We can't.If there is no self how can we reincarnate
The Buddha never taught the idea of reincarnation.
We can't.If there is no self how can we reincarnate
Yes, they all came back as birds.The Thinker wrote:Have Dinosaurs reincarnated? ,
In the suttas, this formulation comes up many times:davidbrainerd wrote:From the realist position (that matter is real and individuation is real, i.e. Samkhya) the souls would just have always existed and either (1) they were always intermingled with matter, or (2) by ignorane of what it would mean to intermingle with matter, they did so and got stuck.
There is a problem though if we posit a self: To make such positing meaningful, we have to make some assumptions about this self's/soul's nature or identity, so that we have some idea of what it is that we're actually talking about (so that we don't talk about something that amounts to a mere placeholder).I.e. if Buddha was a Samkhyan, then saying that ignorance and craving causes reincarnation/rebirth makes perfect sense, because you have individual souls to be ignorant and crave. But with no soul, craving and ignorance exist with no self to crave or be ignorant, so craving and ignorance become Vedanta style corporate selves shooting forth false illusory individuations. No soul leads back to the non-realist school, back to corporate soul. Simple as that.binocular wrote:Either way, it seems that as soon as we posit a(n eternal) soul, we're faced with the problem of how this soul got into samsara out of which it now desperately tries to escape.
I find it interesting (to say the least) that you say how this or that makes sense to you or doesn't make sense to you. In many religions, one gets told that it doesn't matter whether their claims make sense to you or not, what matters is that they are true, The Truth, and that what you think about them is irrelevant.From the non-realist position (i.e. Vedanta) that neither matter nor indivuation is real...their position does not make sense to me.
The realist position makes enough sense to me....but I think without a soul its harder to explain.
The Thinker wrote:Craving to get rid of craving? interesting thought!
Bhikkhunī Sutta (AN 4.159) wrote: ‘This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, ‘The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.’ The thought occurs to him, ‘I hope that I, too, will—through the ending of the fermentations—enter & remain in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for myself in the here & now.’ Then he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving. ‘This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
They are interrelated. To know what self is, is to know how suffering comes about.binocular wrote:Efforts to understand suffering may yield even better results.chownah wrote:Put another way, effort in understanding self will probably yield more benefits than efforts in understanding rebirth.
What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering.
Anattalakkhana Sutta"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.
Sabbasava Sutta"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.
Of course logically, however, if you don't know what you are trying to liberate, you can't liberate it. I'd say this sutta is out of the mainstream for the suttas, because in almost Vedantist fashion it is saying that the distinction between self and not-self is irrelevant (easy to say if you believe both are the same thing, i.e. Brahman), whereas Buddha's normative doctrine is that seeing the distinction is life and death. Normally the problem with the "uninstructed run-of-the-mill person" according to Buddha is that they think the 5 aggregates are the self, but whoever is speaking here sees the problem as thinking about the subject at all, so even Buddha's normal doctrine that the 5 aggregates are not the self is a damnable heresy to the speaker here.pegembara wrote:Anattalakkhana Sutta
Sabbasava Sutta"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.
There is no craving to get rid of craving.Craving to get rid of craving? interesting thought!
So just passively wait for craving and say 'no' to it when it magically arises out of nowhere. That seems like a bandaid, a quick fix, a stop gap, a wholly impermanent solution that could not possibly achieve full release or liberation. Whereas training the self to stop craving, taming the self (Dh 323), sounds like a permanent solution leading to full release.practitioner wrote:There is no craving to get rid of craving.Craving to get rid of craving? interesting thought!
There is insight meditation to observe the emergence of craving and not abiding to the craving.
And this is how you understand vipassana/insight meditation to be?davidbrainerd wrote:So just passively wait for craving and say 'no' to it when it magically arises out of nowhere. That seems like a bandaid, a quick fix, a stop gap, a wholly impermanent solution that could not possibly achieve full release or liberation. Whereas training the self to stop craving, taming the self (Dh 323), sounds like a permanent solution leading to full release.practitioner wrote:There is no craving to get rid of craving.Craving to get rid of craving? interesting thought!
There is insight meditation to observe the emergence of craving and not abiding to the craving.
Say my sink was leaking, and I sat there in sink leaking meditation to observe the emergence of leaking water, and not abide it (i.e. stick a bowl under it each time it looks like a leak is arising). Wouldn't it be better to fix it at the root cause?
No.tiltbillings wrote:And this is how you understand vipassana/insight meditation to be?
Your method of rephrasing/framing the proposition is unfortunate. I don't believe anybody is talking about magical occurrences. But there is much to be said for recognizing that which presents itself at the mind door (just as that which presents itself at any other sense door), even if we perhaps do not know the source (similar to a loud, unidentifiable noise in the distance). Why, in your view, should one not maintain awareness with equanimity with regard to that which presents itself at the mind door?davidbrainerd wrote:So just passively wait for craving and say 'no' to it when it magically arises out of nowhere.
The way you have framed it, yes. But then, I believe you have put forward what some refer to as a "straw man" position.davidbrainerd wrote:That seems like a bandaid, a quick fix, a stop gap, a wholly impermanent solution that could not possibly achieve full release or liberation.
Apologies, are you referring to the Dhammapada passage? ("... one who is self-tamed goes by his own tamed and well-controlled mind.") If so, I don't think you'll get there by gritting your teeth and forcing yourself not to crave. (And I realize that I may now be the one oversimplifying your position.)davidbrainerd wrote:Whereas training the self to stop craving, taming the self (Dh 323), sounds like a permanent solution leading to full release.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase the question? As stated, I do not see how this question will lead to any helpful discussion. Mettadavidbrainerd wrote:Say my sink was leaking, and I sat there in sink leaking meditation to observe the emergence of leaking water, and not abide it (i.e. stick a bowl under it each time it looks like a leak is arising). Wouldn't it be better to fix it at the root cause?