed by the Laws of Physics. The "Laws of Physics" and "Kamma" are not just two words for the same thing, I would say. They obviously differ, since the Laws of Physics are not conveyors of moral.

Assume I am drunk and drive a car. I guess we can agree that this is bad. It can result in an accident, with people being killed. So my bad deed has bad effects. But maybe I arrive at home without any accident. So my bad deed has no bad effects.
If the police stops me, I will receive some kind of punishment (loss of licence, for example). This just means that people try to make a system in which bad deeds always have bad effects (driving drunk->loss of licence). But such a law is something people have superimposed to the laws of physics. It's the people, not the physics that behaves according to moral.

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.

That may be true for you, but I am not certain whether it holds for all people. And there is still a long way from bad conscience to rebirth.

Let us consider this: instead of driving myself, I choose to take a taxi. Unfortunately, it happens that this taxi kills several people in an accident. It is far more likely that I will be involved in an accident if I drive myself instead of taking a taxi, but it is nevertheless possible (and in no way at odds with the laws of physics), that it happens just the other way round. So my good deed has a bad effect.

Now consider somebody being convinced that all pagans will go to hell. It is not at all impossible that he will come to the conclusion that he is obliged to kill or torture people. So he is attempting to behave as good as possible, but the effects are unpleasant.

I leave you with The Kalama Sutta

Thanks.

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

Worship

Who exactly did buddha worship?

 

[Dancing David]

Uh, folks , there is no 'true doctrine' to the buddha. He preached no self continously, but when confronted with a hrd core obsessive he would retreat to middle ground.

the point that the buddha said repeatedly was this.

Here is the teaching.
Here is the practise.
Examine them for yourself.
Decide what works for your self.

The eightfold path does not require a belief in self or not self, theism or atheism, it is a practise, a perscription , if you will.

The buddha did not preach about his former lifes.

My favorite are the stories where he chides his disciples for working miracles.

'Be ye lamp unto yourselves.'

 

[Antonio Alejandro]

method of debate

When I discuss a matter, I try to express my opinions and my understanding. When I realized that no one is really paying attention to what i am saying, I try a few times using different words, a different approach and perhaps a different example. If this fails, I just abandon further discussion because it is getting nowhere. Sometimes, you realize certain concepts.
One day all of a sudden, I understood what they meant by cause and effect, another day it was mindfulness. If a person has not yet realized what are the opinion of buddhist regarding these concepts....i.e. understanding it from the buddhist point of view....What point is there to discussing it further? This appears to happen a lot in this forum.
I dont know exactly who said this but it is appropriate:
You cannot teach anyone anything, you can only help them discover it within themselves.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If "no one" was born, who is there to die?

 

[Ryokan]

There once was a man who asked a zen masted, "Master, what happens to us when we die?"

"I have no idea," the zen master replied.

"What?!" said the man, "aren't you supposed to be a zen master?!"

"Yes," the master replied, "but I'm not a dead one."

 

[jan]

Some quotes indicate that Buddha considered worshipping a good thing. Some quotes say otheriwse.

Who exactly did buddha worship?

Some quotes indicate that Buddha considered worshiping a good thing for others. There are some hints that he could have been not completely without vanity.

“Decide what works for your self.”

For a prescription to work, it would be preferable if it would be the fruitition of a theory that describes reality correctly, that is, a true description.

The buddha did not preach about his former lifes.

Some reports say he did. Maybe they are wrong. But how do you know?

“You cannot teach anyone anything, you can only help them discover it within themselves.”

Although I partly agree with that, I also have to disagree. It seems obvious to me that I know things about, say, mathematics, that I could never had discovered myself. Or about ants. Or about ten thousand other things.

It reminds me a bit of saying: “I don't have any arguments to defend my position, but if you could make yourself believe in XYZism, you would immediately see the truth of XYZism”.

If "no one" was born, who is there to die?

If “no one” was born, who is there to leave home?

What I mean is: for some people, all this seems to have practical consequences, like leaving home, wife & children or giving up a kingdom and going to the forests.

"I have no idea," the zen master replied.

But did she really have no idea, or did she have some ideas (including some metaphysical speculations) she just didn't dared to defend openly?

 

[Mojo]

I thought it was obvious, they go to burn in an everlasting, fiery hell!

Not necessarily. It appears that some of them end up in suitcases in Basingstoke.

And Basingstoke isn't quite that bad...

 

[Jekyll]

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.

I'm not a budhist, it all sounds like far to much effort to me, but with life (be it just this one or a string of incarnations) everyone seems to be looking to maximise the pleasure and minimise the pain.
Suicide will certainly help minimise the pain but also cut short the pleasure, whilest reality has a nasty way of intruding on even the happiest of drug enduced stupors.
The budhism that I feel I've understood and has resonated with me has been about truth and obviously we do all have some unreachable goals and unquenchable thirsts to a greater or lesser degree. To me the 4 noble truths/8 fold path is about recognising this and avoiding suffering by moderating these desires.

 

[jan]

The initial problem I had which lead to the opening post has to do with an interest in understanding certain positions, even if it is very unlikely that I will ever share those positions. To give an example: Augustine of Hippo combined the christian idea of a personal god with the platonic idea of a god behind the realms of time. For me, this combination seems impossible. Then there are several roads to go:

• Since I don’t believe in god anyway, I can ignore this apparent inconsistency. After all, it’s not my problem, so why bother?
• Maybe Augustine’s theory is just that: inconsistent. Perhaps Augustine was just a stupid git, or he didn’t cared much about consistency. There are several problems with this attitude though: Augustine often uses quite plausible and logical arguments, so he seems to be neither stupid nor ignorant about consistency. And, furthermore: to assume that Augustine was simply not bright enough to come up with a working theory is certainly not the most interesting and fruitful explanation.
• Finally, I could try if I find a new interpretation of Augustine that makes sense to me. With some luck, this could give some interesting new insights.

Now I have a very similar problem with some buddhistic texts I stumbled upon. I have two interpretations, but both of them are not very satisfying for me:

1. Buddhism as a religion with reincarnation:
   Living beings have an immortal soul. After their death, this soul is born again in another body. It is possible to escape reincarnation via meditation, good deeds and, finally, satori. After this, you a) go straight to the 72 virgin houris b) cease to exist c) suffer some unnamable third thing.
   
   Problems with this interpretation: it is not a very interesting interpretation. It makes Buddhism another weird, implausible, metaphysical religion. And it is inconsistent with a lot of buddhist readings, like, for example, the aforementioned Pali Cannon.
   
   The second interpretation would be:
   
2. Buddhism as a cure or lifestyle:
   Don’t take yourself too serious. Your self isn’t that important after all. Don’t think too much about death. Enjoy the moment. Don’t worry, be happy.
   
   The problems with this interpretation are nearly the same as with the first interpretation. First, it is not very interesting, at least for me: it makes Buddhism into another lifestyle philosophy. And, furthermore, it is inconsistent with the aforementioned texts.

To make things worst: the Pali Cannon itself, while supporting neither of both interpretations, nevertheless seems to me to be inconsistent in what it says about self/soul/afterlife.

Perhaps that’s because it is inconsistent. Perhaps because it reveals a truth that is behind logic (although I doubt that such a thing is possible or even meaningful). Or perhaps because it is a book made by the contributions from a lot of different people with different ideas. Possible. So it would be futile to search for a consistent interpretation. But as with Augustine, that’s certainly not the most interesting outcome.

So once again: is there an interpretation of Buddhism (preferably of the Pali Cannon, but I will take what I can get), in which it is explained why somebody should care about what happens after her death, which is, at the same time, consistent with the theory of no immortal soul?

Or, shorter: what happens when a Buddhist dies?