Mind lives on after death?

[aflatun]

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!

[pegembara]

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

[Garrib]

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]

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]

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?

[Sam Vara]

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]

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?

[Sam Vara]

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]

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.

[Sam Vara]

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]

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.