Mind lives on after death?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by aflatun » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:14 am

What naughty language the Mahanama Sutta uses!
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Sakyans near Kapilavatthu in Nigrodha's Park. Then Mahanama the Sakyan went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, this Kapilavatthu is rich & prosperous, populous & crowded, its alleys congested. Sometimes, when I enter Kapilavatthu in the evening after visiting with the Blessed One or with the monks who inspire the mind, I meet up with a runaway elephant, a runaway horse, a runaway chariot, a runaway cart, or a runaway person. At times like that my mindfulness with regard to the Blessed One gets muddled, my mindfulness with regard to the Dhamma... the Sangha gets muddled. The thought occurs to me, 'If I were to die at this moment, what would be my destination? What would be my future course?"

"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad. If one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment, then when the body — endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice & porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, & dispersion — is eaten by crows, vultures, hawks, dogs, hyenas, or all sorts of creatures, nevertheless the mind — long nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, learning, relinquishment, & discernment — rises upward and separates out.

"Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would rise upward and separate out. In the same way, if one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment, then when the body... is eaten by crows, vultures, hawks, dogs, hyenas, or all sorts of creatures, nevertheless the mind... rises upward and separates out.

"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad."
"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

Amanaki
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Amanaki » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:32 am

Thank you for your reply to my comment.

In my path as a Buddhist i have studied the Digha Nikaya but i do not follow it to the letter since it has been translated many times and the translator has often (not always) put in his or her understanding of the original texts. By doing meditation one will realize the wisdom meant by the Buddha. Personally i only listen to a few Buddhist monks of today. But in this discussion i can try keep my answers only to what is written in the text if that is what the group want. :)

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Re:

Post by pegembara » Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:25 am

cappuccino wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:52 pm
pegembara wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:58 am
"As I understand the dhamma (the Teaching) as taught by the Bhagava, it is the same Consciousness which migrates and runs on (from existence to existence) and there is no other besides it (that does so)."
Consciousness is continuous, yet changing

same Consciousness is wrong
Which of the six vinnanas is being referred to here?
At Savatthi. "Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... mind-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Vinnanas can arise and cease without continuity eg. sounds, tastes, smells.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Contact at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self. If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by cappuccino » Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:12 am

type of consciousness arises and ceases

consciousness is always operative

although consciousness is impersonal

justindesilva
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Re:

Post by justindesilva » Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:06 am

:clap:
cappuccino wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:52 pm
pegembara wrote:
Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:58 am
"As I understand the dhamma (the Teaching) as taught by the Bhagava, it is the same Consciousness which migrates and runs on (from existence to existence) and there is no other besides it (that does so)."
Consciousness is continuous, yet changing

same Consciousness is wrong
The answer to the opening post is 'yes' . The mind lives on after the death. The death is a separation of the living mind and a living body. The mind then travels ( pati sandi citta) to find another mode of life ( say a womb) to take birth guided by karma. Hence the mind keeps on living. But as the mind is a combination of citta and cetasika , momentary changes of the mind will occur, but it is not death.Agganna sutta explains that when the world ceases to exist the mind goes to place itself in abassara loka.

User avatar
Grigoris
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:43 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Grigoris » 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.
ye dhammā hetuppabhavā tesaṁ hetuṁ tathāgato āha,
tesaṃca yo nirodho - evaṁvādī mahāsamaṇo.

Of those phenomena which arise from causes:
Those causes have been taught by the Tathāgata,
And their cessation too - thus proclaims the Great Ascetic.

pegembara
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by pegembara » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:18 am

cappuccino wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 4:12 am
type of consciousness arises and ceases

consciousness is always operative

although consciousness is impersonal
To clear possible confusion with terms here.
First there is the 6 vinnanas.
Then there is the citta which isn't personal that experiences or is aware of the arising/ceasing of the 6 vinnanas.

If the citta was synonymous with vinnana, it couldn't discern the arising/ceasing of the vinnanas.

We are on the same page, I think.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

User avatar
dylanj
Posts: 664
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:48 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by dylanj » 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
susukhaṁ vata nibbānaṁ,
sammā­sambud­dha­desitaṁ;
asokaṁ virajaṁ khemaṁ,
yattha dukkhaṁ nirujjhatī


Oh! extinction is so very blissful,
As taught by the One Rightly Self-Awakened:
Sorrowless, stainless, secure;
Where suffering all ceases


etaṁ santaṁ etaṁ paṇītaṁ yadidaṁ sabbasaṅkhārasamatho sabbūpadhipaṭi nissaggo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ

This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is: the stilling of all preparations, the relinquishment of all attachments, the destruction of craving, detachment, cessation, extinction.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 3537
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Mind lives on after death?

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:22 am

aflatun wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:14 am
What naughty language the Mahanama Sutta uses!
:goodpost:

I don't know which is the more interesting: that sutta, or the lack of comment it provoked!

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
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 12:56 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:22 am
aflatun wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:14 am
What naughty language the Mahanama Sutta uses!
:goodpost:

I don't know which is the more interesting: that sutta, or the lack of comment it provoked!
Hah! Indeed Sam, I was thinking the same thing yesterday when I noticed the deafening silence. :toilet:
"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

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 812
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: 1215
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: 437
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: 627
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: 1023
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: 3537
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: 1215
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: 3537
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: 1215
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: 3537
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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Meezer77, Yahoo [Bot] and 72 guests