I have difficulties to see what you are arguing here and to what conclusion the quotations are supposed to lead. Could you perhaps put that into a more compact format?
If you argue that rebirth is not to be understood as continuing after death and being born again into samsara, then the entire Buddhist doctrine collapses. The four noble truths, the eightfold path, the codependent origination, all that would be useless and contrived, because you can simply end suffering right now by jumping off the next building.
Cheers, Thomas
the great rebirth debate
- Pannapetar
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
- Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
that's not correct. you're talking about your suffering if you would jump off the next building. it seems you're thinking: by jumping off the next building my suffering will end. that's wrong view. do you really think if one human being would jump off the next building this would simply end suffering? with respect do sabbe dhammā anattā there isn't anybodys suffering, all there is is suffering and it won't end by anyone jumping off the next building. I mean suffering does not end by any-body finishing it's functionality which usually is called "life".Pannapetar wrote: If you argue that rebirth is not to be understood as continuing after death and being born again into samsara, then the entire Buddhist doctrine collapses. The four noble truths, the eightfold path, the codependent origination, all that would be useless and contrived, because you can simply end suffering right now by jumping off the next building.
Cheers, Thomas
I do think clw_uk means that rebirth is to be understood as continuing after death. But not after physical death, not after death of the body but after death of a "self which is glad" into a "self which is sad" and so on...
best wishes
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
- Pannapetar
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
- Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
It's funny. Every Buddhist forum has a "great rebirth debate". As if rebirth is something that is left open in Buddhism.
The phrasing "continuation after death" is a bit problematic, however, because ultimately there is no death and no birth. These are just aspects of samsara. What we call afterlife is a phase or "bardo" -as the Tibetans say- of a larger process. From our perspective, the afterlife might look like an illusion, but from the perspective of someone on the other side, life probably looks like an even greater illusion. You continue after death as consciousness. Some Buddhists, particularly in the West, have problems with this understanding, but -as already mentioned- Buddhism hardly makes sense without it.
If you find the tenet of rebirth difficult to accept, I recommend that you focus your meditation practice on this particular question. Ask someone on the other side, perhaps a deceased teacher, arahat, or bodhisattva to assist you in this quest. The truth about rebirth can be established through meditation practice. If you are serious about it, you will find out long before you die.
Cheers, Thomas
This was actually the logical conclusion of what clw_uk suggested, not of what I suggested. For that matter, it is irrelevant whether you jump off a cliff, or the entire planet decides -by majority vote- to blow itself up. If the end of suffering could be had simply by ending physical existence, then the four noble truths would make no sense at all. Rebirth and reincarnation do of course imply continuation after death. It's really a no-brainer.acinteyyo wrote:that's not correct. you're talking about your suffering if you would jump off the next building. it seems you're thinking: by jumping off the next building my suffering will end.
The phrasing "continuation after death" is a bit problematic, however, because ultimately there is no death and no birth. These are just aspects of samsara. What we call afterlife is a phase or "bardo" -as the Tibetans say- of a larger process. From our perspective, the afterlife might look like an illusion, but from the perspective of someone on the other side, life probably looks like an even greater illusion. You continue after death as consciousness. Some Buddhists, particularly in the West, have problems with this understanding, but -as already mentioned- Buddhism hardly makes sense without it.
If you find the tenet of rebirth difficult to accept, I recommend that you focus your meditation practice on this particular question. Ask someone on the other side, perhaps a deceased teacher, arahat, or bodhisattva to assist you in this quest. The truth about rebirth can be established through meditation practice. If you are serious about it, you will find out long before you die.
Cheers, Thomas
Re: the great rebirth debate
Hi Thomas
We decided to start a 'great rebirth debate' because many of us have come from another forum where discussion of, and the challenging of the literal rebirth doctrine was banned. We also thought that for many practitioners, rebirth is a subject that conjures up a lot of questions and uncertainties, probably due to the influence of the judeo-christian and now secular societies where many of us live.
I don't think its open, but that is my personal opinion.
Metta
Ben
I'm glad you can see the funny side!Pannapetar wrote:It's funny. Every Buddhist forum has a "great rebirth debate". As if rebirth is something that is left open in Buddhism.
We decided to start a 'great rebirth debate' because many of us have come from another forum where discussion of, and the challenging of the literal rebirth doctrine was banned. We also thought that for many practitioners, rebirth is a subject that conjures up a lot of questions and uncertainties, probably due to the influence of the judeo-christian and now secular societies where many of us live.
I don't think its open, but that is my personal opinion.
Metta
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
Re: the great rebirth debate
Hey
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Best teaching i have heard that relates to this topic is this by Ajahn Sumedho
metta
Firstly the Buddha did not say that life is suffering, he said there is suffering. By saying one should kill oneself is, to me, a misunderstanding of the 4nt's. People kill themselves because all they see is suffering and because they think that everything is suffering. Secondly you have jumped right into another speculative view that death is nothing, this is no differernt than saying after death there is something be it hades or valhallaThis was actually the logical conclusion of what clw_uk suggested, not of what I suggested. For that matter, it is irrelevant whether you jump off a cliff, or the entire planet decides -by majority vote- to blow itself up. If the end of suffering could be had simply by ending physical existence, then the four noble truths would make no sense at all. Rebirth and reincarnation do of course imply continuation after death. It's really a no-brainer.
"You continue after death as consciousness" you are obviously clinging to consciousness as self here, similar to what the monk Sati did, bit shocked to hear a Buddhist say thisThe phrasing "continuation after death" is a bit problematic, however, because ultimately there is no death and no birth. These are just aspects of samsara. What we call afterlife is a phase or "bardo" -as the Tibetans say- of a larger process. From our perspective, the afterlife might look like an illusion, but from the perspective of someone on the other side, life probably looks like an even greater illusion. You continue after death as consciousness. Some Buddhists, particularly in the West, have problems with this understanding, but -as already mentioned- Buddhism hardly makes sense without it.
Your assuming here that I find it difficult to accept which isnt the case I just dont see it being that at all in the Buddhas teachings. As for asking somone who has died to help me, this (to me) goes against Buddhadhamma and it more in line with Christianity, Islam etcIf you find the tenet of rebirth difficult to accept, I recommend that you focus your meditation practice on this particular question. Ask someone on the other side, perhaps a deceased teacher, arahat, or bodhisattva to assist you in this quest. The truth about rebirth can be established through meditation practice. If you are serious about it, you will find out long before you die.
Makes perfect senseBuddhism hardly makes sense without it
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Best teaching i have heard that relates to this topic is this by Ajahn Sumedho
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... nd_Now.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;The only thing that’s certain about the future—the death of the body—is something we try to ignore. Just thinking about the word death stops the mind, doesn’t it? It does for me. It’s not particularly polite or politically correct to speak of death in casual conversation. What is death? What will happen when I die? Not knowing upsets us. But it is unknown, isn’t it? We don’t know what will happen when the body dies.We have various theories—like reincarnation or being rewarded by a better rebirth or being punished by a worse birth. Some people speculate that once you’ve attained human birth, you may still be reborn as a lower creature. And then there’s the school that says no, once you’ve taken birth in the human form, then you cannot be reborn as a lower creature. Or the belief in oblivion—once you’re dead, you’re dead. That’s it. Nothing left. Finito. The truth of the matter is that nobody really knows. So we often just ignore it or suppress it.
But this is all happening in the now. We’re thinking of the concept of death in the present. The way the word death affects consciousness is like this. This is knowing not knowing in the now. It’s not trying to prove any theory. It’s knowing: the breath is like this; the body like this; the moods and mental states are like this. This is developing the path. Saying “like this” is just a way of reminding oneself to see this moment as it is rather than to be caught in some idea that we’ve got to do something or find something or control something or get rid of something.
metta
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:50 pm, edited 4 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
Hey
The only thing that collapses is your metaphysical view not the Buddhas teachings
metta
If you argue that rebirth is not to be understood as continuing after death and being born again into samsara, then the entire Buddhist doctrine collapses. The four noble truths, the eightfold path, the codependent origination, all that would be useless and contrived, because you can simply end suffering right now by jumping off the next building.
The only thing that collapses is your metaphysical view not the Buddhas teachings
metta
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
- Pannapetar
- Posts: 327
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
- Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
clw_uk,
It is clear to me that you speak from a position of opinion and I am not very interested in "bookish" positions. I've had personal experiences which made it clear to me that you and I continue. Since I can't prove it to you, I suggest we leave it at that.
Cheers, Thomas
It is clear to me that you speak from a position of opinion and I am not very interested in "bookish" positions. I've had personal experiences which made it clear to me that you and I continue. Since I can't prove it to you, I suggest we leave it at that.
Cheers, Thomas
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: the great rebirth debate
In another thread, someone said:
When saying one's view of rebirth is metaphorical, it should be asked: Does one's actions have meaningful consequences for the future, even after death? (i.e. suicide is not without consequence) And does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
When saying one's view of rebirth is literal, it should be asked: Is there a personality, essence, soul, person, agent, or any other possible synonym, such as a karmic seed, astral body, divine body, spirit, subtle mind, psychic energy, karmic energy, which transmigrates eternally? And is consciousness dependent on the body, ceasing with the dissolution (death) of the body?
These pertinent questions may reveal either an annihilationst's denial of rebirth or an eternalist's convoluted, speculative superstitious theory of the reincarnation of the soul, both of which can disguise themselves as a view of rebirth.
Whether calling one's rebirth view "literal" or "metaphorical," I think these terms aren't necessarily very clear and we should be more clear than saying one's view is either fact or poetry.Sanghamitta wrote:I think that there are many good reasons for accepting a literal view of post-mortem rebirth. However if you want to undermine your own case then citing hypnotherapy is a pretty good place to start.
When saying one's view of rebirth is metaphorical, it should be asked: Does one's actions have meaningful consequences for the future, even after death? (i.e. suicide is not without consequence) And does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
When saying one's view of rebirth is literal, it should be asked: Is there a personality, essence, soul, person, agent, or any other possible synonym, such as a karmic seed, astral body, divine body, spirit, subtle mind, psychic energy, karmic energy, which transmigrates eternally? And is consciousness dependent on the body, ceasing with the dissolution (death) of the body?
These pertinent questions may reveal either an annihilationst's denial of rebirth or an eternalist's convoluted, speculative superstitious theory of the reincarnation of the soul, both of which can disguise themselves as a view of rebirth.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Individual wrote:In another thread, someone said:Whether calling one's rebirth view "literal" or "metaphorical," I think these terms aren't necessarily very clear and we should be more clear than saying one's view is either fact or poetry.Sanghamitta wrote:I think that there are many good reasons for accepting a literal view of post-mortem rebirth. However if you want to undermine your own case then citing hypnotherapy is a pretty good place to start.
When saying one's view of rebirth is metaphorical, it should be asked: Does one's actions have meaningful consequences for the future, even after death? (i.e. suicide is not without consequence) And does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
When saying one's view of rebirth is literal, it should be asked: Is there a personality, essence, soul, person, agent, or any other possible synonym, such as a karmic seed, astral body, divine body, spirit, subtle mind, psychic energy, karmic energy, which transmigrates eternally? And is consciousness dependent on the body, ceasing with the dissolution (death) of the body?
These pertinent questions may reveal either an annihilationst's denial of rebirth or an eternalist's convoluted, speculative superstitious theory of the reincarnation of the soul, both of which can disguise themselves as a view of rebirth.
Is thi a question or a statement, or both? Do you want me an sanghamitta to expand?
metta
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: the great rebirth debate
Both. You can say whatever you like.clw_uk wrote:Individual wrote:In another thread, someone said:Whether calling one's rebirth view "literal" or "metaphorical," I think these terms aren't necessarily very clear and we should be more clear than saying one's view is either fact or poetry.Sanghamitta wrote:I think that there are many good reasons for accepting a literal view of post-mortem rebirth. However if you want to undermine your own case then citing hypnotherapy is a pretty good place to start.
When saying one's view of rebirth is metaphorical, it should be asked: Does one's actions have meaningful consequences for the future, even after death? (i.e. suicide is not without consequence) And does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
When saying one's view of rebirth is literal, it should be asked: Is there a personality, essence, soul, person, agent, or any other possible synonym, such as a karmic seed, astral body, divine body, spirit, subtle mind, psychic energy, karmic energy, which transmigrates eternally? And is consciousness dependent on the body, ceasing with the dissolution (death) of the body?
These pertinent questions may reveal either an annihilationst's denial of rebirth or an eternalist's convoluted, speculative superstitious theory of the reincarnation of the soul, both of which can disguise themselves as a view of rebirth.
Is thi a question or a statement, or both? Do you want me an sanghamitta to expand?
metta
Re: the great rebirth debate
Very well
Thinking "there is nothing after death so I can just kill myself" is, in this respect, the thought of a fool. Suicide is an unwholesome intentional action and if there is life after death, there will be a birth into an unwholesome place. Its a foolish risk, even more foolish because its based on a speculative view of annihilation and oblivion
So is the thought of "no afterlife, can do what I like"
metta
Of course they do, an evil intentional action leads to jati in a hell realm where much sadness is found while a good intentional action leads to a good realm. As for the suicide question i think its important to remember the Buddhas teachingWhen saying one's view of rebirth is metaphorical, it should be asked: Does one's actions have meaningful consequences for the future, even after death? (i.e. suicide is not without consequence)
"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
Thinking "there is nothing after death so I can just kill myself" is, in this respect, the thought of a fool. Suicide is an unwholesome intentional action and if there is life after death, there will be a birth into an unwholesome place. Its a foolish risk, even more foolish because its based on a speculative view of annihilation and oblivion
So is the thought of "no afterlife, can do what I like"
If your asking about after death, this is a speculative metaphysical question that the Buddha said was unwise to engage inAnd does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
Annihilationism = I have a Self/There is a Self and at death this gets annihilated, ends, no longer exists. Your point would only be valid if the person held such a view of SelfThese pertinent questions may reveal either an annihilationst's denial of rebirth
metta
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
-
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am
Re: the great rebirth debate
It's not speculative because of the way the question is put. With the re-arising of the supports of an object, the re-arising of the result is implied.clw_uk wrote:If your asking about after death, this is a speculative metaphysical question that the Buddha said was unwise to engage inAnd does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Individual wrote:It's not speculative because of the way the question is put. With the re-arising of the supports of an object, the re-arising of the result is implied.clw_uk wrote:If your asking about after death, this is a speculative metaphysical question that the Buddha said was unwise to engage inAnd does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports?
Does it involve speculation about what happens after death? What I mean is, are you asking
does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports after physical death?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
Hi Craig,
There are, for example, various speculative views in SN 44.7 Moggallana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha takes no position on the ten speculative views because he does not identify any of the six senses as "self."
But can you find a case which goes something like the following?
"Vaccha, this has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'That nama-rupa arises dependent on causes and conditions that may include kamma that occurred before the physical birth of a being."
Metta
Mike
Can you point to a Sutta reference where the Buddha says that there is something speculative about discussing processes that occur in the past and future?clw_uk wrote: Does it involve speculation about what happens after death? What I mean is, are you asking
does consciousness re-arise with the re-arising of its supports after physical death?
There are, for example, various speculative views in SN 44.7 Moggallana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha takes no position on the ten speculative views because he does not identify any of the six senses as "self."
But can you find a case which goes something like the following?
"Vaccha, this has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'That nama-rupa arises dependent on causes and conditions that may include kamma that occurred before the physical birth of a being."
Metta
Mike
Re: the great rebirth debate
Hey mike
There is no such sutta, not that i have come across anyway. However the question was clearly about "do i survive death" or "is there life after death" (same thing really) hence why its unwise to ask, since its riddled with "I"
Even if you say its about a "process" there is still some level of "I" since this is where the questions comes from in the first place "do I have a afterlife" etc.
I mean think about it, where does the question of living after death come from?
The more you engage in a habbit, the stronger it gets
If one truly understands anatta then such questions are meaningless anway, even to think about let alone ask
the last 4 questions are interesting. To me they are asking "does .... life after death" to which the answer is that its not a question the Buddha answers. Individual and many others was basically asking "does ...... live after death" and is a question that shouldnt be answered (and i would say discouraged)
Ask a question of "shall I be in the future" and you are encouraging or strengthening "I" even if you intellectualy understand anatta because these very questions arises because of "I" in the first place (and so any answer given will also be out of line with Dhamma as well)
Take for example the question "Am I"
If i say "Am I Ill" then there is a strengthening of "I", increase of taints and of dukkha. One cannot ask "Am I" without a prior view of "I" (ignorance and dukkha) and a strengthening of "I" (ignorance and dukkha). Since we are not arahants any question of "do i live after death" is engaging in clinging and increasing the taints and dukkha, even if one intellectualy understands anatta, its riddled with the same problems as "Am I" because its all about "I" even the questions and view of afterlife or no afterlife
The Buddha answered questions that fitted dukkha and its quenching, not metaphysical theories that may or may not be
metta
P.S. I might not have been to clear on some points, im a bit tired, so ask me to clarify if you like
There is no such sutta, not that i have come across anyway. However the question was clearly about "do i survive death" or "is there life after death" (same thing really) hence why its unwise to ask, since its riddled with "I"
Even if you say its about a "process" there is still some level of "I" since this is where the questions comes from in the first place "do I have a afterlife" etc.
I mean think about it, where does the question of living after death come from?
The more you engage in a habbit, the stronger it gets
If one truly understands anatta then such questions are meaningless anway, even to think about let alone ask
Glad you brought this in"Vaccha, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The cosmos is not eternal.'"
"Then is the cosmos finite?"... "Is the cosmos infinite?"... "Is the body the same as the soul?"... "Is the body one thing, and the soul another?"... "Does the Tathagata exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"... "Does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after death?"
the last 4 questions are interesting. To me they are asking "does .... life after death" to which the answer is that its not a question the Buddha answers. Individual and many others was basically asking "does ...... live after death" and is a question that shouldnt be answered (and i would say discouraged)
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
Ask a question of "shall I be in the future" and you are encouraging or strengthening "I" even if you intellectualy understand anatta because these very questions arises because of "I" in the first place (and so any answer given will also be out of line with Dhamma as well)
Take for example the question "Am I"
If i say "Am I Ill" then there is a strengthening of "I", increase of taints and of dukkha. One cannot ask "Am I" without a prior view of "I" (ignorance and dukkha) and a strengthening of "I" (ignorance and dukkha). Since we are not arahants any question of "do i live after death" is engaging in clinging and increasing the taints and dukkha, even if one intellectualy understands anatta, its riddled with the same problems as "Am I" because its all about "I" even the questions and view of afterlife or no afterlife
He wouldnt say any of that in the way your thinking of it (rebirth model) but thats another topicBut can you find a case which goes something like the following?
"Vaccha, this has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'That nama-rupa arises dependent on causes and conditions that may include kamma that occurred before the physical birth of a being."
The Buddha answered questions that fitted dukkha and its quenching, not metaphysical theories that may or may not be
metta
P.S. I might not have been to clear on some points, im a bit tired, so ask me to clarify if you like
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”