Not an endless path

"And it is clear & unambiguous that former does this by eliminating "being," and the latter by eliminating passion. I suspect this means the same thing (that being equals passion).
"

Well, I guess they were both onto something when they eschewed philosophical controversy in favour of ending suffering. I'm really not so sure they ended it the same way though. (Will maybe discuss this later, but will not sidetrack your thread any more).

On a slightly different note, I have also been reading the suttas lately, and have been surprised by how different they are from the "buddhism" I absorbed from other sources. It reminds me of when I first read the actual words of Jesus as a child, was astonished that the churches supposedly represented his teachings.

Not that I have a problem with this, just very surprised.

Alex

"The Buddha never claims that a self (or anything at all) is reborn, merely that there is rebirth.
"

Rebirth of what?

"Rebirth of what?"

One mind and body causally give rise to another.

Here are some later Buddhist writings on the subject: www.budsas.org/ebud/ebsut045.htm#ID

"One mind and body causally give rise to another."

Could any *actual* causal factor conceivably exist - other than sexual reproduction?

"Could any *actual* causal factor conceivably exist - other than sexual reproduction?"

With respect to your original point (that a realized person would no longer believe in rebirth, since there is nothing to be reborn), I hope I have clarified that the Buddha's view is compatible with your point, and in fact the Buddha has made the same point, in different words, about 2500 years before you. To quote you:

"This would not be a matter of deduction, nor a matter for scientific investigation; it would be immediately, experientially obvious that both the illusion of previous lives, and the 'being' who is subject to rebirth, have simply disappeared and are known to have never existed.

I can't help thinking that if the Buddha knew this (and such knowledge would *necessarily* arise from the experience you (seemingly) attribute to him), he would have said so."

It was apparently immediately, experientially obvious to him that there is no 'being' who lives successive lives, or even no 'being' who lives successive moments, and he said so.

With respect to your new question, it is clearly beyond the scope of KFD, and it is clearly about an issue unrelated to what a realized person would or wouldn't believe once 'self' is seen to be an illusion, so I hope you understand why I will not pursue it on account of both of these facts.

"With respect to your original point (that a realized person would no longer believe in rebirth, since there is nothing to be reborn), I hope I have clarified that the Buddha's view is compatible with your point, and in fact the Buddha has made the same point, in different words, about 2500 years before you. To quote you:

"This would not be a matter of deduction, nor a matter for scientific investigation; it would be immediately, experientially obvious that both the illusion of previous lives, and the 'being' who is subject to rebirth, have simply disappeared and are known to have never existed.

I can't help thinking that if the Buddha knew this (and such knowledge would *necessarily* arise from the experience you (seemingly) attribute to him), he would have said so."

It was apparently immediately, experientially obvious to him that there is no 'being' who lives successive lives, or even no 'being' who lives successive moments, and he said so.

With respect to your new question, it is clearly beyond the scope of KFD, and it is clearly about an issue unrelated to what a realized person would or wouldn't believe once 'self' is seen to be an illusion, so I hope you understand why I will not pursue it on account of both of these facts."

If Buddha had been "actually free" (ie. in the same condition as Tarin), he could not have believed in any form of rebirth, because any possible causal mechanism (other than sexual reproduction) would have disappeared.

And it wouldn't just be that the causal factor no longer operates after realization, he would have seen that it *never did*. And that is clearly *not* what the suttas say.

Alex

PS. I think people are (understandably) trying to rescue AF from its highly dubious progenitor and give it a more respectable and ancient Buddhist heritage - but it just doesn't work.

"If Buddha had been "actually free" (ie. in the same condition as Tarin), he could not have believed in any form of rebirth, because any possible causal mechanism (other than sexual reproduction) would have disappeared. "

If you know a form of practice that results in indubitable knowledge about the causal workings of the cosmos (or even just Planet Earth), I would love to hear about such a practice, as well as how you think it bestows such knowledge.

However, as this discussion concerns AF, if you are interested in pursuing this topic I suggest you either discuss it with me via private message, or discuss it on a more appropriate forum.

EDIT: "PS. I think people are (understandably) trying to rescue AF from its highly dubious progenitor and give it a more respectable and ancient Buddhist heritage - but it just doesn't work."

As you were apparently not well-informed with respect to the fundamentals of Buddhist doctrine, I would recommend reading about it before offering your thoughts (when you couch your thoughts in such definitive language).

To clarify my point...there is a difference between a theory being wrong, and a theory being impossible. One can hold that the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth is wrong, while admitting that it is clearly possible (though perhaps not according to modern scientific doctrine), without requiring that there ever exists a 'being' who is subject to it. (If you are inclined to state that it is impossible, take a moment to formulate some arguments by which it would clearly be possible according to some possible way the universe might work, other than the modern scientific one, and see what you think then. I am sure you could find such arguments with sufficient motivation.)

"To clarify my point...there is a difference between a theory being wrong, and a theory being impossible. One can hold that the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth is wrong, while admitting that it is clearly possible (though perhaps not according to modern scientific doctrine), without requiring that there ever exists a 'being' who is subject to it. (If you are inclined to state that it is impossible, take a moment to formulate some arguments by which it would clearly be possible according to some possible way the universe might work, other than the modern scientific one, and see what you think then. I am sure you could find such arguments with sufficient motivation.)"

I'm well aware of anatta in Buddhism, and well aware that Buddha was not claiming that a 'self' is reborn (or exists even now).

I was using 'being' in the sense that AF practitioners use it, because that's where Bruno seemed to be coming from.

Many who have attained MCTB 4th Path, though well acquainted with anatta, still speak of 'being', and that is the sense in which I meant it.

Buddha did not believe in a self as a discrete entity reborn 'in' another body. Nevertheless, could belief in ANY form of rebirth (consistent with how it is written about it in the suttas) persist after the extinction of 'being' (in the AF sense)? I don't see how. Do you?

Alex

If you want to talk about this, you know what to do...

"If you want to talk about this, you know what to do..."

I'm doing it. Whether you want to participate is a matter for you.

Edit: it's quite a simple issue really, and I can't see a reason to hush it up or take it elsewhere.

Is there any interpretation of rebirth that is (a) consistent with how Buddha speaks about it in the suttas; and (b) compatible with the insights of AF, such that one could still plausibly argue that Buddha's arahantship and AF are the same thing.

Alex

"However, as this discussion concerns AF, if you are interested in pursuing this topic I suggest you either discuss it with me via private message, or discuss it on a more appropriate forum."

Alex, let's respect Kenneth's forum and not clutter it up with a conversation about a topic that is not suited to it.

"Alex, let's respect Kenneth's forum and not clutter it up with a conversation about a topic that is not suited to it."

If I believed it was Kenneth who doesn't want this discussion I would (will) stop immediately.

Alex

"could belief in ANY form of rebirth (consistent with how it is written about it in the suttas) persist after the extinction of 'being' (in the AF sense)? I don't see how. Do you?
"

There is the knowledge that 'beings' all around are taking birth every moment.

After arhatship, according to the suttas, there is no more taking of birth or bhava in pali which can be translated as 'becoming' or 'being' (the word rebirth is supposedly never said by the Buddha in the suttas). Depending on how much residual 'shadow being' may be still arising post-shift (early af), there is still a continuing of dependent origination via the arising (birth) and passing (death) of this shadow being experience. (1)

This experience occurs due to residual ignorance of volitional movements in the mind that give rise to sanna evaluating sense objects that then give rise to particular vedana which then is reacted to with a subtle craving and clinging (much subtler than before the shift). This then leads to the arising of the weird shadow being, which is not experienced like the full blown 'being' before. It is a subtle remnant of it. Impossible to imagine. This is a continuing of the flow of birth and death as referred to in DO. This has been the case for the past 3 months if I am not aware and paying attention. Recently, my practice took a more positive turn concerning this and the arisings and passings (births and deaths of shadow being) have dropped considerably. We'll see where it goes.

For the likes of Tarin and Trent, there seems to be the case of no shadow being at all arising, dependent origination not functioning in the moment at all. Thus for them, no more births and deaths.

Read this link: www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/TheParadoxOfBecoming.pdf

(1) I've tried to describe it in my ongoing practice journal at the HP.

"(...) no more taking of birth or bhava in pali which can be translated as 'becoming' or 'being' (the word rebirth is supposedly never said by the Buddha in the suttas)."

That's certainly an interesting interpretation. Do you think Buddha was *only* talking about numerous births and deaths within the life of a single body, or was he talking about it extending beyond physical death too? I could understand the former being consistent with AF but not the latter. But aren't the suttas full of references to favourable or unfavourable destinations after physical death?

Alex

Two perfectly consistent views with the attainment of actual freedom:

1. The "being" that is now utterly gone had no actual existence outside my head.

2. The "being" that is now utterly gone had some actual existence outside my head.

Under (2) it becomes consistent to have the view that this "being," who had an actual existence outside one's head, has inhabited many bodies. If one takes this view, and suddenly recognizes that this "being" has utterly disappeared, then one is to conclude that there will be no further rebirth.

Not having contact with science, neurology in particular, and having the aforementioned visions of "past lives" immediately preceding the event of his liberation, it is no surprise that Gotama came to have view number 2. Furthermore we are talking about an experience which is repeatable to a well-concentrated person who inclines the mind that way.

If he had such knowledge, he could have verified for himself that whenever someone has such an experience, some area of his brain lights up, maybe he would have said something closer to Richard.

Maybe not. I do wish I hadn't mentioned it, as the AF theme always brings up controversy, and I was well aware of that.

I was simply quite excited to read the suttas that's all, and I found them quite similar to AF. If it apeases your mind, you can think that maybe I found this to be the case due to my own personal biases.

Why not find out for yourself? Once one gets used to the somewhat bizarre writing-style, and once the superficial cultural-historical-idiosyncratic layer is seen-through (something any self-taught meditator should be good at doing), what is left is a set of very precise, clear, well-defined goal and path.

I found Thanisaro Bikkhu's comentary to be of extremely high quality. Elucidating, clear, to-the-point. (links follow)

The Shape of Suffering: A Study of Dependent Co-arising, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...shapeofsuffering.pdf

The Four Noble Truths: A Study Guide

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html

About dependent origination (functioning or not), we may have to distinguish the dependent orgination of the sense of self and the dependent orgination of phenomena. Because, even in the absence of any sense of self, phenomena continue to "come into being" due to causes and conditions. This should also explain why Chris mentioned that Dogen wrote that dependent origination never stops.

The realization of AF is close to the true goal of Buddhism. However, there seems to be a subtle grasping at phenomena giving them (the actualists) the impression that, without a sense of self, all that remains is an actual material world made of solid objects. As a result, the same actualists may have come to the conclusion that the Buddha was naive about rebirth (and freedom from birth and death), concluding too soon that the ultimate truth is that we are just a physical body.

Isn't that a good example of the mind trying to hold on something permanent, even in the absence of a sense of self?

For Buddhists, the truth is that "in seeing, only the seen". There is no seer and the seen is only "the seen". Concluding that "the seen" is more than "the seen", and implies the existence of real material objects out there, is not our direct experience but some kind of unchecked belief.

"There is the knowledge that 'beings' all around are taking birth every moment."

"Birth" is defined by the suttas as literal birth, even though metaphorical birth (as you describe) may be seen to be happening as well.

"After arhatship, according to the suttas, there is no more taking of birth or bhava"

"Birth" is "jati", not "bhava", which may change your interpretation of things.

"(the word rebirth is supposedly never said by the Buddha in the suttas)."

Through the round of many births I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again & again. (Dhammapada)

"2. The "being" that is now utterly gone had some actual existence outside my head.

Under (2) it becomes consistent to have the view that this "being," who had an actual existence outside one's head, has inhabited many bodies. If one takes this view, and suddenly recognizes that this "being" has utterly disappeared, then one is to conclude that there will be no further rebirth.

Not having contact with science, neurology in particular, and having the aforementioned visions of "past lives" immediately preceding the event of his liberation, it is no surprise that Gotama came to have view number 2."

Bruno, if you are interested in further readings of the suttas, you may be interested to investigate this specific issue, and to see whether Gotama actually believed such a thing, or whether you are misapprehending his view.

"About dependent origination (functioning or not), we may have to distinguish the dependent orgination of the sense of self and the dependent orgination of phenomena. Because, even in the absence of any sense of self, phenomena continue to "come into being" due to causes and conditions. This should also explain why Chris mentioned that Dogen wrote that dependent origination never stops."

Dependent origination is an explanation of the causes and conditions that lead to suffering, not of the causes and conditions that lead to all phenomena. It does not explain the whole of causality.

Buddha did claim that dependent origination comes to an end. The fact that dogen wrote that it never stops is probably an indication that it never stopped for him.

"Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent co-arising for you.

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. (...) From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

(...)

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. (...) From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

(SN 12.2)

"Buddha did claim that dependent origination comes to an end. The fact that dogen wrote that it never stops is probably an indication that it never stopped for him."

As the Buddha continued to have various experiences described in dependent origination (e.g. the existence of the sense organs, sense-experience, vedana, ultimately death), I would say that dependent origination finally ended for him only at parinibbana.

Perhaps the same was true for Dogen, and so Dogen spoke rightly about his current experience (while alive) as well.

""There is the knowledge that 'beings' all around are taking birth every moment."

"Birth" is defined by the suttas as literal birth, even though metaphorical birth (as you describe) may be seen to be happening as well.

"After arhatship, according to the suttas, there is no more taking of birth or bhava"

"Birth" is "jati", not "bhava", which may change your interpretation of things.

"(the word rebirth is supposedly never said by the Buddha in the suttas)."

Through the round of many births I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again & again. (Dhammapada)
"

Oh yeh, my mistake. Bhava is becoming. Oops. Thanks.

Is there a word for 're-birth' or is it just 'birth again and again'? I know 're' is taken as 'again', but Is there a subtle difference in how people read these two English ways of conveying it?

There is birth again and again VERSUS There is re-birth.

I am aware the Buddha talked about past and future lives. But what is better for practice, to consider the fact we take birth every moment or that upon death we end up in a deva realm or hell realm? Actually i would say both being the hardcore nutter that I am.

Is it not the same flow of consciousness (the candles lighting the candles) that moves from this moment to the next, and from the moment of the death of the physical body to the next dependent on DO?

"Dependent origination is an explanation of the causes and conditions that lead to suffering, not of the causes and conditions that lead to all phenomena. It does not explain the whole of causality."

Dependent Origination explains everything about what matters to our spiritual practice - personal experience of perception. It explains how the objects we relate to all the time arise and pass. And they never stop arising and passing, do they?

To clarify (about a literal reading of the suttas, which Bruno claims to be interested in), here are some definitions from SN 12.2:

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth."

Literal birth, literal death.

Without becoming, there is no further birth; but, having been born, death follows; a fragment of dependent origination continues to run as normal until the end of the body, after which point (with the cessation of ignorance in the case of an arahant) there is no further birth.