Buddhism after death

[Rick O'Shez]

If ignorance were uncaused, then it would be impossible for it to pass away, since arising and cessation are entirely a function of dependent origination.

So can you reference a Buddhist text that clearly describes a cause for ignorance?

What I have see is "birth" as a general term for the arising of a phenomenon and "birth and death" as a reference to Samsara. This is all over Buddhist writings, from the sutras to the philosophical treatises, and even to the epic poetry (Ashvaghosha calls Shakyamuni the one who has come to "put an end to birth"—clearly not a suggestion that he'll be performing mass abortions). There are numerous instances in which a literal reading simply doesn't make sense, as "birth and death" are philosophical jargon.

So can you give some specific examples from Buddhist texts where the straightforward meaning of birth and death doesn't make sense? By the way, putting an end to birth simply means that a Buddha will not be subject to future births.

I assume you're familiar with the way that birth, ageing and death are described in SN12.2? I don't see how those descriptions could be viewed as metaphorical: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

I still don't see a coherent basis for your assumption that birth and death are intended metaphorically in the Buddhist texts, it seems more like wishful thinking. There are plenty of similes in the suttas, but they are clearly labelled as such.

 

[crossfire]

Ignorance is one of three taints that will snowball into greater ignorance: The taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Ignorance is one of three taints that will snowball into greater ignorance: The taint of sensual desire, the taint of being and the taint of ignorance.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html#p66

I'm still not seeing a cause for ignorance.
"With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints".

 

[crossfire]

I'm still not seeing a cause for ignorance.
"With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints".

66. "And what is ignorance, what is the origin of ignorance, what is the cessation of ignorance, what is the way leading to the cessation of ignorance? Not knowing about suffering, not knowing about the origin of suffering, not knowing about the cessation of suffering, not knowing about the way leading to the cessation of suffering — this is called ignorance. With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance. The way leading to the cessation of ignorance is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.​

I guess it means ignorance will hang around if you cling to sensual desire and being (and ignorance) after they pass away. It sounds like it would be a sort of default position, as it is something that has to be willfully abandoned. "Everything is unworthy of attachment" {Even being attached to the knowledge of everything is unworthy of attachment?} Methinks we are getting into the unconjecturable realm of speculation regarding the precise outworkings of kamma as leading to madness and vexation!

 

[crossfire]

Interesting--Ignorance is like consciousness in that the more you push against it/engage in it, the more energetic it becomes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

66. " With the arising of the taints there is the arising of ignorance. With the cessation of the taints there is the cessation of ignorance.​

It's difficult to make sense of that because ignorance is one of the taints, so it's like ignorance causes itself or something.

It's also odd because sensual desire and being look closely tied to craving and clinging, and those are well along the chain of causation in dependent origination.

 

[crossfire]

āsava:
Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, views, becoming, and ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and create the flood of the round of death and rebirth.
It would seem that ignorance flows out from your mind--

Let's throw this sutta and commentary into the discussion and see just how ignorant we can make ourselves.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html

I have my advil standing by at the ready

 

[crossfire]

It's difficult to make sense of that because ignorance is one of the taints.

It's also odd because sensual desire and being look equivalent to craving and clinging, and those are well along the chain of causation in dependent origination.

Exactly.

 

[Banjankri]

"it is the beginningless round of rebirths that is called the “wheel of the round of rebirths.” Ignorance is its hub because it is its root. Ageing-and-death is its rim because it terminates it. The remaining ten states [of the dependent origination] are its spokes because ignorance is their root and ageing-and-death their termination. Herein, ignorance is unknowing about suffering and the rest."
-Visuddhi Magga

Ignorance doesn't have a starting point, but it is said to be supported by five hindrances which fuel it at ripening.

It's also odd because sensual desire and being look closely tied to craving and clinging, and those are well along the chain of causation in dependent origination.

There is "craving for becoming" which is at the same level as ignorance. The difference is, ignorance comes from the past, and craving reaches for the future.

 

[von bek]

I think the topic of whether ignorance is caused or uncaused and what the cause(s) would be would make a great thread on its own.

 

[Vishvavajra]

So can you reference a Buddhist text that clearly describes a cause for ignorance?

The entirety of the Buddhist canon couldn't be clearer on the point of dependent origination, which is one of the few non-negotiable doctrines that define orthodox Buddhadharma. But the most comprehensive treatment is probably Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika, which is also relevant to the discussion at large. I don't need to point to a cause for ignorance; the burden would be on you to explain how ignorance could be the only phenomenon in existence that somehow stands outside Buddhist phenomenology by being unconditioned (and therefore eternal and not subject to cessation). All scriptures are written with this assumption in mind. You do see some references to "beginningless ignorance" (I just saw one in the Sutra of Queen Shrimala of the Lion's Roar), but that's not literally saying that ignorance is unconditioned, which would constitute a heresy, but that it's a problem that goes back to the very beginnings of human existence—i.e. not something that just popped up one day.

So can you give some specific examples from Buddhist texts where the straightforward meaning of birth and death doesn't make sense?

I'd say none of them do, given that there is nothing that experiences birth or death. But if I have the chance to do some extra-curricular research on it and dig up some of the specific things I'm halfway remembering, I'll get back to you.

By the way, putting an end to birth simply means that a Buddha will not be subject to future births.

Doesn't work in the context, which is about what the Buddha has come to do for the world, not for himself. Though I suppose it depends on what one understands by "not subject to future births." That's not something that makes a great deal of sense if taken literally either.

I assume you're familiar with the way that birth, ageing and death are described in SN12.2? I don't see how those descriptions could be viewed as metaphorical: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

I still don't see a coherent basis for your assumption that birth and death are intended metaphorically in the Buddhist texts, it seems more like wishful thinking. There are plenty of similes in the suttas, but they are clearly labelled as such.

Apart from the fact that everything is functionally a metaphor in Buddhist thought, since concepts are merely mental models and not reflective of reality-as-such? I'll grant that "metaphor" may not be the sharpest term—perhaps "conceptual constructs." Anyway, that sutra is good and clear, for whatever value of "clear" can rightly be applied to Buddhist sutras. However, it seems to be clear to me in a different way than it is to you.

So, birth, aging, and death arise because of ignorance. What does that mean? Do cells literally divide, deteriorate, and cease functioning because people don't understand the nature of things? No, that's a stubbornly literalist interpretation that just doesn't make sense. Cells divide, deteriorate, and cease functioning because they are conditioned phenomena, and that's what conditioned phenomena do. What is not inevitable is the arising of a concept of self-identity, whose self-referentiality labels those things as "birth," "aging," and "death"—i.e. as things that occur to the imagined self. What the sutra is trying to communicate is not literal physical realities but conceptual ones, which is what Buddhist scriptures do. Birth, aging, and death are concepts that arise because of ignorance, namely the failure to understand that there is no persistent entity to which those things happen. Why say "birth" and not "the concept of birth"? Because in Buddhist thought the first has no reality, so the second would be redundant.

In other words, the sutra is functioning on a level that is considerably more profound than what you seem to be getting from it.

And this is the "simple" version of the birth-and-death business, not even bringing in its development at the hands of the Yogacarins, who probably worked on it more thoroughly than anyone. I guess we could bring Vasubandhu in here and see what he has to say.

 

[von bek]

I tend to agree with the view that @Vishvavajra has about ignorance. Only Nirvana is unconditioned and therefore uncaused. Since samsara goes back infinitely in time, as does the cycle of dependent origination, we can perhaps simply say that ignorance has no specific beginning point, just as there is no specific beginning point for greed or anger.

 

[Banjankri]

Since samsara goes back infinitely in time, as does the cycle of dependent origination, we can perhaps simply say that ignorance has no specific beginning point, just as there is no specific beginning point for greed or anger.

Ignorance (Avidya) simply means "not know" the four noble truths properly. Knowledge can have a cause, but not its opposite. If not knowing would have a cause, you wouldn't be able to learn anything until you remove the causes for not knowing. It's often compared to darkness, and can you tell me what is the cause of darkness?

 

[crossfire]

I can see how Mind would have to have "ignorance" outflowing from it in order to be Mind. A bit of mystery is necessary for development. (see the above mentioned Luminous sutta.) Our minds develop because they become engaged with trying to solve the unknown. Without this outflowing of "ignorance," our minds would be nothing more than mechanistic functions. Isn't breaking out of this mechanistic/karmic mindset what we are aiming for? Isn't it the unconditioned mind, the Original Face, the pure, spontaneous (uncaused) creative mind that is the way out of this mass of dukkha?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I don't need to point to a cause for ignorance; the burden would be on you to explain how ignorance could be the only phenomenon in existence that somehow stands outside Buddhist phenomenology by being unconditioned (and therefore eternal and not subject to cessation). All scriptures are written with this assumption in mind.

I think that's over-simplistic. Ignorance is like the default condition, the "natural" state of affairs, it will remain so indefinitely unless we create the conditions for wisdom to arise. It's analogous to the darkness in a deep cave, the darkness will remain indefinitely unless we bring down a torch to provide some illumination.

You could say that ignorance arises in dependence on an absence of wisdom, but that's chicken and egg.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's often compared to darkness, and can you tell me what is the cause of darkness?

Exactly. Darkness is an absence.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Only Nirvana is unconditioned and therefore uncaused.

I think we could have a whole discussion about what that means.
For example, if Nirvana doesn't arise dependent on conditions, then why do we go to all this trouble trying to create the right conditions with practice?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In other words, the sutra is functioning on a level that is considerably more profound than what you seem to be getting from it.

Perhaps, but I don't think you've made a convincing case yet, just a lot of loose assumptions. I don't accept the argument that everything in Buddhist texts is intended metaphorically, as I said there are many similes in the suttas but they are clearly labelled as such. Perhaps you're reading things in which aren't there because you're uncomfortable with the implications of the straightforward meaning?

Anyway, you've argued that textual references to birth and death don't make sense with the straightforward meaning, so how about providing some specific references which clearly demonstrate that?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

(see the above mentioned Luminous sutta.)

The idea of developing a luminous mind ( consciousness? ) is interesting given our discussion about ignorance being analogous to darkness and wisdom to light. I'm not sure that this is the mind's "natural state", since if it were we presumably wouldn't need to practice.

 

[Banjankri]

I'm not sure that this is the mind's "natural state", since if it were we presumably wouldn't need to practice.

Mind is luminous, but it's not the same as "we"/"I", that's why practice is needed. I mind wouldn't be luminous, there would be darkness.
We are a play of shadows in this luminous field, diaphragm involved in ignorant chase driven by craving for becoming. The very working of this diaphragm is dependent origination, driven by stress/contraction. The purpose of practice it to observe its functioning to gain understanding, and remove all taints from it.