Buddhism after death

[Rick O'Shez]

A good way of approaching rebirth firsthand is noting the ongoing and continual life/death transition that occurs in your body itself, noting how our original biology, or biological composition, has been completely replaced and reworked through the life and death of our own cells.

Sure, though that's a gradual, physical process and calling it "rebirth" seems like a stretch anyway.

I'm interested in hearing about how people experience moment-to-moment rebirth psychologically. I sometimes wonder whether this is actually just a convenient fiction, since self-view seems more like a deep-seated assumption than something which is continually "reborn".

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sure, though that's a gradual, physical process and calling it "rebirth" seems like a stretch anyway.

I'm interested in hearing about how people experience moment-to-moment rebirth psychologically. I sometimes wonder whether this is actually just a convenient fiction, since self-view seems more like a deep-seated assumption than something which is continually "reborn".

I see. I suppose in that respect, it can be a fiction if it leads to strictly metaphysical thought or a continuation of a past life solely based on one's present memory and recollection.

Personally I have no experiences of such. Even if I did, I would never be completely sure outside the experience of memory and forgetfulness.

I suppose it wouldn't matter anyways givin the temporary manner and nature by which thoughts and memories rise and fall. Even in cases of my own perspective on the matter. My view won't be around forever.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This looks like an idea, not an experience.

No. It's an experience. We already know factually how cells live and die within our bodies. Likely due to the fact we don't feel anything, but we still experience nonetheless. Like literally the physical process of growing up through the consistent birth and death of our cells.

The aspect I carry concerning our atomic makeup on a grander scale however is more like an educated guess that falls just short of belief givin how nature seems cyclic and dynamic from our present perspective.

 

[Banjankri]

No. It's an experience. We already know factually how cells live and die within our bodies.

That's still not an experience, it's knowledge. An idea that happens to be verified.
Do you think Buddha knew anything about cells living and dying? He had not idea they even existed.

The only moment-to-moment rebirth I can think of, is arising and vanishing of the sense of being which is based on subject-object duality.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The only moment-to-moment rebirth I can think of, is arising and vanishing of the sense of being which is based on subject-object duality.

So how do you experience that, practically speaking?

 

[Banjankri]

So how do you experience that, practically speaking?

Simply by noticing self-awareness. There is this idiom "I forgot myself", which points to a period of time when self-awareness was not present. This is a very basic explanation which doesn't require any wisdom at all. It is limited to noticing "I am aware of myself" and knowing the "Selfless" state retrospectively.
More advanced stages enable awareness of the selfless state in "real time". In other words, you are aware of the activity of your body-mind without identifying with it. Like a third person view. You can shift in and out of it, which gives an impression of birth and death.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

More advanced stages enable awareness of the selfless state in "real time". In other words, you are aware of the activity of your body-mind without identifying with it. Like a third person view. You can shift in and out of it, which gives an impression of birth and death.

That sounds like a variation in the level of mindfulness. Strong mindfulness can reduce self-view, but I'm not clear how this relates to the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth, which seems to be about the continual rebirth of the "I" or something.

 

[Banjankri]

That awareness sounds like mindfulness being established, but I'm not clear how it relates to the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth.

I wouldn't call it mindfulness, because it's rather dull state. It's described as unknowing in few mahayana texts. Anyway, every time an object is perceived, it arises together with the self, and cases together with it. This way, lifetime can be said to be the time of being conscious of a certain object.

 

[Osal]

This looks like an idea, not an experience.

What's the difference?

 

[Banjankri]

What's the difference?

Although, I have some idea about black holes, I never experience one.
Can you see the difference now?
Of course, this idea itself will be experienced by me, that's what we call thinking. Nevertheless, it is far from experiencing that, which it points to.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What's the difference?

You mean you really don't know?!

 

[Osal]

You mean you really don't know?!

Let's just say I don't know what Banjankri is talking about. On this forum, just because we both use the word "idea" or "experience" doesn't meaan we're talking about the same thing.

I see them as more alike than different in that both are phenomenal - appearances that arise and disolve. Both are ideas. Both are experienced.

 

[Banjankri]

Let's just say I don't know what Banjankri is talking about. On this forum, just because we both use the word "idea" or "experience" doesn't meaan we're talking about the same thing.

I see nothing wrong in trying to understand the meaning of concepts used. I would even go as far as saying, that that's the whole purpose of discussion. The only thing that remains unknown, is intention.
I personally know of only one meaning for "experience" and "idea", that would make them one and same thing. That is experiencing that idea, also known as thinking. And the sole purpose of thinking is replacing experience with meaning.

 

[von bek]

That sounds like a variation in the level of mindfulness. Strong mindfulness can reduce self-view, but I'm not clear how this relates to the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth, which seems to be about the continual rebirth of the "I" or something.

If I may, I see this rebirth as simply the arising of the sense of I in relation to experience. Where exactly in the chain of dependent origination this arising of I happens can be tricky to pin down. I have read and heard the argument that this happens when clinging gives rise to becoming.

 

[von bek]

I
I personally know of only one meaning for "experience" and "idea", that would make them one and same thing. That is experiencing that idea, also known as thinking. And the sole purpose of thinking is replacing experience with meaning.

I agree with you that an idea would fall under the category of an experience. In the case of an idea, we are speaking of a mental experience, as when I hear the thunder, I am having an auditory experience.

One of the difficulties we run into as Buddhists communicating in a language not used in the traditional canon is that we will sometimes be working with different translations, saying the exact same things as each other but mistakenly think we are disagreeing. Not positive that is happening here, but it could be.

 

[Banjankri]

If I may, I see this rebirth as simply the arising of the sense of I in relation to experience. Where exactly in the chain of dependent origination this arising of I happens can be tricky to pin down. I have read and heard the argument that this happens when clinging gives rise to becoming.

Yes, but becoming is a secondary consequence of it. First of all, clinging implies presence, which gives us being. "We are present" only when we experience, and clinging is an attempt to remain in presence of a certain positive experience. Since we can divide experiences into more or less pleasant, we intentionally strive towards to those pleasant ones, which is represented through becoming (present of those experiences).

saying the exact same things as each other but mistakenly think we are disagreeing.

This seems to be inevitable.

 

[von bek]

Yes, but becoming is a secondary consequence of it. First of all, clinging implies presence, which gives us being. "We are present" only when we experience, and clinging is an attempt to remain in presence of a certain positive experience. Since we can divide experiences into more or less pleasant, we intentionally strive towards to those pleasant ones, which is represented through becoming (present of those experiences).

Just so I am clear about what you mean; are you saying the sense of self or I is a prerequisite for sense experience? (That is how I am reading you but I may be mistaken.)

 

[von bek]

Reading what you wrote again, @Banjankri, I think I did misread you.

 

[Banjankri]

Just so I am clear about what you mean; are you saying the sense of self or I is a prerequisite for sense experience? (That is how I am reading you but I may be mistaken.)

They are inseparable. Both arise (birth) and fade (death) together. This being can be grasped through knowing and stored in memory. Later on, the sense of self can arise together with those memories. If those are pleasant, we may get stuck with repeatedly reincarnating our sense of self through recalling them. This is called attachment.

 

[von bek]

They are inseparable. Both arise (birth) and fade (death) together.

With this understanding, what do you make of the Buddha having sense experiences after enlightenment? He still had visual and auditory experiences; but, he did not have a sense of self in relation to those experiences. This is why the Buddha speaks of simply letting seeing be seeing. Do you interpret this differently?