Mind lives on after death?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by aflatun » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:07 pm

grigoris wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:40 am
The Abhidhamma texts seem to believe it does, citing a specific type of consciousness (patisandhi) on the mind continuum involved in ensuring continuity of the mind stream into the next rebirth.
And this is also a great point Grigoris. I don't think Buddhists on the whole have had any issue with the idea that "the mind lives on" so long as its understood correctly. This seems to hold across various sects and abidhammas, including of course non Theravadin ones.

PS: Still feels weird reading your posts without seeing your pic! :heart:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

pegembara
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by pegembara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 am

The impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates which are to be regarded as not self and thus gain freedom.
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

Garrib
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 8:35 pm

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Garrib » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:39 am

dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:22 am
cappuccino wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:18 pm
I think atheists expect death, yet that will never happen
you're in for a painful surprise, friend

you will die
I'm 99.99% sure that cappuccino knows that. What he means is that he fully expects a continuation of consciousness after death, whatever form that may take. I'm inclined to agree

justindesilva
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by justindesilva » Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:34 am

Garrib wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:39 am
dylanj wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:22 am
cappuccino wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:18 pm
I think atheists expect death, yet that will never happen
you're in for a painful surprise, friend

you will die
I'm 99.99% sure that cappuccino knows that. What he means is that he fully expects a continuation of consciousness after death, whatever form that may take. I'm inclined to agree
If there is the death of mind, then we need not count on nirvana. Death of ' mind' will be like the death of the hero in a hollywood or bollywood film.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1350
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Saengnapha » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:06 am

pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 am
The impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates which are to be regarded as not self and thus gain freedom.
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'

"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.

"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html

If you think/feel that this sutta is an important statement, why do you continue to identify with Buddhism and the idea that you are on a Path? Why do you continue to identify with practices, wisdom, states of mind/meditative absorptions and the gamut of beliefs in a person within the boundary of time? How do you continue to live in the same fashion that this sutta asks you to abandon/negate?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:26 am

pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 am
The impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates which are to be regarded as not self and thus gain freedom.
Does that mean that it is OK to regard the impersonal citta as self?

pegembara
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by pegembara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:06 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:26 am
pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 am
The impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates which are to be regarded as not self and thus gain freedom.
Does that mean that it is OK to regard the impersonal citta as self?
How can it be self if one can point to it?
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:09 pm

pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:06 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:26 am
pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:31 am
The impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates which are to be regarded as not self and thus gain freedom.
Does that mean that it is OK to regard the impersonal citta as self?
How can it be self if one can point to it?
1) Is a self something that one cannot point to?

2) Can one point to the impersonal citta? Where is it? Or, by "pointing", do you mean "referring", as in "How can it be self if one can refer to it?"

3) If so, is a self something that one cannot refer to?

pegembara
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by pegembara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:47 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:09 pm
pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:06 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:26 am


Does that mean that it is OK to regard the impersonal citta as self?
How can it be self if one can point to it?
1) Is a self something that one cannot point to?

2) Can one point to the impersonal citta? Where is it? Or, by "pointing", do you mean "referring", as in "How can it be self if one can refer to it?"

3) If so, is a self something that one cannot refer to?
An example. One can only see an image of one's self but never directly. Or talk to oneself which is not possible. One cannot kill oneself either.
At the core there isn't really anything there. Self is a convenient fiction. False illusion appearing real. Only to be found by identifying with things.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:53 pm

pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:47 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:09 pm
pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 12:06 pm


How can it be self if one can point to it?
1) Is a self something that one cannot point to?

2) Can one point to the impersonal citta? Where is it? Or, by "pointing", do you mean "referring", as in "How can it be self if one can refer to it?"

3) If so, is a self something that one cannot refer to?
An example. One can only see an image of one's self but never directly. Or talk to oneself. At the core there isn't really anything there. Self is a convenient fiction. False illusion appearing real. Only to be found by identifying with things.
Yes, I see. I was wondering if you derived a "self" from the notion of "impersonal citta" - some people do! Your position, if I have understood it, is that the impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates, but nor is it a self, because self is a term which applies only to an illusion.

pegembara
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by pegembara » Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:14 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:53 pm
pegembara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:47 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:09 pm


1) Is a self something that one cannot point to?

2) Can one point to the impersonal citta? Where is it? Or, by "pointing", do you mean "referring", as in "How can it be self if one can refer to it?"

3) If so, is a self something that one cannot refer to?
An example. One can only see an image of one's self but never directly. Or talk to oneself. At the core there isn't really anything there. Self is a convenient fiction. False illusion appearing real. Only to be found by identifying with things.
Yes, I see. I was wondering if you derived a "self" from the notion of "impersonal citta" - some people do! Your position, if I have understood it, is that the impersonal citta is not part of the 5 aggregates, but nor is it a self, because self is a term which applies only to an illusion.
How does one claim ownership of a beautiful scenery? Self is born each time one lays claim on something. It isn't felt when one is absorbed in a beautiful music, dance or painting.

It isn't an aggregate, so one can point out and say that is form, feeling, perception,formations and consciousness. One is not that.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], justindesilva, SarathW, Volovsky and 93 guests