Element wrote:
The view of no-rebirth accords with the supramundane dhamma of the Buddha, with the teachings of impermanence, conditionality & not-self.
It might seem that way because of attachment, but there is no mundane right view which "accords" with noble right view in particular, including nihilism. If it did, there would be no meaningful distinction between the two. Noble right view is "discernment," an idea rooted in a deeper psychology, and therefore transcendental, and the understanding of this renders it unnecessary to
attach certain "views" to this discernment. Indeed, anything that is attached to discernment (literal rebirth, no-rebirth, etc.) will eventually be swept away. It is problematic to say that the "supramundane" dhamma of the Buddha is a direct contradiction of the mundane dhamma. But rather, the mundane dhamma is derived from the supramundane. How is it, though, that one derives "rebirth" from "no-rebirth"? And yet, with discernment, discernment and only discernment, it is clear and there is no confusion.
Element wrote:
For example, Buddha taught extensively about the practise of contemplation of death. If one holds rebirth belief, this practise loses much of its efficacy.
Only if the person regards consciousness as permanent and self. It isn't. I think a good analogy is the
T-1000 (the liquid-metal robot) from Terminator 2. This analogy works rather well when you consider that scientists mostly believe that conscious life arose out of a kind of "primordial soup". Like the liquid metal of the T-1000, the illusion of permanent material existence with relation to self can be likened to water or dust (the Buddha used the metaphors foam, bubble, etc., to describe the aggregates). So, if you take a sledgehammer to someone's skull, there will be a broken skull, blood everywhere, mashed brain, and the rest of the body, too, will rot away... And during this whole process, there is no "consciousness", for its basis has been destroyed. And yet, in some peculiar way, because subtle ignorance remains, then like the T-1000, the primordial soup oozes back together, in accordance with kamma, in a way that lays the basis for the next life. And in the next life, almost everything that the person attained in the previous life (material possessions, even gross mental possessions like knowledge and experiences) will be gone, but the
luminous mind which is the foundation for becoming remains. This isn't a lie, Element. The Buddha wasn't a liar, teaching lies to laypeople and truths to his bhikkhus (truths which he told laypeople was a wrong view -- annihilationism). This is is the way things actually work.
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:In this sense, both views are merely projections of a more deep-seated ignorance, self-view, choosing an arbitrary reference point for self, either the "body" of this life (which lays the basis for this consciousness), or the "luminous mind" which comes and goes, between lives.
The Buddha taught the body & all consciousness, whether gross and subtle, are impermanent. The above view by Individual is the view of nihilism. Individual is equating the five aggregates with 'self' and thus to be free of 'self', one must be free of the five aggregates. This view is denial. This view is one that does not want to face reality in meditation. This view is one that instead of confronting negative, harmful & lustful mental formations as real, denies these formations and the other aggregates through heedlessness, which they equate with non-attachment. Non-attachment is not heedlessness. We must be careful here.
You are making false assumptions about what I'm saying and then going on and on in dismissing views I don't agree with. Of course nihilism is false. The five aggregates aren't the "self," but they are the manner in which self-view arises, so within subjective reality, it certainly might seem as though the aggregates are self.
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:In accordance with dependent-origination, the mind and body are dependently co-arising, and to choose one reference point over another is irrelevant.
Dependent origination is about the dependent origination of suffering. It is not about the dependent origination of the mind and body. For example, when dependent origination states ignorance conditions fabricators and the fabricators condition consciousness and the mind-body, the meaning here is that the mind-body become affected by or imbued with ignorance. There is a body - for example, an erect penis - fabricated by ignorance to become erect. Once the penis was not erect. The penis dwelt in penis nirodha. However, then the penis becomes imbued with ignorance formations and the seach begins to find a sense object of penis gratification. Also, there is a mind - full of hindrances, primed for a sensual search - full of ignorance. The mind and body are not pure. The mind and body are not free from ignorance & defilement. So dependent origination is about the origination of an ignorant body-mind and not the body-mind per se.
Suffering is manifest through mind-and-body, is it not? You said the 12 nidanas are nota bout mind and body... And then you used an analogy involving a body part.
Element wrote:
Individual wrote:The Buddha's teaching on dependent-origination was pretty straightforward.
Buddha said:
"It's amazing, lord, it's astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond samsara, the planes of deprivation, woe and bad destinations.
When you're talking to me directly, Element, you are allowed to say "you", "your", etc.. Please, don't talk to me as a third-person... It's bad enough that you speak of yourself in the third-person. It's weird!