for v and others
the idea of no-soul or no-self (anatman in sanscrit) often begs the question: "what get's reincarnated then?". the simple answer to this question is that the mindstream continues.
you can even look at it like this: our mindstreams reincarnate every time we wake up and and even reincarnates every time there is a change in our thinking from one moment to the next; and every experience shapes that mindstream as it flows like a river though time.
if you look more deeply into this idea within buddhist philosphy, you also come to ask the question: "does mind exist?", and the answer to this question is the same as all questions of this nature (does x exist?). the answer to all these questions, strictly speaking from a buddhist point of view is "no". this is, from a buddhist point of view the absolute truth.
the realtive truth is that all things we name are not self-existent but exist in relationship to other things in a constant flux of causes and conditions out of which things emerge as compounded things. all compound things come into existence, exist for a while, then disintegrate. the words we use are just conventions to describe the process of ceaslessly changing events.
the big question in buddism is not "what are things?" (for all things are just identified by excluding what a thing is not) but what really is there then?
this question could be put like this: what exists that is not a compounded thing?
there seems almost an endless argument over this in tibetan buddhism and for me this makes tibetan buddhism interesting.
perhaps, the easiest way to look at this debate is to look at the idea of buddha nature; an idea that is actually quite a late development as an idea in buddhism:
buddha nature can be described as being jewel-like or like a seed.
if you say buddha nature is like a seed then it fits with the standard buddhist philosophy: buddha nature is the seed of enlightement or the potential for enlightenment that will grow if we cultivate it properly; it will grow in the right conditions.
on the other hand, if we say that buddha nature is like a jewel lost in the mud we are saying that it is pre-existent and uncompounded; it is merely obscured by the mud of ignorance and by washing away the mud of ignorance we then reveal the jewel. this metaphore leads the buddhist path back to the origins from which it escaped in developing the no-soul philosphy in the first place.
if you ask a buddhist teacher or highly trained lama: "is buddha nature empty" they will answer: "buddha nature is emptiness". (sometimes i imagine some will smile, wink and put their finger to their lips to tell you to be quiet or even beat you with a stick for asking this question).
the two directions in thinking in tibetan buddhism (which is just the surviving remnants of indian buddhism); talking about buddha nature as jewel-like or as a seed are probably best viewed as two sides of the same coin.
from one point of view; the the idea that buddha nature is jewel-like is just a teaching tool to explain meditation practice: to explain what the idea of a clear mind unsullied by karmic imprint could be like.
from the other point of view, one could say that the idea that buddha nature is "emptiness" is just a vehicle for training the ego to let go of its desire to establish it's own separate self existence.
as far as i know; no length of discussion or analysis will answer the question to any greater depth in buddhism. there are, of course other ways of getting to this point but none in terms of language can get past this point.
perhaps the word tathargata, a name often used for the buddha, may help here: this sanscrit word just means something like "one who has gone this way and come that way". it is associated with the idea of "thusness"... the way things are, and is sometimes translated as "the one thus gone"... the debate of what exists or does not exist is no longer of significance to the tathargata.
peace and love
norbu
Hi Norbu,
I know you started this thread a while back and nobody has responded, but I thought I would just say that I have read it. 😉
I think the whole topic of "what is the mind?" and buddhist reincarnation is far too vaste to be summarised in a few posts on the forum, but it's definitely something that can be discussed given time and thought.
Coming to the latter part of your post, one could say that things only exist within the mind and so, by being able to understand and define the mind for ourselves, we come to understand existence and thus, perhaps, emptiness.
I think what confuses people about buddhist re-incarnation is the concepts of karma and merit. It seems to me that most people tend to perceive karma and merit as something that is gained and "scored" by some external entity or god such that when we die there has to be some entity there to pass judgment and decide at what level of samsara your re-birth will take place. To me, this is an incorrect perception as I see that the karma and merit is, for want of a better description, "patterns" shaped by our lives within the mind and it our mindstream (to nick your words) that is shaped into the re-birth because of the pattern it has developed in the current life. Therefore to leave the cycle of re-birth and attain enlightenment would be to achieve detachment from those things which cause karma and merit and find the ultimate emptiness away from such attachments.
Perhaps it is a case that people seem to fear letting go of themselves and thus have a need to believe in some external controlling entity that makes the concept of buddhist reincarnation, karma, merit and the mind so tricky to understand at first.
Love and Reiki Hugs
merit quanta
hi energylz
nice you read the post 😉
i think that the merit thing is an interesting issue as you point out and i think you're right in many ways... it is a lot about the addiction to "thingness" or "i-ness" or "not-i-ness" or even "no-thingness" in our culture that has problems with many of the ideas in buddhist philosophy.
seeing this as about changing habits is a useful analogy: if you think of a habit as a bit of a rut there are a number of stages one needs to go through to change the habit for a better one:
1) become aware of the habit and the negative effect it has.
2) begin to develop a strong desire to change the habit.
3) apply persistence; particularly when "your subconscious" resists the change. this can be quite a desperate stage where one cries out for help and almost gives up.
4) once you have a strong desire and persistence established, become determined that you will prevail in your task: apply your personal will combined with empowerment of achieving the outcome for the benefit af all (this can also can be greatly enhanced by being supported by engaging deific will or being).
5) often one then has to "give up" and let go of the whole thing to sort itself out; letting the power of the intention you have established and the merit you have cultivated to operate as an independant thought form aided by the universe or whatever.
6) recognise the quantum shift that has taken place, jumping out of the old rut and recut a new better rut with joy and gratitude.
the point is here; you have to build up a force to jump out the rut to gain a new more powerfully contained "energy" state... a quantum shift. this build up of energy to enable the quantum shift is merit. and often the best way to collect this energy that transforms is by practicing "meritorious" acts... cutivating generosity... compassion... kindness... forgiveness... gratitude...
the philosophy of "no-thingness" then oils the wheels of the cart that the oxen is pulling.
love and peace
norbu
Hi norbu,
Again, an interesting response.
seeing this as about changing habits is a useful analogy: if you think of a habit as a bit of a rut there are a number of stages one needs to go through to change the habit for a better one:
1) become aware of the habit and the negative effect it has.
And this is perhaps the hardest part of it all. Many people see the things around them as being either negative or positive. What they often fail to see is that the negative can provide many positive lessons and the seemingly positive can have many negative side effects.
As such, detaching the sight of negativity from the everyday reality and recognising that the negativity is part of the mind (as is the positivity) we can work to alter our perception and prevent the negativity from existing (as described in the rest of your "steps".
5) often one then has to "give up" and let go of the whole thing to sort itself out; letting the power of the intention you have established and the merit you have cultivated to operate as an independant thought form aided by the universe or whatever.
Absolutely. Persistence of striving for achievement of a goal is also an attachment with negative side effects. Live in the "now" and deal with the negativity as it is recognised, trusting that the attachments will be detached without forcing ourselves towards that goal.
Love and Reiki Hugs
I agree with all of the above, by both of you. I don't know whether or not, however, either of you would agree that it's well-named as "Buddhist philosophy" in the sense that it's simply one "way" in which to view reality / the world / life and its meaning (or non-meaning) / and reincarnation. So while agreeing, I'd say its not a superior way or an inferior way. These issues such as "What is life about?" "What is mind or the I, and what reincarnates?" "Is matter real or illusion?" are highly complex (and it's complex too when a mystic insists, "No, it's so simple when you're one with it!).
So if we think of such ontological issues, etc., as being multi-faceted jewels, they can be perceived in various ways. Hinduism, for example, has reincarnation which is spurred on by karma and the need to achieve certain things, leading to Moksha. But Hindu's reincarnation can be viewed in the sense that it's not really the self - Norbu or Venetian - that reincarnates, not quite. If it was, then we'd remember it? And we'd be precisely the same in the next life?
So to me it's just that things can be viewed in different ways and from different angles - a glass is both half-full and half-empty; grey is both a lack of white and an intrusion of black, or vice-versa. One simply picks the system that appeals to one, or of course that one is born into. They're all "right" to a large degree IMHO, but I'd not say any are perfect or without error.
--------
On a different note, I'd add that IMHO the reincarnating personality changes and is not quite the same - even New Age regressions and books speak of people seeing "thousands" of different personalities stretching back in time "which are all somehow me". But they're not exactly "me" are they? So is there something unchanging?
Yes, according to much Hindu thought and also some modern esoteric thought. The personality isn't the Real Me anyway - that's why it alters from minute to minute. The 'lower self' down here is a projection from the Higher Self or Atman which is changeless. If Buddhism doesn't agree that there's an Atman, I suspect it's just that this is simply another way, like all religions and systems, that help certain people best through life. For example, Christianity eventually disavowed reincarnation entirely, but has still produced a myriad of superb Catholic mystics.
So I see all these Ways as choices we can pick from. Some may have more error than others, some may work better than others, some may suit a certain personality. (What I would hesitate to do, but it can happen (!) is getting too deeply into truth claims about which is best, or truer. I wouldn't say all are equal - that's a bit too PC for me - but I do see it as being rather like the question of "What is your favourite colour?" (Who can disagree with the different replies?)
Anyhow, to sum up, interesting posts, but I could see this perspective as simply being an alternate way of viewing what's in Hinduism and other religions too. That's what struck me and prompted this reply: I didn't see a dichotomy between this view of reincarnation and any other, in the basics.
V
I agree with all of the above, by both of you. I don't know whether or not, however, either of you would agree that it's well-named as "Buddhist philosophy" in the sense that it's simply one "way" in which to view reality / the world / life and its meaning (or non-meaning) / and reincarnation. So while agreeing, I'd say its not a superior way or an inferior way. These issues such as "What is life about?" "What is mind or the I, and what reincarnates?" "Is matter real or illusion?" are highly complex (and it's complex too when a mystic insists, "No, it's so simple when you're one with it!).
I would agree with you V that it's not specifically Buddhist Philosophy. I'm not up on all the other religious beliefs and philosophies, so there's no doubt that the beliefs do match those in others. In fact what I talk about here is only my own understanding of Buddhism based on what I have been taught and how I have interpreted it into my own belief system.
Love and Reiki Hugs
Here's an article giving the view of Theosophy on reincarnation: "What Reincarnates?" Being Theosophy, this is the perspective first clarified by the Mahatamas who made themselves publicly known from 1875.
As such, detaching the sight of negativity from the everyday reality and recognising that the negativity is part of the mind (as is the positivity) we can work to alter our perception and prevent the negativity from existing (as described in the rest of your "steps".
this is point of the deepest importance but is off topic. it needs a new string possibly in a different section.
love and peace
norbu
So to me it's just that things can be viewed in different ways and from different angles - a glass is both half-full and half-empty; grey is both a lack of white and an intrusion of black, or vice-versa. One simply picks the system that appeals to one, or of course that one is born into. They're all "right" to a large degree IMHO, but I'd not say any are perfect or without error.
yes absolutely, v; "none are perfect or without error."
that which is flawless "is"... however we have to use conventions of language and conventions are intrinsically flawed as they are, at best, mere facsimilies of what is; and what is, is not subject to flaws of convention which has to abitrarily make points of definintion (when whence the artifactual flaws arise).
i have a buddhist friend who says: "sometimes i think it is all just one great big linguistic f*** up"...
my relpy is this: "logos without eros is a lonely place; and a very painful lonely place."
for: "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god". god here, i believe, is sybolically female and the word is sybolically male.
what is; is here now, "in the flesh"... we have only to remember the experience of "it" to be whole and experience the process of moksha (extinction of karmic residues) and witness the lotus emerge from the depths and burst into flower.
atman... anatman... what a load of (linguistic) nonsense!
love and peace
norbu