What is reborn after death?

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
boda
Posts: 1930
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by boda » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:18 pm

Aryjna wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:05 pm
boda wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:09 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:59 pm


Or a person clinging to the views that they have come to adopt as a result of their karma and environment, just as they did 500 or 2000 years ago, with the only exception that these differ in flavor.
This describes pretty much everyone who’s ever lived, with the only exception being a Buddha, I suppose.
Yes, but this is something that people who think that we are modern and extremely 'advanced' compared to the average person 2000 years ago often miss.
Advanced in some ways, certainly, but not necessarily in others. Not in the ways that really count, imo.

User avatar
clyde
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 6:17 am
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by clyde » Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:50 pm

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:00 pm
What is a "modern person"? Who counts as a modern person? For that matter, what is modernity?

What or who is the opposite of a modern person?
:) I used the term “modern” as the opposite of “ancient” (as in “ancient texts”) and simply meant alive now.
“Enlightenment means to see what harm you are involved in and to renounce it.” David Brazier, The New Buddhism

boda
Posts: 1930
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by boda » Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pm

DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:08 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:05 pm
boda wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:09 pm


This describes pretty much everyone who’s ever lived, with the only exception being a Buddha, I suppose.
Yes, but this is something that people who think that we are modern and extremely 'advanced' compared to the average person 2000 years ago often miss.
Very often, appeals to modernity reveal a kind of arrogance. It's self-congratulation. And its logic necessarily puts others in a negative light. If we are modern, what are you? The opposite of modern. Unfortunately, this kind of logic permeates a lot of English-language Buddhist discourses.
Discourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.

amanitamusc
Posts: 1391
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by amanitamusc » Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:12 am

boda wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pm
DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:08 pm
Aryjna wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:05 pm

Yes, but this is something that people who think that we are modern and extremely 'advanced' compared to the average person 2000 years ago often miss.
Very often, appeals to modernity reveal a kind of arrogance. It's self-congratulation. And its logic necessarily puts others in a negative light. If we are modern, what are you? The opposite of modern. Unfortunately, this kind of logic permeates a lot of English-language Buddhist discourses.
Discourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.
You prefer idealist nondualism?

boda
Posts: 1930
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 8:40 pm

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by boda » Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:25 am

amanitamusc wrote:
Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:12 am
boda wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pm
DGA wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:08 pm


Very often, appeals to modernity reveal a kind of arrogance. It's self-congratulation. And its logic necessarily puts others in a negative light. If we are modern, what are you? The opposite of modern. Unfortunately, this kind of logic permeates a lot of English-language Buddhist discourses.
Discourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.
You prefer idealist nondualism?
No, but thanks for asking. :smile:

DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by DGA » Sat Nov 10, 2018 2:46 am

boda wrote:
Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pm

Discourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.
tastes great? less filling?

why not both, I say

Red Spinifex
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:50 am

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Red Spinifex » Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:02 am

From Wiki:
Ālayavijñāna
The ālayavijñāna (Japanese: 阿頼耶識 arayashiki), or the "All-encompassing foundation consciousness",[7] forms the "base-consciousness" (mūlavijñāna) or "causal consciousness". According to the traditional interpretation, the other seven consciousnesses are "evolving" or "transforming" consciousnesses originating in this base-consciousness. The store-house consciousness accumulates all potential energy as seeds (bīja) for the mental (nāma) and physical (rūpa) manifestation of one's existence (nāmarūpa). It is the storehouse-consciousness which induces rebirth, causing the origination of a new existence.
The Ālayavijñāna, the storehouse consciousness, that induces rebirth and the manifestation of one's existence after rebirth, while the Ālayavijñāna itself is not the entity that is reborn. Is this a correct description or interpretation of the process?

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:48 am

Bristollad wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:47 pm
Bristollad wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 2:01 pm
I haven’t seen any passage which suggests “the notion of a spirit being that transmigrates from life to life” hence why I asked.
From this post:
During the period between death and the next birth, a being is said to exist as a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas (aggregates). It is called a gandharva and must wander and search for the place of its next birth.
That's exactly what it suggests. Hence the question.
A spirit that transmigrates from life to life is not the same as saying a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas. The first implies something soul-like travelling from existence to existence, the second does not but you seemed to have equated the two
A spirit does not have to be a "soul". A spirit can also be something airy, intangible, or air-like.
Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:52 pm
But the literal meaning of ātman is ‘I am’, and it has many different connotations to the Greek word ‘soul’ which developed in an entirely different cultural milieu.
Many believe it's etymology to be largely the same as the Middle English word "ethem" (from ǣþm), meaning vapour or breath, very similar to the term "spirit" brought up earlier.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/आत्मन्#Sanskrit
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/atman
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/æþm#Old_English
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethem#Middle_English

Much of the above references Monier Williams' 1899 Sanskrit–English Dictionary.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Wayfarer » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:45 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:48 am
Bristollad wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 am
Wayfarer wrote:
Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:47 pm


From this post:



That's exactly what it suggests. Hence the question.
A spirit that transmigrates from life to life is not the same as saying a spirit composed of subtle types of the five skandhas. The first implies something soul-like travelling from existence to existence, the second does not but you seemed to have equated the two
A spirit does not have to be a "soul". A spirit can also be something airy, intangible, or air-like.
Wayfarer wrote:
Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:52 pm
But the literal meaning of ātman is ‘I am’, and it has many different connotations to the Greek word ‘soul’ which developed in an entirely different cultural milieu.
Many believe it's etymology to be largely the same as the Middle English word "ethem" (from ǣþm), meaning vapour or breath, very similar to the term "spirit" brought up earlier.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/आत्मन्#Sanskrit
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/atman
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/æþm#Old_English
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/ethem#Middle_English

Much of the above references Monier Williams' 1899 Sanskrit–English Dictionary.
I’m sorry but I think that is a reification. Perhaps it’s a kind of analogy or metaphor. Pneuma means ‘breath’ as in ‘breath of life’. The Biblical metaphor is that God ‘breathed life into clay’, which I think is a beautiful image but again a metaphor. I like to compare the words ‘gist’ (as in ‘the gist of a story’) and Geist (as ‘spirit’) even though they’re etymologically not related, to convey the idea that ‘spirit’ is actually nearing in meaning to ‘meaning’ rather than ‘substance’ in the Aristotelian sense. Spirit is what ‘gives meaning’ and intelligence is the ability to ‘perceive meaning’. But meaning is not any kind of objective entity or substance. There literally is no such thing, but it’s still real.

Making of ‘spirit’ some kind of ethereal stuff is one the main reasons why the Buddha rejected any such notion as there is no way to show that there is any such thing. It amounts to ‘reification’ which is one of the very things that the Buddha never allowed. See the commentary on Kotthita Sutta.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:50 am

Well, the designation "a being" is also a reification, but here we all are. As for the subdiscussion about the Holy Spirit, I don't think it was necessarily understood as metaphorical that god allegedly breathed live into "us". And as for the reference to the Kottithasutta, I think that the connection here is too vague. This sutta is just the 4 negations, it is too general.

Also, the question in the sutta is about nibbāna, not death.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Wayfarer » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:36 am

I don’t think you’re seeing the point about reification.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:38 am

Wayfarer wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:36 am
I don’t think you’re seeing the point about reification.
It's likely that we are both seeing each other's posts as non-sequiturs IMO.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Wayfarer
Global Moderator
Posts: 4220
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Wayfarer » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:57 pm

No, I’m making a very specific point. To conceive of an ‘airy or intangible’ spirit is to make of. It ‘a thing’, which is the precise meaning of ‘reification’. It is to conceive of it in terms of it being an entity.

I am saying that this understanding of the matter is based on a misunderstood metaphor. When it is said that spirit is like breath or pneuma, that is a metaphor to convey the idea of something vital yet intangible. But there really is no such thing, there’s not literally a ‘spirit being’ that exists in any kind of objective sense, that is, as something that cold be objectively known.

The key point in the Kotthita sutta is this:
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification.
Speaking of ‘spirit’ in such terms is also ‘objectifying’. It’s a subtle point arising from non-dualism. The reason it sounds like a non-sequiter is because you’re considering it in dualist terms i.e. in terms of subject and object.

Sallie B. King’s book Buddha Nature explicates this at length.
Only practice with no gaining idea ~ Suzuki Roshi

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:59 pm

Wayfarer wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 7:57 pm
No, I’m making a very specific point. To conceive of an ‘airy or intangible’ spirit is to make of. It ‘a thing’, which is the precise meaning of ‘reification’. It is to conceive of it in terms of it being an entity.

I am saying that this understanding of the matter is based on a misunderstood metaphor. When it is said that spirit is like breath or pneuma, that is a metaphor to convey the idea of something vital yet intangible. But there really is no such thing, there’s not literally a ‘spirit being’ that exists in any kind of objective sense, that is, as something that cold be objectively known.

The key point in the Kotthita sutta is this:
[Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' objectifies non-objectification.
Speaking of ‘spirit’ in such terms is also ‘objectifying’. It’s a subtle point arising from non-dualism. The reason it sounds like a non-sequiter is because you’re considering it in dualist terms i.e. in terms of subject and object.

Sallie B. King’s book Buddha Nature explicates this at length.
Well, the designation of "a being" is also a similar reification. But there really is no such thing, there’s not literally a ‘[...]being’ that exists in any kind of objective sense, that is, as something that could be objectively known.

I don't follow your accusations of dualism on my part.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:05 pm

Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
Assuming ‘gandhabba’ to be a term whose referent would have been understood by the Buddha’s listeners (an audience of unconverted brahmins in the Assalāyanasutta and the goofball Sāti in the Mahātaṇhāsankhayasutta) to be a living being rather than a dhamma, then the said referent would be a paññatti, not a dhamma, and as such would belong within the sammuti field of discourse.
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28702
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:42 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:05 pm
Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
Assuming ‘gandhabba’ to be a term whose referent would have been understood by the Buddha’s listeners (an audience of unconverted brahmins in the Assalāyanasutta and the goofball Sāti in the Mahātaṇhāsankhayasutta) to be a living being rather than a dhamma, then the said referent would be a paññatti, not a dhamma, and as such would belong within the sammuti field of discourse.
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:42 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:05 pm
Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
Assuming ‘gandhabba’ to be a term whose referent would have been understood by the Buddha’s listeners (an audience of unconverted brahmins in the Assalāyanasutta and the goofball Sāti in the Mahātaṇhāsankhayasutta) to be a living being rather than a dhamma, then the said referent would be a paññatti, not a dhamma, and as such would belong within the sammuti field of discourse.
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.
Well, Wayfarer is arguing a trajectory similar to mine in that thread, where I called the Gandhabba as likened to a "virtual particle", while trying to guess the classical Theravādika Dvayānika interpretation of the Assalāyanasutta:
If the gandhabba isn't an intermediate being, or intermediate state of being, what else would it be?

Hence my comment about virtual particles.

A photon, for instance, is not a particle. It has no mass. But it is referred to as a particle for the sake of convenience of language when referred to it and dealing with it in general.

It seems it's just something mysterious, then?

[...]

Or perhaps it would be better to say that the Theravāda traditionally teach that there is or there would be "no time" so-to-speak, in an antarābhava, and as such it can't exist (I don't know if they would formally argue this, I am just drawing this as a possible conclusion leading why there can't be, and 'isn't an antarābhava'), but there is nonetheless a convenience of language to refer to the participation of the to-be-born, despite this not really being something that even "exists" in the same way that the beings mating do, assuming that that is indeed the case.
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28702
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:15 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:42 pm
Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:05 pm
Did you read the thread on the Gandhabba in the Classical Theravāda section of DhammaWheel?

I questioned Ven Dhammanando about Theravāda's lack of belief in an antarābhāva, yet belief in an gandhabba. He said
In reference to the Assalāyanasutta.
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.
Well, Wayfarer is arguing a trajectory similar to mine in that thread, where I called the Gandhabba as likened to a "virtual particle", while trying to guess the classical dvayānika interpretation of the Assalāyanasutta:
If the gandhabba isn't an intermediate being, or intermediate state of being, what else would it be?

Hence my comment about virtual particles.

A photon, for instance, is not a particle. It has no mass. But it is referred to as a particle for the sake of convenience of language when referred to it and dealing with it in general.

It seems it's just something mysterious, then?

[...]

Or perhaps it would be better to say that the Theravāda traditionally teach that there is or there would be "no time" so-to-speak, in an antarābhava, and as such it can't exist (I don't know if they would formally argue this, I am just drawing this as a possible conclusion leading why there can't be, and 'isn't an antarābhava'), but there is nonetheless a convenience of language to refer to the participation of the to-be-born, despite this not really being something that even "exists" in the same way that the beings mating do, assuming that that is indeed the case.
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1812
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Coëmgenu » Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:19 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:15 pm
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.
Don't worry, I don't believe this dvayānika dharma. But I am interesting in learning what they believe nonetheless. I've read a few sections of Kośabhāṣyam, but TBH, the parts to-do with gandharvāḥ seem sparse on detail for my ever hungry proliferating mind.

My ever hungry proliferating mind is much like the others you have met. Not satisfied with "comprised of the air element", yet willing to admit that perhaps that is all we "need" to know.

Are gandharvāḥ elaborated on beyond chapter 3 of the Louis de La Vallee Poussin/Leo M. Pruden translation?
佛子。如來智慧。無相智慧。無閡智慧。具足在於眾生身中。但愚癡眾生顛倒想覆。不知不見不生信心。
O, sons and daughters. The Thus-Gone's wisdom. The signless wisdom. The unobstructed wisdom. It perfectly dwells within all sentient beings’ minds. Yet in ignorance, sentient beings err and think it covered. Not knowing, not seeing, not giving rise to faith.
Āryamaitreyanāthasyottarekayānaratnagotraśāstra T1611.827b20

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 28702
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: What is reborn after death?

Post by Malcolm » Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:02 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:19 pm
Malcolm wrote:
Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:15 pm
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.
Don't worry, I don't believe this dvayānika dharma. But I am interesting in learning what they believe nonetheless. I've read a few sections of Kośabhāṣyam, but TBH, the parts to-do with gandharvāḥ seem sparse on detail for my ever hungry proliferating mind.

My ever hungry proliferating mind is much like the others you have met. Not satisfied with "comprised of the air element", yet willing to admit that perhaps that is all we "need" to know.

Are gandharvāḥ elaborated on beyond chapter 3 of the Louis de La Vallee Poussin/Leo M. Pruden translation?
No.
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra

Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grigoris, Lobsang Chojor and 49 guests