Advanced in some ways, certainly, but not necessarily in others. Not in the ways that really count, imo.Aryjna wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:05 pmYes, 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.
What is reborn after death?
Re: What is reborn after death?
Re: What is reborn after death?
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
“The most straightforward advice on awakening enlightened mind is this: practice not causing harm to anyone—yourself or others—and every day, do what you can to be helpful.” Pema Chodron, “What to Do When the Going Gets Rough”
“The most straightforward advice on awakening enlightened mind is this: practice not causing harm to anyone—yourself or others—and every day, do what you can to be helpful.” Pema Chodron, “What to Do When the Going Gets Rough”
Re: What is reborn after death?
Discourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.DGA wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:08 pmVery 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.
-
- Posts: 2124
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:32 am
Re: What is reborn after death?
You prefer idealist nondualism?boda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pmDiscourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.DGA wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:08 pmVery 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.
Re: What is reborn after death?
No, but thanks for asking.amanitamusc wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 1:12 amYou prefer idealist nondualism?boda wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:14 pmDiscourse essentially based in the materialist vs idealist dualism, which is soo boring.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.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:50 am
Re: What is reborn after death?
From Wiki:
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?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.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
A spirit does not have to be a "soul". A spirit can also be something airy, intangible, or air-like.Bristollad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 amA 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 twoWayfarer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:47 pmFrom this post: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.
That's exactly what it suggests. Hence the question.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.
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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
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.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 4:48 amA spirit does not have to be a "soul". A spirit can also be something airy, intangible, or air-like.Bristollad wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:35 amA 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 twoWayfarer wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:47 pm
From this post:
That's exactly what it suggests. Hence the question.
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.
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
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
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.
Also, the question in the sutta is about nibbāna, not death.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
I don’t think you’re seeing the point about reification.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
It's likely that we are both seeing each other's posts as non-sequiturs IMO.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
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:
Sallie B. King’s book Buddha Nature explicates this at length.
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:
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.[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.
Sallie B. King’s book Buddha Nature explicates this at length.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
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.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:
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.[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.
Sallie B. King’s book Buddha Nature explicates this at length.
I don't follow your accusations of dualism on my part.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
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
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.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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
Who cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.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.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.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
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:Malcolm wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 8:42 pmWho cares? Theravada objections to the doctrine of the antarābhāva are dispensed with in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam at length.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.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.
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.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
Just look at the Kośabhāṣyam.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:09 pmWell, 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.
- Caoimhghín
- Posts: 3419
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
- Location: Whitby, Ontario
Re: What is reborn after death?
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?
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?
The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
Re: What is reborn after death?
No.Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 9:19 pmDon'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?