On the nature of Death, Rebirth and Karma.

[Leftimies]

**This is a question open for Buddhists to ponder, but members of other Dharmic faiths (Hinduism and Jainism) are invited to join and to exchange thoughts**



So, I think I have perfected my line of thought regarding certain aspects of Buddhism, and I'd like to address them here to put them into test of audience.

BE WARNED: IT WILL BE AN INCOHERENT RANT!



Before going into further detail of the ideas, which probably have been conceived by ppl here already and in the internets in general, let me establish few preconditions:

• Karma: law of cause and effect (this, thus that). Nothing more, nothing less.
• Reality is infinite in nature, made of same substance and as a whole has thus no place or time. Everything within realm of reality is inseparable at its core.
• Change constitutes what we perceive as time. Time is merely change in the observable physical realm; if position of one object is changed, the place where it belonged before constitutes past, where it is now constitutes present and where ever it could be next constitutes future. Outside change, time does not exist. Change is only constant.
• Death and Rebirth: death is permanent cessation of a person. There is no soul to speak of in the Western sense, or perhaps Taoist sense either. No spirit enters the body, no spirit leaves the body. No spirit swims in a stream of souls. Rebirth, instead is chain of events bound by karma, as clarified below.
• Self doesn't exist.

Rebirth. Rebirth in my best interpretation is not a question of person dying and then emerging from another body; rather, it is a question of the effect of one person's actions (karma) defining the outlines of new person. The so-called "stream of rebirth" in my opinion is quite simply the chain of events bound to the law of Karma/cause and effect: because of that, this exist, etc. It is not a question of soul moving on a path, as soul does not exist. Even though the person dies and decomposes to never live again, the effects of his/hers actions will carry a legacy and define the world through people.
Karma. As it is said in Buddhist texts, Karma supposedly defines our rebirth. As I defined it above, Karma is law of cause and effect: because of this, that exists. A core tenet of Buddhism. We too, are effect of someone else's actions, their karma. We are someone's karma. Often we are accumulation of many people that came before us, and several people affected our lives directly - for better or for worse. This indeed means: Karma stretches far beyond one person's death - death itself having severe effect on people around you, so death is not the cessation of one's effect.

Oneness. Because the entire reality of universe (and beyond, i.e multiverse [and whatever infinite sequences come after that]) is infinite and boundless, it's one body. You can pick segments of it apart, like a crow, moon and Sophie, but regardless they are all of the same body with no difference in between them.
From this perspective, we can understand the rebirth as a series of unbroken chain events, all taking place within same realm of Oneness, inseparable of each other, and each 'rebirth', 're-emergence', 'continuation', 'effect' basically been not exactly the same as one before it, but not exactly different either - as Buddhist canon puts it. Thus, rebirth is not spiritual as much as it is the way state of world is intertwined by karma/law of cause and effect within the body of reality?

Nirvana. Nirvana being the perfect state of bliss and cessation of negative effect. Buddha attained Nirvana because to this day, his effect bears no evil fruit? His effect upon others today is only guiding and relieving. And only the good karma that is left constitutes the blissful state? This state again not being personal or perceivable by any means, but rather a state of things within the realm of reality?

So, do you have any thoughts on this rant? Anyone?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I followed you until Nirvana. Nirvana is the absence of "suffering", which is caused by any karma at all, not simply the bad stuff.

Only when all accumulated karma is realised and the generation of new karma is calmed, one can enter the stream that leads to Nirvana. This process continues until Nirvana is reached, which signifies the cessation of rebirth and, hence, the end of suffering.

It is notable that this also entails the avoidance of "good karma". Once the stream that leads to Nirvana is entered, creating wholesome karma is not an object anymore. Although wholesome karma leads to entering the stream, it does not necessarily lead to Nirvana, only the extinguishment of all karma leads to Nirvana.

Karma and Rebirth - Reincarnation in the Buddhist View

 

[Leftimies]

I followed you until Nirvana. Nirvana is the absence of "suffering", which is caused by any karma at all, not simply the bad stuff.


Karma and Rebirth - Reincarnation in the Buddhist View

From my understanding, good merit isn't required to cease. Most importantly, that is compulsory for Buddha to be in Nirvana at all: if good merit would keep him away from state of Nirvana, he wouldn't be at that state right now. Because his good merit hasn't ceased.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

From my understanding, good merit isn't required to cease. Most importantly, that is compulsory for Buddha to be in Nirvana at all: if good merit would keep him away from state of Nirvana, he wouldn't be at that state right now. Because his good merit hasn't ceased.

But that completely derails Buddhist teaching in its entirety. If nirvana is simply the pinnacle of good karma, then the Buddha achieved nothing, as nirvana is the cessation of dukkha, which is caused by karma. It would make Buddha nothing but a very old deva.

 

[Leftimies]

But that completely derails Buddhist teaching in its entirety. If nirvana is simply the pinnacle of good karma, then the Buddha achieved nothing, as nirvana is the cessation of dukkha, which is caused by karma. It would make Buddha nothing but a very old deva.

"Nirvana (Sanskrit: निर्वाण, Nirvāṇa; Pali: निब्बान, Nibbāna; Thai: นิพพาน, Nípphaan) is the ultimate goal of Theravadins. It is a state where the fire of the passions has been 'blown out', and the person is liberated from the repeated cycle of birth, illness, aging and death. In the Saṃyojanapuggala Sutta of the Aṅgutarra Nikaya, the Buddha describes four kinds of persons and tells us that the last person - the Arahant - has attained Nibbana by removing all 10 fetters that bind beings to samsara:

"In the Arahant. In this person, monks, all of the fetters ['saṃyojanāni'] are gotten rid of that pertain to this world, give rise to rebirth, and give rise to becoming."[65]

It would seem to me, that good karma - specifically the much emphasized compassion - does not bind a person to Samsara. Instead, self-gratifying desire does bind you to Samsara. Similarly when you give a gift away from the pure joy of giving, its complete freedom without anyone requiring anything from you, or you from them. However, if you desire something so much you steal it from someone, it binds you to consequences and mess.

Also, Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana differ in their interpretations to significant degree. I don't believe that the good merit argument kills the core of Buddhism, as much as it kills a certain interpretation of Him.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I have two things I want to address. First, I'm leaning toward Gjallarhorn's view of nirvana. I always thought that nirvana was the extinction of both wholesome and unwholesome karma. The perfect compassion/loving-kindness of a Buddha generates no karma at all. It is not an action based on feeling or philosophy, but a natural outflowing of the Buddha-nature. In those of us on the path, it is still not perfect, so it has the ability to generate wholesome karma.

As far as rebirth, the Yogacara teach that the eighth division of the consciousness, the alaya-vijnana, or storehouse consciousness, does continue on to the next round of rebirth. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the Pali Tripitaka to suggest this, but it would have to be assumed by the very nature of a bodhisattva.

 

[Secret Chief]

BE WARNED: IT WILL BE AN INCOHERENT RANT!

So, do you have any thoughts on this rant? Anyone?

I can be quite incoherent myself, and given to a little ranting. My incoherence and ranting will of course be different than yours, but continue with your endeavour, your life's koan.

 

[Leftimies]

I have two things I want to address. First, I'm leaning toward Gjallarhorn's view of nirvana. I always thought that nirvana was the extinction of both wholesome and unwholesome karma. The perfect compassion/loving-kindness of a Buddha generates no karma at all. It is not an action based on feeling or philosophy, but a natural outflowing of the Buddha-nature. In those of us on the path, it is still not perfect, so it has the ability to generate wholesome karma.

As far as rebirth, the Yogacara teach that the eighth division of the consciousness, the alaya-vijnana, or storehouse consciousness, does continue on to the next round of rebirth. To the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the Pali Tripitaka to suggest this, but it would have to be assumed by the very nature of a bodhisattva.

Lately, I have begun to lean more and more towards Theravada line of thinking, so I don't know how much of this is due to doctrinal differences. Safe to say, plentiful is probably due to my yet rather incomplete understanding of the Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist Canon as a whole - which is said to hold around 80,000 texts. There is plenty of room for improvement for my thoughts, and this is all good discussion.

Problem with Nirvana is, for me, that it indeed is beyond concepts or description. It can be grasped, but I haven't - I suppose its something akin to a born-blind person trying to grasp what seeing is, while he never has seen anything in his entire life.

 

[crossfire]

• Reality is infinite in nature, made of same substance and as a whole has thus no place or time. Everything within realm of reality is inseparable at its core.

I would drop the idea of "substance."

• Change constitutes what we perceive as time. Time is merely change in the observable physical realm; if position of one object is changed, the place where it belonged before constitutes past, where it is now constitutes present and where ever it could be next constitutes future. Outside change, time does not exist. Change is only constant.

From a Daoist perspective, this would be correct.

Oneness. Because the entire reality of universe (and beyond, i.e multiverse [and whatever infinite sequences come after that]) is infinite and boundless, it's one body. You can pick segments of it apart, like a crow, moon and Sophie, but regardless they are all of the same body with no difference in between them.

Again, I would drop the idea of "body" and "oneness." Interconnectness is prolly better, imo.

From this perspective, we can understand the rebirth as a series of unbroken chain events,

The complexity of the multiple interactions/interconnectness allows for chaos--where causality can be broken, imo. If causality can't be broken or blown out, then how do you get ineffability?

Nirvana. Nirvana being the perfect state of bliss and cessation of negative effect. Buddha attained Nirvana because to this day, his effect bears no evil fruit? His effect upon others today is only guiding and relieving. And only the good karma that is left constitutes the blissful state? This state again not being personal or perceivable by any means, but rather a state of things within the realm of reality?

Nibbana is blowing out of kamma--causal ties. It can't be traced to this, it can't be traced to that. In Zen, pure consciousness is said to be "spontaneous," which would fit in with the no traceable causal ties, imo.

 

[George-ananda]

Well you said Hindu type thinkers can join in.

I don’t agree with your ideas on rebirth. As per your understanding, why would the term ‘Rebirth’ even exist?

That a person’s actions can affect other lives is obvious no matter what your philosophy is. I can hardly see why the term ‘Rebirth’ would ever have been used in Buddhism if your interpretations are correct.

From the wikipedia discussion of anatta: Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died. Notice ‘being’ is in the singular. In your understanding, a person would have some affect on many people.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't regard nirvana as an extinction of karma, but rather the the extinction of the fetters that happen to bind one from the results of karma. The descriptions of rebirth, karma, and oneness happen to be very close with my personal understanding of them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There probably is no real use for the term rebirth albiet i use it often in my postings like many people do. I would think many can agree and observe that we simultaneously live and die each and every moment thereby effectively nullifying the need to use rebirth in that context as there is no need when faced with what is undifferentiated.

We do manifest through cause and effect so the term rebirth can be useful however for clarity.

I like to view a perspective of a bed of atoms nestled in a sea of atoms and remove the terms bed and sea. Thats rebirth in my view.

 

[George-ananda]

There probably is no real use for the term rebirth

Do you mean in your school of Buddhism there is no need? Or in Buddhism as a whole?

I know schools of Buddhism, including the Dali Lama, use the term 'Rebirth' and it means something more than your interpretation. So there actually is a real use for the term.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Rebirth is dualistic implying one as well dies again giving way to a new manifestation. Many schools use dualistic terms such as rebirth in order to make any intellectual aspects easier to approach by compartmentalizing as our intellect is hardwired to think in such a way. So the term is useable. Just not reflective of the experience concerning life and death thats experienced simultaneously.

Wither thats reflective of Buddhism as a whole, I dunno. It's the results of my experiences so far in that regard.

 

[Leftimies]

There probably is no real use for the term rebirth albiet i use it often in my postings like many people do. I would think many can agree and observe that we simultaneously live and die each and every moment thereby effectively nullifying the need to use rebirth in that context as there is no need when faced with what is undifferentiated.

We do manifest through cause and effect so the term rebirth can be useful however for clarity.

I like to view a perspective of a bed of atoms nestled in a sea of atoms and remove the terms bed and sea. Thats rebirth in my view.

I agree with the rebirth view of yours. Also, Buddha emphasized a lot the effect of karma on 'rebirth' and on the other hand the Oneness. If everything is One reality, inseparable and so forth, any consciousness arising within it would not be truly "separate" from any that came before or so on. Rather, they are Karma of various beings manifesting in living form - after all, none of us came here by our own merit. We all are effect.

 

[Leftimies]

Do you mean in your school of Buddhism there is no need? Or in Buddhism as a whole?

I know schools of Buddhism, including the Dali Lama, use the term 'Rebirth' and it means something more than your interpretation. So there actually is a real use for the term.

I have always felt that Vajrayana schools, especially Tibetan Buddhism (I am not so sure about Shingon, as they are secretive its hard to judge) miss the point in Buddhism, so I've always taken them with a grain of salt. Or who knows, maybe I've understood them wrong.

 

[George-ananda]

I have always felt that Vajrayana schools, especially Tibetan Buddhism (I am not so sure about Shingon, as they are secretive its hard to judge) miss the point in Buddhism, so I've always taken them with a grain of salt. Or who knows, maybe I've understood them wrong.

What point do you think Tibetan Buddhism (with its concept of Rebirth) misses?

 

[Leftimies]

What point do you think Tibetan Buddhism (with its concept of Rebirth) misses?

The sort of science that they have made it out to be, for example the case of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, to me personally is unfounded. Also, they emphasize far too much deities (visualization of them etc). I hold deities to be completely irrelevant. No relevance whatsoever. I don't even acknowledge them in spiritual practice or even spiritual thought. It seems to play a rather large role in Tibetan tradition - from what I have understood. Then again, I am no Buddha, what do I know?

 

[George-ananda]

The sort of science that they have made it out to be, for example the case of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, to me personally is unfounded. Also, they emphasize far too much deities (visualization of them etc). I hold deities to be completely irrelevant. No relevance whatsoever. I don't even acknowledge them in spiritual practice or even spiritual thought. It seems to play a rather large role in Tibetan tradition - from what I have understood. Then again, I am no Buddha, what do I know?

I'm taking it that you don't believe in any conscious non-physical entities. That seems like the logical position from our perspective. But what then do you make of so-called paranormal things like reincarnational memories, miracles of saints, near-death experiences, ghosts, etc.. Does every anecdote have a purely non-paranormal explanation (even if we haven't exactly figured it out). To me all this makes things like the Tibetan Book of the Dead less unfounded as people may really have super-physical aspects.

Also, I can't help but feel all your theorizing about your school of Buddhism is a bit depressing for beings that live such short lives. You learn, debate, question, hopefully make some progress, then get old and die. (maybe I see more quite elderly people (the future us) than you do and your striving for what difference it makes seems almost pointless). Sorry, if I'm not so cheery

 

[Leftimies]

I'm taking it that you don't believe in any conscious non-physical entities. That seems like the logical position from our perspective. But what then do you make of so-called paranormal things like reincarnational memories, miracles of saints, near-death experiences, ghosts, etc.. Does every anecdote have a purely non-paranormal explanation (even if we haven't exactly figured it out). To me all this makes things like the Tibetan Book of the Dead less unfounded as people may really have super-physical aspects.

Also, I can't help but feel all your theorizing about your school of Buddhism is a bit depressing for beings that live such short lives. You learn, debate, question, hopefully make some progress, then get old and die. (maybe I see more quite elderly people (the future us) than you do and your striving for what difference it makes seems almost pointless). Sorry, if I'm not so cheery

I do not consider our perspective to amount to anything worth considering - we are but a tear drop in world's oceans when thinking about our place in our galaxy, and the galaxy is but a grain of sand in vast space of desert when it comes to thinking about our galaxy's place in the universe. Most importantly, our universe is only one of many; possibly each adhering to different set of natural laws. Infinite possibilities in an infinite reality. No one knows for sure, and probably won't know for a while.

Buddhism is not a cheery religion, and its ultimate destination is what in West is traditionally seen as death. Non perception. Cessation of negative karma. Life itself is built on desire, thus resulting in unescapable suffering. Of course its not a cult of death or anything lol, suicide for example would go against Buddhist teaching. Besides, its very important to understand the Buddhist view of reality: that we are one with reality...inseparable from it, and that it is the desires stemming from ignorant life that has cast us apart from that natural state of reality.

Near-death experiences can be explained with the fact that brain, which dies after other body parts, suffocates and thus creates hallucinations as a last act of defense towards the 'self'. These hallucinations are bound to the cultural context of the individual, implying heavily that they are fabricated by the brain. We probably all go through that phase.

Reincarnational memories...until they can point out with clear, unshaken evidence that these things are coherent and stand on firm base, I am not going to have opinion either against or for.

Miracles do not really happen. This is my stance.

Considering that not a single person in Finnish criminal history has ever been killed by a ghost, or that nobody ever filed a report concerning a ghost, the empirical evidence (or rather, lack thereof about ghosts) points to the fact that they don't exist, not at least in this universe.