Reincarnation

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the concept of aggregates cannot be overstated in Buddhist thought as this underpins a great many of the teachings and, from a doctrinal point of view, represents the teaching of Shunyata or Emptiness. this is a very subtle teaching as it has many layers, as one would quite naturally suspect.

essentially, what this teaching is trying to convey to us is that when we analytically search for the "is-ness" of an object, that "is-ness" cannot be found...............

...............there is no "self" to be found outside of the aggregates of form and mental composition. no "thingness" to be found other than the "thingness" imputed to the aggregates by our mind. and this is the point. we impute an existence and a permenance to objects which they do not intrinsically have.

Namaskar Vajradhara,

So am I to conclude from the above that the whole creation is made up of Shunyata or Emptiness and would this be the same as calling the whole of creation false or illusory?

[Karehndiujo Mohmid]

Originally Posted by Quesocoatl

You can take it or leave it.....gravity's hard to forget though.

I agree.

Too many windows in one's house and the cat's claw, mysterious, begins to sharpen.
Too many mirrors and the teeth.

[samabudhi]

Avinash, not false, yes illusory. Nothing is inherently real. That is what Buddhism is saying.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar Vajradhara,

So am I to conclude from the above that the whole creation is made up of Shunyata or Emptiness and would this be the same as calling the whole of creation false or illusory?

hmm.. this is a subtle question, to be sure.

not to put you off, however, this answer is dependent on one's philosophical outlook within the Buddhist paradigm.

there are 4 main schools of Buddhist philosophy which i hopefully haven't mangled too badly:

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

we've started a thread on this subject here:
http://www.comparative-religion.com/...read.php?t=719

there are two distinct views that are found in the Madhyamika school, the Savtantrika and Prasangika. i adhere to the Prasangika school, for reference.

in my view, the easist method of seeing the distinctions between these views is by understanding their conception of Emptiness, to wit:

Vaibhasika and Sautrantika:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

Chittamatra:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object and lack of naturally being a base of a name.

Madhyamika (Savtantrika and Prasangika):

Savtantrika:
selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: coarse: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object (though this is properly Yogachara)
subtle: lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non-defective consciousness.

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

hopefully, this answers your query to some degree

[Avinash]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

Namaskar Vajradhara,

and thank you for that extensive and most informative answer. If I take your own preferred Prasangika philosophy as point of reference, it shows close kinship with the Vishuddha Advaetavaada or the doctrine of Pure Non-Dualism, although strictly speaking the concept of Brahma (the only reality in Pure Non-dualism) is replaced by Shunya in Buddhistic Shunyavaada.

In Ananda Marga this philosophy is considered as nihilistic, impractical and full of contradictions and errors. The sad thing is that no valid logic can be given for Advaetavaada because allowing for proofs would change it into Dvaetavaada (dualism).

I found a story in Namami Krishnasundaram (pg 81) that illustrates the impracticality of this philosphy:

"Once a certain mahaapurusha who happened to be an orthodox Maayavaadin was walking along the road in Kashi [adjacent to Varanasi]. The popular saying goes that Kashi is famous for four things, for shanr, raanr, sinri, sannyaasii - the bulls which throng the streets; the many widows; the stairs which one has to climb up or down every few metres; and the thousands of itinerant monks - and that in Kashi one should carefully avoid these four things. Anyway, one morning a wild bull suddenly started to charge that mahaapurusha, so he ran away as fast as his legs could carry him. A logician who happened to be standing nearby asked the mahaapurusha, "Well sir, if you say that this world is unreal, then the bull is also unreal, so why are you running in fear?" That mahaapurusha would not accept defeat in logic and replied, "My running away is also unreal".

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Avinash,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Avinash

Namaskar Vajradhara,

and thank you for that extensive and most informative answer. If I take your own preferred Prasangika philosophy as point of reference, it shows close kinship with the Vishuddha Advaetavaada or the doctrine of Pure Non-Dualism, although strictly speaking the concept of Brahma (the only reality in Pure Non-dualism) is replaced by Shunya in Buddhistic Shunyavaada.

hmm... would you happen to have any references to a more encylopediac explanation of the Advaetavaada?

In Ananda Marga this philosophy is considered as nihilistic, impractical and full of contradictions and errors. The sad thing is that no valid logic can be given for Advaetavaada because allowing for proofs would change it into Dvaetavaada (dualism).

indeed... nihilism is a problem for people that adopt the wrong view towards Shunyata. this is mentioned at great length.. and it is the primary reason that Buddhists are enjoined not to teach Shunyata to beings that are not ready.

I found a story in Namami Krishnasundaram (pg 81) that illustrates the impracticality of this philosphy:

"Once a certain mahaapurusha who happened to be an orthodox Maayavaadin was walking along the road in Kashi [adjacent to Varanasi]. The popular saying goes that Kashi is famous for four things, for shanr, raanr, sinri, sannyaasii - the bulls which throng the streets; the many widows; the stairs which one has to climb up or down every few metres; and the thousands of itinerant monks - and that in Kashi one should carefully avoid these four things. Anyway, one morning a wild bull suddenly started to charge that mahaapurusha, so he ran away as fast as his legs could carry him. A logician who happened to be standing nearby asked the mahaapurusha, "Well sir, if you say that this world is unreal, then the bull is also unreal, so why are you running in fear?" That mahaapurusha would not accept defeat in logic and replied, "My running away is also unreal".

hopefully, you are not under the misimpression that my view is that the universe is "unreal" actually, with just the slightest manipulation of some terms, our philosophy is nearly the same as the Copenhagen Interpetation of Quantum Theory. eh.. i'm stretching a bit, to be sure, tho they are so close that it's only a small stretch.

your story reminds me of one as well

seems that there was an abbot of a monastary on a certain mountain in China. one day a new student had appeared and requested permission to join the Sangha to which the abbot assented.

the abbots fame for zazen was renown throughout the region and it was this teaching which drew students to him from the surrounding territory. the new student looked forward with great zeal to learn zazen in the masters presence.

after their rice gruel and morning chores, the monks all gathered for the morning instruction and meditation session. when the abbot took his seat, he jump up exlaiming "ow! there's a pin on my seat." and removed it. when the student saw and heard this, he lost faith in the teachers abilities and stood up and announced "i had heard that you were a great zazen master. however, if you were, you wouldn't have noticed the tack in your seat." and the student left the meditation hall.

the abbot sat back down on the chair and sighed and said "it's too bad that he left, i was just about to explain why i felt the pin."

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Zenda71

A definition of aggregate can't hurt! (Please.)

I'm going to take a stab at defining "aggregate" contextually. I'm thinking that we create aggregates in our mind, which creates the energy (or whatever) that is passed from lifetime to lifetime. That would make sense in terms of the Buddhist system (at least to my limited understanding of it). Until you are enlightened, you keep creating these "mind worlds". But once you are enlightened, you see that they are essentially substanceless, that you create them, thus you cease to create them and are released from the aggregate creating process.

With metta,
ZW

i like what you've written here..

if you have the time and inclination, i think that you may find some benefit in the explanation from the Dozgchen point of view, which you can read here:

http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/ta...k-95may22.html

as for myself... i'll use my simple words and phrases to mumble something...

the word for aggregate in Sanskrit is Skandha and it literally means "heaps". "heaps" of what, though?

in Buddhist thought, individual beings are composed of 5 heaps or Skandhas, which are:

1. Form

2. Appreception or sensibility

3. Perception

4. Violition or Will

5. Consciousness

1a. Form (Rupa) is composed of matter made of four elements, earth, water, wind and fire.

2a. Appreception or sensibility is derived from the sense organs:

eye enables sight
ear enables hearing
nose enables odor
tongue enables taste
body enables touch
mind enables the experience of the five listed above, however, it also has objects called "facts"

this set of pairs (organ + function) is known as the 12 Bases of Consciousness

3a. Perception is a product of the 6 externals listed above (sight, sound, etc). it is the individuals processing of the 12 Bases which allows them to "feel" the environment.

4a. Violition (samskara) is the reaction of the will to the objects and may produce attraction, aversion etc. IOW, the feeling as basis of emotion.

5a. Consciousness (vijnana) grasps the qualites of the 6 objects. it creates a third member in the sets listed in 2a. these are designated as Visual consciousness, Auditory consciousness all the way up to and including Mental consciousness. the 18, now, are called the Eighteen Elements (dhatu).

these five aggregates or Skandhas are not ultimate and eternal in nature, they are conditioned and arise from causes and conditions. like all phenomena, they come, go, change and disappear.

since, in the Buddhist view, we are composed of these, there is no logical basis for thinking "That is mine"; "I am that"; "That is my Self"


there are two main Suttas that expound on this teaching.

the Sutta where the Skandhas are taught is called Khandha Sutta and is found here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon.../sn22-048.html

the Sutta where Dependent Origination is taught is called the Mahanidana Sutta (DN 15) and you can read it here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon...igha/dn15.html

[Zenda71]

Thank you as always for the information. I'm starting to realize why I've never explored this subject in depth academically. Whoo-boy! That's not light reading ...

With metta,
Zenda

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Zenda71

Thank you as always for the information. I'm starting to realize why I've never explored this subject in depth academically. Whoo-boy! That's not light reading ...

With metta,
Zenda

no, it's not. as we've said before, it may not even be applicable for most people to go through the whole thing in this type of manner. though there is certainly a great tradition of logical analysis and exposition in Buddhism, the crux of it is the praxis, not the philosophy

also... it's of great value to the reader to be fairly conversant in Buddhist terminology or one can very quickly get lost in the material. there are some texts, of course, that are quite lucid and clear, though they tend to be rather concise, which emphaizes the need to have a decent grasp of Buddhist terminology as they won't usually define the terms in the text itself.

in any evet...

chop wood, carry water.

this phrase, in my opinion, contains the sum of all religious thought.

[Zenda71]

Greetings.

I am finally tackling the large reading list provided in this thread. The idea of reincarnation is even murkier now than before, since this additional information makes it even less clear what is being reincarnated. (But this, perhaps, is the point? ) From what I understand, beings are nothing more than a swirling mass of everchanging skandhas -- thoughts, perceptions, self, subtle mental states, etc. At death, these skandhas are not extinguished at death but rather migrate to another form. Do these remnants blend with other remnants? And how does the reincarnation of lamas work then? It seems like an awful large portion of a lama's traits, likes, dislikes, etc. are reincarnated into his/her next human iteration. How is this possible? (And let's just ignore how discouraging this is given that these guys keep coming back even though they devote their lives to dharma. What does a person have to do for enlightenment??? )

With metta,
Zenda

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,


thank you for the post.

let's start with the last question first...

Lama, which is the Tibetan word for "guru", means, roughly, "respected teacher" thus, there is nothing special, per se, about this individual other than the fact that he or she is a respected teacher. in the Tibetan tradition, the "reborn" lamas are called Tulkus.

remember, in the Tibetan tradition, the Vow of the Bodhisattva is taken which would, perforce, require the lama to purposefully be reborn, in various forms, to help all sentient beings cross to the other shore. given this understanding, their rebirth in samsara is actually quite a wonderful thing, not discouraging at all

now... what actually does get reborn is a bit more technical than what we usually discuss on the forum. nevertheless, i can briefly say that what is reborn is an aspect of our consciousness. this aspect of consciousness is called the Alaya consciousness and it is the "storehouse" where the seeds of our karmic actions reside. this gets into some extremely esoteric aspects of the Buddhist Abidharma that most of us don't have an opportunity to study. most Buddhist schools posit that the human consciousness has 10 increasingly subtle levels... the first 7 are conditioned by material existence and do not undergo rebirth. the 8th level is the Alaya or Storehouse consciousness.. the 9th and 10th are supramundane levels which are inaccessible to normal beings. of course, this certainly depends on ones' school of praxis and the philosophical view of the Abidharma that one has.

in a very real way we can say that what is reborn are our qualities or actions, rather than any particular personality, if that makes sense.

of course.. no teaching of Buddhism stands alone.. they inter-are with the other teachings... as such, a proper understanding of the term Shunyata helps, in my case, with the understanding of rebirth in the Buddhist context.

if you have the opportunity, there is a very good book called Meeting the Buddhas by Vessentara that goes into more depth on this subject. also, the Tibetan Book of the Dead gets into some aspects of this teaching as well.. though it does presume a certain familarity with the subject.

along those same lines, the Book of Living and Dying by Soygal Rinpoche talks to some degree about these things.

[Zenda71]

Thank you for your reply, Vajra.

Thanks for the clarification on tulkus/lamas.

now... what actually does get reborn is a bit more technical than what we usually discuss on the forum.

Is this OK to discuss here?

I can briefly say that what is reborn is an aspect of our consciousness. this aspect of consciousness is called the Alaya consciousness and it is the "storehouse" where the seeds of our karmic actions reside.

...

In a very real way we can say that what is reborn are our qualities or actions, rather than any particular personality, if that makes sense.

Interesting ... I am guessing that this storehouse everychanging depending on the karmic actions of a given lifetime? Is this "karmic debt bundle" and "qualities" in a sense a "soul"? (A bundle that follows one person from lifetime to lifetime regardless of physical appearance.)

But also interesting is that this package, ever shifting, is also impermanent. Karmic debt keeps circulating regardless of physical form and each lifetime expunges and accrues a certain amount of karmic debt (qualities or actions and their consequence). Every being's qualities are kept circulating in the world and a being is reincarnated until that being (which is no more than a bundle of Skandhas anyway) decides to eliminate its karmic debt by becoming enlightened and realizing its true nature -- an impermanent, ever changing being. Then the being is free to be its true nature or to help others' find their true natures. Does this make any sense?

Chop wood, carry water.

With metta,
Zenda

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Zenda,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Zenda71

Is this OK to discuss here?

sure thing... my point was simply that we don't usually get into very technical discussions on these issues.. wether by unconscious decision or other.. i do not know. in a round about way, i'm trying to indicate that, though an important teaching in Buddhism, it is not *the* important teaching and, depending on the person, has little bearing on the actual day to day praxis. sorry to be so obtuse about it

Interesting ... I am guessing that this storehouse everychanging depending on the karmic actions of a given lifetime?

correct further, even a fully awakened being, like a Buddha, produces karma, however... the distinction is that the karma produced by a Buddha is neutral, whereas for normal beings, it is predominantly either positive or negative. again.. a bit of a technical discussion.. and by technical i mean to be indicating that these are specific teachings to specific schools of Buddhism, as such, not all Buddhists will agree.

Is this "karmic debt bundle" and "qualities" in a sense a "soul"? (A bundle that follows one person from lifetime to lifetime regardless of physical appearance.)

well... we'd probably not use that word since it rather connotes something that is permenantly existing and unchanging, which this bundle of karma certainly is not. though, for lack of a better western word... it would probably suffice, with sufficient caveats

But also interesting is that this package, ever shifting, is also impermanent. Karmic debt keeps circulating regardless of physical form and each lifetime expunges and accrues a certain amount of karmic debt (qualities or actions and their consequence). Every being's qualities are kept circulating in the world and a being is reincarnated until that being (which is no more than a bundle of Skandhas anyway) decides to eliminate its karmic debt by becoming enlightened and realizing its true nature -- an impermanent, ever changing being. Then the being is free to be its true nature or to help others' find their true natures. Does this make any sense?

yes, it does that's a very good summary of the teaching.. though... and this is certainly just a nit-pik.. reincarnation has a specific meaning which isn't meant by the Buddhist term of rebirth. so... keeping that distinction in mind, in my view, is rather appropos for this discussion.

Chop wood, carry water.

With metta,
Zenda

indeed i'm going to carry some water and chop some wood today.

[Zenda71]

"Send E-mail. Go to meetings."

Enjoy.
Zenda

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Zenda71

"Send E-mail. Go to meetings."

Enjoy.
Zenda

ROFLMAO!!!