Buddhism after death

[Banjankri]

he did not have a sense of self

"He" implies a sense of self.

This is why the Buddha speaks of simply letting seeing be seeing. Do you interpret this differently?

Because there is only seeing/experiencing/presence/being, there is nothing else that can be done. The problem start when we assume, that there is experience and the experiencing one, existing separately. Even if you focus purely on "I am", this will also be experienced.
The only difference between Buddha and regular person is the idea of self existing independently of experience.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If I may, I see this rebirth as simply the arising of the sense of I in relation to experience.

I think that's the theory, a continual rebirth of self-view, but it isn't what I actually experience. For me self-view is always there in the background to a greater or lesser extent, I suspect it's proportional to how active my mind is at any one time.

 

[von bek]

"He" implies a sense of self.

I'd say it implies I am the one with a sense of self.

Because there is only seeing/experiencing/presence/being, there is nothing else that can be done. The problem start when we assume, that there is experience and the experiencing, existing separately.

It looks like we are closer in agreement than I initially thought. It is possible to have a raw experience of sense data without giving rise to sense of self. The concept of "I" is superimposed on an experience, for a variety of reasons that can all be reduced to one reason, ignorance.

 

[von bek]

I think that's the theory, a continual rebirth of self-view, but it isn't what I actually experience. For me self-view is always there in the background to a greater or lesser extent, I suspect it's proportional to how active my mind is at any one time.

That self-view in the background is not continuous, I would say. Memory, as an aspect of the perception aggregate, creates the illusion of a compact self carrying over from moment to moment.

 

[Banjankri]

The concept of "I" is superimposed on an experience, for a variety of reasons that can all be reduced to one reason, ignorance.

"Being ignorant" requires being, not the other way around. Ignorance cannot be the source of being. So, being had to be there from the start.
I would say that "I" is not superimposed, but extracted from experience, which is divided into subject-object duality. This is why he famously remained silent, when asked about self. Both negation and acceptance would miss the point.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would say that "I" is not superimposed, but extracted from experience, which is divided into subject-object duality.

It's a bit chicken-and-egg, but I'd agree that the assumption of me and mine is integral to the way we normally experience stuff, rather than something which is added on. In the suttas the conceit "I am" is traditionally one of the last fetters to be overcome, which suggests it's a very deep-rooted and fundamental form of ignorance.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That self-view in the background is not continuous, I would say. Memory, as an aspect of the perception aggregate, creates the illusion of a compact self carrying over from moment to moment.

I don't know, again I haven't experienced that.

 

[von bek]

I don't know, again I haven't experienced that.

Fair enough.

 

[Banjankri]

In the suttas the conceit "I am" is traditionally one of the last fetters to be overcome, which suggests it's a very deep-rooted and fundamental form of ignorance.

I am quite reluctant to removing "being" from the Way. That can make sense logically, but it is not reflected in my own experiences. The "thing" that I am looking for in Buddhism is not uprooting my being, but merging it with everything. A short interview with Yamada Mumom, and things he said about zazen comes to my mind:

He talks precisely about the same thing I was explaining in this topic.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The "thing" that I am looking for in Buddhism is not uprooting my being, but merging it with everything.

I find that approach more appealing personally....I think I might have Advaitan tendencies, but keep it quiet.

 

[Vishvavajra]

So have you personally experienced this moment-to-moment rebirth thing? I'd be interested to hear what it's like, practically speaking.

Yeah, I not infrequently have the feeling of having just been "born" a second before. I obviously have memories and such, which is what allows me to make sense of my surroundings, but on occasion I do become aware that my sense of self is a continually arising phenomenon rather than a continuous state of being. It only seems like the latter most of the time because one of the functions of our ego-sense is to obscure the gaps by sort of filling them in, in much the same way that our brains fill in the gaps in our visual senses to give the impression that we have this continuous panoramic view of what's in front of us (we don't really).

Our teacher has called these "Zen moments" and encouraged us to cultivate them, provided we're not presently doing something that requires intense concentration, such as driving a car. He suggested that having several in a day would be a healthy thing to remind us how the mind actually works (and thus reduce self-attachment to mental functions, I suppose).

I think people do have this feeling sometimes but don't know what to make of it or don't pay attention and stop the mental chatter long enough to recognize it. Surely meditation practice helps. It's a feeling in which you could easily believe that you'd just been created a second ago, complete with memories. You're aware of what was going on just before that but don't feel a particular attachment to it. Everything seems new and kind of impressive, even though intellectually you know it's the same as it was before. It's actually a very subtle feeling, but I think it's interesting, so I've focused on it pretty intently when it has come up.

 

[von bek]

"Being ignorant" requires being, not the other way around. Ignorance cannot be the source of being. So, being had to be there from the start.

We will have to disagree on this point, I suppose.

I would say that "I" is not superimposed, but extracted from experience, which is divided into subject-object duality.

This may be a point where we are saying the same thing in a different way. I am a non-dualist in that I do not believe there is an experiencer ultimately separate from experience.

I do not consider myself a monist, however. On this point we may differ.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's a feeling in which you could easily believe that you'd just been created a second ago, complete with memories.

Interesting. I have something like that when I wake up each morning. It does seem that memory has a major role in identity. I find that self-view is weaker when mindfulness is strong and I'm more fully in the present, so not dwelling in the past.

I occasionally do a thought experiment where I imagine waking up one morning with complete amnesia. I assume that habits would remain as a basis for self-view.

 

[Banjankri]

We will have to disagree on this point, I suppose.

What is ignorance without being?

I do not consider myself a monist, however. On this point we may differ.

I say that presence is the one feature that is always there.

 

[von bek]

What is ignorance without being?

What I am trying to say is that I believe ignorance is a cause for the mistaken perception of being. In fact, describing it as "being ignorant" is misleading from my perspective, it would be more accurate to say, "ignorance is present" just like when anger arises it is more accurate to state it as "anger is present" as opposed to "being angry". Saying you are being angry or being ignorant begs the question of, who or what is being?

 

[Osal]

What is ignorance without being?

I say that presence is the one feature that is always there.

Unless it's absence.

 

[Osal]

"Being ignorant" requires being, not the other way around.

But if we follow the chain of interdependence we see that birth is necessary for ignorance, not "being". In fact the term "being" doesn't appear in that context.

Ignorance cannot be the source of being.

Ignorance is the source of fabrication.

 

[Banjankri]

What I am trying to say is that I believe ignorance is a cause for the mistaken perception of being.

I agree with that.

when anger arises it is more accurate to state it as "anger is present" as opposed to "being angry"

"Being" and "presence" are inseparable. This very distinction is ignorance.

Unless it's absence.

There is nobody who can confirm that. To be able to spot absence, there must be presence.

Ignorance is the source of fabrication.

Yes it is, but this is another step. What I am saying, is that being must be prior to ignorance, otherwise it couldn't be abandoned.
"Beings, afflicted with thick ignorance, are unreleased from passion for what has come to be."
-Loka Sutta

 

[Osal]

Yes it is, but this is another step. What I am saying, is that being must be prior to ignorance, otherwise it couldn't be abandoned.

what I'm saying, or trying to say, is that I think what you state is at odds with what is among the most fundamental of Buddhist teachings.

 

[Banjankri]

what I'm saying, or trying to say, is that I think what you state is at odds with what is among the most fundamental of Buddhist teachings.

How? Do you have a good explanation, or is it just your gut feeling?
You said that "birth is necessary for ignorance", when it's eleventh in the chain... That shows you are hardly an authority in the subject, and still you don't even bother to present an argument. Pure judgement seem to be enough for you.
I don't want to go into this quarrel again. We've been here before, it leads nowhere. Good luck on you path.