Critique of "jhana among Western converts"

The cultivation of calm or tranquility and the development of concentration
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5392
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Aloka » Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:12 pm

Dawn wrote:Dear Suttametta, can you please tall us what are this 12 links?


Hi Dawn,

The section 'Dependent Origination The Source Code' starting on page 6 of Ajahn Amaro's 13 page booklet "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell." might be helpful.

http://www.abhayagiri.org/books/theravada-buddhism-in-a-nutshell


Kind regards

Aloka

User avatar
DAWN
Posts: 801
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby DAWN » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:05 pm

Thanks Aloka! :bow:
I will try to read it tomorow.

beeblebrox wrote:
DAWN wrote:Dear Suttametta, can you please tall us what are this 12 links? Or if there is any sutta about? :anjali:

Thanks you !


Hi Dawn, with the 12 links they mean paticcasamuppada, or the dependent origination. It's a frequent teaching given by the Buddha.

The 12 links are: ignorance, formations, consciousness, nama-rupa, six sense bases, contact, feeling, craving, clinging, becoming, birth, and then aging and death.

:anjali:



Shame on me ! :bow:
I’amcomplitely forgot that 12 links can be only 12 links of depending origination.

So, here we go! :alien:
I will try to make some analysis from 12 links of depending origination.

So 12 links of depending origination tell us that rebirth is both literal and “logical”.
Why?
-Because depending origination is logical, condition make consequence, one movement – one effect. It can be seen if we try to answer the question HOW (mouvement) they moves.
-Because 12 depending origination links comes together, they can not be devided, separate one from another, we can not delete one link and keep an another. It can be seen if we try to answer the question WHAT (concept) is moved.

So the rebirth is literal and “logical” at the same moment.

It makes a reference to movement of sub-atomic particles.
Why?
Because at the same moment they moves:
-Like wave (logical-each-moment-rebirth). We can not say that this action (kamma) don’t produce any consequence, have no effect, that one condition don’t rebirth like consequence. So we can not say that every action have no any consequence.
-Like particle (literal). We can not separate condition from consequence. It’s a same movement flow of depending origination. So we can not say that two lifes are separated one from another, that they are completely different.

So actually kamma rebirth by both way at the same moment, like each-moment-wave-of-actions, and like flow of undevides conditions and consequences.
Each dhamma rebirth like wave and like a particle.
Each dhamma moves like a wave and like a particle.

Rebirth is a perfect exemple of non-duality.

Like a ball leaded by inertia.
His kamma (action on environement) have a straight movement: from past to future; and lateral: sound/vibration waves.

So both point of wiev are right, and that why they can not take an point of agreement - because speculation works in both ways.
I hope it can be understood not only by aliens :alien: , but by peoples too :toast:

Friendly :anjali:
Sabbe dhamma anatta
We are not concurents...
I'am sorry for my english

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5392
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Aloka » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:37 pm

As a female observer, in general I can't help feeling that sometimes these rebirth threads start taking on the feral mentality of a pack of animals baying for the blood of a victim,.... and so polite conversation and basic human kindness go flying out of the window.

Maybe its a male thingie.


:coffee:

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby suttametta » Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:50 pm

KevinSolway wrote:You are reaching a conclusion which is over-broad


It's not "over broad", it's simply how I use the term "cause and effect".

The kamma of the 12 links is a particular expression of cause and effect, and it is not the whole of cause and effect.[/quote]

The Buddha accounted for the entire world through the 12-links and 5 skandhas. There is nothing "out there" apart from that. This is why your use of "cause and effect" is inapposite.


KevinSolway wrote:No, I've never said that.

I have said that there is rebirth, but that there is no literal rebirth.

Rebirth consists of the re-arising of the false concept of "I". "Birth", in Dhamma language, is the arising of false concept of "I", and has nothing to do with physical birth.


No. Birth is a body with the false I (aka the aggregates).

"And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.


Therefore, rebirth is when that happens to someone again, after they die. Not some quasi-mystico-philosophical conclusion that happens to a person in life.

KevinSolway wrote:The process of rebirth is powered by cause and effect.

I have never said that rebirth only happens by "physical effects of a previous life upon future generations".

Rather, I have said that it happens by all the manner of means by which the false concept of an "I" is produced.


See quote above for the criteria when that is the case.


KevinSolway wrote:The false concept of "I" *("birth") can arise many times during a single day.


This notion of "birth" is not found in the suttas. If you say it is, it is incumbent upon you to cite to the passage.

KevinSolway wrote:Intentions are dependently arising - which is to say that they arise dependent on causes. Since intentions are caused, it follows that intentions are effects of causes.


Sure, the cause of an intention is a desire. Everything is contained within the 12-links of concurrent conditionality. Bear in mind that nama-rupa is also only contained within the mind, as are the four great elements, mere mental pictures. Further bear in mind, that kamma and phala does not mean cause and effect, but action and fruit. Kamma as action necessarily implicates the existence of an actor/agent, a being with a mind. Thus, the reverberating physical effects of that being are left aside without being implicated in Buddha-dharma. The sole concern is for a transmigrating mind-body. BTW, you are incurring heavy negative karma with your view of a pragmatic rationalist approach to dharma. At the moment of death, the events will terrify you so much, you will be in hell.

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby suttametta » Thu Nov 29, 2012 8:15 pm

KevinSolway wrote:There have even been one or two wise people in Tibetan Buddhism who have correctly understood rebirth.

For example, Shantideva:

"It is a mistaken conception to think that I will experience the suffering of my next life.
Since it is another person who dies, and another who will be reborn."


This is a mistranslation:

(8.98) The conceptual thought, "I will experience it,"
Is a misconception.
Death is other than now,
Likewise, birth is other than now.


The meaning is referring to emptiness of birth and death. This is a feature of the Mahayana analysis of the nonduality of samsara and nirvana.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5392
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Aloka » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:23 pm

suttametta wrote:
KevinSolway wrote:There have even been one or two wise people in Tibetan Buddhism who have correctly understood rebirth.

For example, Shantideva:

"It is a mistaken conception to think that I will experience the suffering of my next life.
Since it is another person who dies, and another who will be reborn."


This is a mistranslation:

(8.98) The conceptual thought, "I will experience it,"
Is a misconception.
Death is other than now,
Likewise, birth is other than now.




My translation (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives Dharamsala) is exacly the same as Kevin's.

There's a different translation for 8.89 at the link which says:

98. The notion that I will experience that is mistaken, for the one who has died is born elsewhere and is
someone else.


http://tralvex.com/pub/spiritual/pdf/Bodhicaryavatara.pdf

.

User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby equilibrium » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:35 pm

KevinSolway wrote:When a human being loses ALL memory, then they will lose consciousness. Logic, reason, identification, etc, depend on memory.

A laptop has 4GB of memory installed, once switched on.....does it have consciousness?
Consciousness does not depend on memory.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby KevinSolway » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:38 am

equilibrium wrote:
KevinSolway wrote:When a human being loses ALL memory, then they will lose consciousness. Logic, reason, identification, etc, depend on memory.

A laptop has 4GB of memory installed, once switched on.....does it have consciousness?
Consciousness does not depend on memory.


The reason consciousness depends on memory is because without memory consciousness isn't possible.

Many other things besides memory are required.

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby suttametta » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:42 am

Aloka wrote:
suttametta wrote:
KevinSolway wrote:There have even been one or two wise people in Tibetan Buddhism who have correctly understood rebirth.

For example, Shantideva:

"It is a mistaken conception to think that I will experience the suffering of my next life.
Since it is another person who dies, and another who will be reborn."


This is a mistranslation:

(8.98) The conceptual thought, "I will experience it,"
Is a misconception.
Death is other than now,
Likewise, birth is other than now.




My translation (Library of Tibetan Works and Archives Dharamsala) is exacly the same as Kevin's.

There's a different translation for 8.89 at the link which says:

98. The notion that I will experience that is mistaken, for the one who has died is born elsewhere and is
someone else.


http://tralvex.com/pub/spiritual/pdf/Bodhicaryavatara.pdf

.


In TB, Bodhicaryavatara must have a lineage of transmission. The Nyingma have an excellent transmission lineage recently through Patrul Rinpoche, which has come to HH the Dalai Lama, and to all TB schools through him. In his commentary to 8.98, Patrul Rinpoche explains in brief that the aggregates are always changing, such that one can be born with a human consciousness and human body, and when that karma terminates, the human consciousness and body terminates to give rise to a hell being's (and so on) body and consciousness, but these aggregates are empty of self-nature. The key point Patrul Rinpoche makes is that the karmic effects are accumulated in the consciousness, leading to rebirth of that consciousness in a body of a given realm, not in the world of objective cause and effect as we have in science, like in the case of the butterfly flapping its wings causing a hurricane somewhere. It does not mean there is no accumulation leading to rebirth; nor does it mean that there is an unchanging consciousness. There is constant change at each "point instant," allowing for change of destinations for birth. Yet it is not completely discontinuous either, continuity allowing for the certainty that karmic fruit will ripen as accumulated within that stream of clear knowing awareness.

So to incorporate the translations that provide "the next life is another person," does not mean a completely different person, as you are a completely different person from me. There is that continuity of a stream of knowing awareness that provides the link between one moment to the next so that accumulated karma will ripen into phala for that same stream, aka strict ascription of karma and phala.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby KevinSolway » Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:57 am

suttametta wrote:Birth is a body with the false I (aka the aggregates).


Each arising of the false "I" (birth) has a body, no matter how many times this happens in a single day.


Rebirth is when that happens to someone again, after they die.


As already explained, in Dhamma language "birth and death" do not refer to physical life and death. "Birth" (jati) refers to the birth of the false "I", and "death" refers to the dissolution and suffering that results from attachment.

The whole cycle of birth and death can happen many times in a single day.

For more detail on this subject I highly recommend the teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa.

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby suttametta » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:07 am

KevinSolway wrote:As already explained, in Dhamma language "birth and death" do not refer to physical life and death. "Birth" (jati) refers to the birth of the false "I", and "death" refers to the dissolution and suffering that results from attachment.

The whole cycle of birth and death can happen many times in a single day.

For more detail on this subject I highly recommend the teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa.


Now your analysis is under-inclusive. Birth and death do not refer only to physical life and death. The analysis can be applied also to skandhas and time. However, the suttas explicitly mention birth as in the above cited passage where it is referring to descent into the womb. What you have done is take the analysis of the subtle mechanics of kamma and phala and generalize it. Without the understanding that kamma and phala apply to the physical birth and death, the subtle analysis leads to anomalous conclusions, as in the case of Kevinism.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby KevinSolway » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:13 am

suttametta wrote:descent into the womb.


Physical science is a matter of speculation.

Speculation is not the way of the Buddhadhamma.

That's why the Buddha says, "Do not go by probability".

All physical science is a matter of probability.

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby suttametta » Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:00 am

KevinSolway wrote:
suttametta wrote:descent into the womb.


Physical science is a matter of speculation.

Speculation is not the way of the Buddhadhamma.

That's why the Buddha says, "Do not go by probability".

All physical science is a matter of probability.


X is nonsequitor followed by red herring.

KevinSolway
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:10 am

Re: the Solway rebirth "debate"

Postby KevinSolway » Fri Nov 30, 2012 5:26 am

Lonesomeyogurt says in his video:

It doesn't make sense that the mind would not lead to the arising of another consciousness.


Going by this "argument" then it doesn't make sense that when firewood is burned, and turns to ash, that it doesn't lead to the arising of firewood (different firewood).

And it doesn't make sense that when a candle is burnt out, and all its wax is consumed, that it doesn't lead to the arising of another candle (a different candle).

And it doesn't make sense that when the last Dodo bird is killed, that it doesn't lead to the arising of another Dodo bird (a different Dodo bird).

But in fact, it does make sense.

All these things are conditioned arisings, and when causes and conditions dictate then all these things will necessarily come to an end. All these continuums are not permanent.

The reason the Buddha teaches that the mind is less permanent than the body is that the mind is an even more fragile, precarious existence than is the body, and causes and conditions can destroy it in an instant. And they do.

While all things have effects, it is only wishful thinking (clinging, delusion) that a moment of consciousness necessarily gives rise to another moment of consciousness. It is a clinging to the false concept of permanence.
Last edited by KevinSolway on Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 5392
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the Solway rebirth "debate"

Postby Aloka » Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:25 am

suttametta wrote:In TB, Bodhicaryavatara must have a lineage of transmission. The Nyingma have an excellent transmission lineage recently through Patrul Rinpoche, which has come to HH the Dalai Lama, and to all TB schools through him. In his commentary to 8.98, Patrul Rinpoche explains......


Thank you but I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism for many years so I'm aware of how they do things and I'm already aware of Patrul Rinpoche commentaries on texts. This doesn't mean people shouldn't interpret for themselves if they have studied the language and original texts because Shantideva was an 8th century Indian and not aTibetan . However,even though I have mentioned different Shantideva translations, for me personally, Tibetan Buddhism is irrelevant to a discussion in a Theravada forum.
Last edited by Aloka on Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4820
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:37 am

KevinSolway wrote:As already explained, in Dhamma language "birth and death" do not refer to physical life and death. "Birth" (jati) refers to the birth of the false "I", and "death" refers to the dissolution and suffering that results from attachment.


Even if one accepts this meaning of jati in the context of dependent origination, the false "I" is an underlying tendency, not a thing which is repeatedly re-born - as this extract from MN9 makes clear:

"When a noble disciple has thus understood the taints, the origin of the taints, the cessation of the taints, and the way leading to the cessation of the taints, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering."
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4820
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Nov 30, 2012 10:44 am

equilibrium wrote:Consciousness does not depend on memory.


I agree. And in any case memory is an aspect of sanna ( perception ).
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

User avatar
Spiny Norman
Posts: 4820
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the Solway "debate"

Postby Spiny Norman » Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:43 pm

porpoise wrote:
KevinSolway wrote:As already explained, in Dhamma language "birth and death" do not refer to physical life and death. "Birth" (jati) refers to the birth of the false "I", and "death" refers to the dissolution and suffering that results from attachment.


Even if one accepts this meaning of jati in the context of dependent origination, the false "I" is an underlying tendency, not a thing which is repeatedly re-born - as this extract from MN9 makes clear:

"When a noble disciple has thus understood the taints, the origin of the taints, the cessation of the taints, and the way leading to the cessation of the taints, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering."


An analogy occured to me which might illustrate my point. I think with your approach it's like watching an apple fall from a tree and saying "Gravity has been reborn again." Yes, you could talk about gravity in that way, but I think it's missing the point.
"My religion is very simple - my religion is ice-cream."
Dairy Lama

suttametta
Posts: 289
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 2:55 pm

Re: the Solway rebirth "debate"

Postby suttametta » Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:04 pm

Aloka wrote:
suttametta wrote:In TB, Bodhicaryavatara must have a lineage of transmission. The Nyingma have an excellent transmission lineage recently through Patrul Rinpoche, which has come to HH the Dalai Lama, and to all TB schools through him. In his commentary to 8.98, Patrul Rinpoche explains......


Thank you but I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism for many years so I'm aware of how they do things and I'm already aware of Patrul Rinpoche commentaries on texts. This doesn't mean people shouldn't interpret for themselves if they have studied the language and original texts because Shantideva was an 8th century Indian and not aTibetan . However,even though I have mentioned different Shantideva translations, for me personally, Tibetan Buddhism is irrelevant to a discussion in a Theravada forum.


I was simply responding that this passage of the Bodhicaryavatara doesn't support Kevin's position that there is no literal rebirth, as he believes it does.

In the context of dharma, if one doesn't have a teacher and lineage, one's comments about dharma texts are irrelevant to me. Because, without a transmission and practice lineage, one is only guessing (always wrong). Theravada has this.

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the Solway rebirth "debate"

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:41 pm

suttametta wrote:In the context of dharma, if one doesn't have a teacher and lineage, one's comments about dharma texts are irrelevant to me. Because, without a transmission and practice lineage, one is only guessing (always wrong). Theravada has this.
The good or the bad or both?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

      >> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<
      -- Proverbs 26:12


Return to “Samatha Bhāvana”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine