|
Vogler posted:Hey. If life is suffering, how do you justify procreation? Life is not necessarily suffering, life is a series of opportunities to ease others or your own's suffering. Although that seems like a chicken and the egg problem now that I've typed it.
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Prickly Pete posted:We were talking about monastics a few pages ago and I thought I'd direct a question to some of the more long-term practitioners in the thread: Have any of you considered ordaining as a monk? I think it's inevitable for me someday. I currently have chronic depression that would make it challenging for me to live as a monk, but I'm confident my practice will eventually make that a non-issue. Basically I want to build up a lot of positive momentum in practice and progressively longer retreats before I try to ordain. Popcornicus fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Mar 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
Popcornicus posted:I think it's inevitable for me someday. I currently have chronic depression that would make it challenging for me to live as a monk, but I'm confident my practice will eventually make that a non-issue. Basically I want to build up a lot of positive momentum in practice and progressively longer retreats before I try to ordain. Why would it be challenging, for a person with depression, to live as a monk? I don't mean to get personal, I'm just curious if there's some kind of optimum mental state you should be in, to qualify for a monk's life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Why would it be challenging, for a person with depression, to live as a monk? I don't mean to get personal, I'm just curious if there's some kind of optimum mental state you should be in, to qualify for a monk's life. It is often advised that people with mental illness not dive headfirst into meditation retreats or other kinds of intensive settings like that. I can think of at least 2 monasteries that actually request that people undergoing treatment for mental illness not come for extended visits or retreats, due to the fact that being taken abruptly out of your comfort zone and into very austere settings can be problematic. I used to correspond with a western monk who lived in Sri Lanka who would arrange for western mediators to come visit and stay for retreat. He told me that it was pretty common for people, even ones who seemed stable, to crack under the pressure of living as a monk for a few weeks and leave early. He also told me that he had experienced a few people (who were previously undergoing counselling or therapy) completely break down and require sedation and hospitalization after trying to ordain or live as novice monks. I think meditation can be a great addition to therapy for people who are having issues. I think it certainly helped me during some rough times. But being a monk is an entirely different situation. You are expected to live the Dhamma pretty much 24/7 (Depending on where you ordain), and spend hours in meditation every day. Someone with a mind that isn't already pretty strong and stable from previous meditation will likely fold under that pressure. People do it all the time, even on 15-day meditation retreats, not to mention actual ordination. A lot of people are simply not cut out for that kind of practice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Interesting, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
I had no idea this thread existed! As part of my personal recovery I became very interested in meditation about 5 years ago. I practiced a few different guided varieties, but about a year and a half ago I started going to a Shambhala center for some more structure. I really enjoyed the group and the people there, some of the kindest and open-minded and intelligent people I've ever met. Last month I finished my level 1 of Shambhala training, but I can't say I really understand much about Buddhism beyond the mindfulness, compassion and meditation part of it. I've been attending Dharma classes on Sunday, but I really don't have an interest in getting past the basic principles of Buddhism. I guess I like the center, the people, and the thinking (or non-thinking  ) that goes along with it, but I'm also kind of repelled by the more religious components of Buddhism. I've found out so far that Shambhala is pretty darn secularist, so I've clung on. Also Chogyam Trunpa Riponche, Pema Chodron and the like put the concepts into real simple terms for an overthinker like myself. Anyone have any experience or outside perspective about this organization?edit: whoops, just read the prior page and ya'll just talked about it! Great info guys, thank you. Sufficient fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Mar 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
I'm uncharacteristically hesitant to ask this question because I don't know if it's something dumb all non Buddhists ask or if it's so outlandish it seems like provocation. I ask that you take me at my word when I say this is a serious question posed in good faith. I know in Western religions where hierarchy and lineage are a big deal, like for example Roman Catholicism or the Church of the latter day saints, there are well defined rules as far as when a statement from a spiritual authority is doctrinally binding. My question is how this works in Buddhism, because my understanding is that Buddhists at a certain level of spiritual attainment are supposed to be incapable of lying or promoting falsehood. So if someone with serious credentials, not just a white guying trying to Westernize Buddhism, suddenly were to make a proclamation seemingly at odds with generations of Buddhist thought - like, I don't know, his holiness the Dalai Lama says, "Intoxicants are OK" - how would Buddhism as an institution respond to that? Would there then be a reevaluation of that person's credentials or would it become an impetus to debate the tradition or what? I know for a lot of people the answer would be it's a non issue because that would never happen, and I'm hoping the mere hypothetical isn't blasphemous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
I'm at work so I can't answer in depth, but it's a reasonable enough hypothetical. Typically scriptural authority is considered very important. If you can't justify a statement with a teaching of the Buddha, it's not carrying much weight. There are dudes who practice in unorthodox ways, with such as "crazy wisdom," but they don't tend to contradict the Buddha's teachings, they just subvert them to benefit the student.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Pijonsnodt posted:I'm uncharacteristically hesitant to ask this question because I don't know if it's something dumb all non Buddhists ask or if it's so outlandish it seems like provocation. I ask that you take me at my word when I say this is a serious question posed in good faith. Faith in Buddhism is like "I'm really confident that the Buddha was right and that this is the way to practice". Nothing is doctrinally binding in the sense that you're going to have to find out for yourself anyway. If you know by your own experience that intoxicants lead to unhappiness, then it doesn't matter what the Dalai Lama said. For you personally, he doesn't have any authority beyond how much you trust his wisdom and capability to teach the Dhamma. You can't really be blasphemous in Buddhism either, there's nothing to blaspheme against. I know I'm not really answering your question, I just wanted to indicate that there is a lot that makes sense withing the framework of Western Christianity that makes no sense withing the framework of Buddhism. Like, there's no pope of Buddhism (the Dalai Lama is not like a pope of Buddhism).
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
What is Buddhism's stance on commiting acts like the murder of a tyrant, if the end result is a lessening of the suffering of the people?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:What is Buddhism's stance on commiting acts like the murder of a tyrant, if the end result is a lessening of the suffering of the people? There is a parable that when the Buddha was living a previous life he was the captain of a ship. The ship was boarded by a pirate threatening the lives of his crew, and the Buddha killed him because it was the right thing to do for his crew and also for the pirate, as killing the pirate would prevent him from killing the crew and then subjecting himself to an even worse rebirth. It was a two-for-one deal in a way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:What is Buddhism's stance on commiting acts like the murder of a tyrant, if the end result is a lessening of the suffering of the people? The first precept is to abstain from killing, to abstain from harming other beings. I mean, if you could only practice only one thing in Buddhism, you should practice harmlessness. If you want to practice for the ending of suffering, at the very least you should strive not to kill anyone. How can you then murder to reduce suffering? Murder presupposes the kind of delusion that causes suffering in the first place; if I murder this person then something good will come of that. But in Buddhism delusion cannot serve as a condition for anything else than more suffering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 12:28
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:There is a parable that when the Buddha was living a previous life he was the captain of a ship. The ship was boarded by a pirate threatening the lives of his crew, and the Buddha killed him because it was the right thing to do for his crew and also for the pirate, as killing the pirate would prevent him from killing the crew and then subjecting himself to an even worse rebirth. It was a two-for-one deal in a way. Notably, even in this situation it is necessary to note that the full karmic consequences of murder take place. There is a part of some bodhisattva vows that mentions breaking precepts if it is necessary to benefit sentient beings, but it must be done with the understanding that it will come with the consequences of the action. There is no punitive authority, just cause and effect. If you gotta murder someone to benefit countless others, that's cool, but you have to realize that you will take on the karma of a murder. That could very well be "worth it," but it is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:There is no punitive authority, just cause and effect. If you gotta murder someone to benefit countless others, that's cool, but you have to realize that you will take on the karma of a murder. That could very well be "worth it," but it is what it is. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Mar 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:I challenge the notion that murder can be "worth it" in this sense. If it can, then why didn't the Buddha and the arahants ever kill beings to benefit others? Indeed (IIRC) arahants are the only ones capable of acting without karmic consequences, so why didn't they go around cleansing samsara of all (or at least some) of the bad people? The proliferation of literature after the period of the Buddha's lifetime and the early sangha puts great emphasis on the Buddha's previous lives and the Bodhisattva vow. Particularly in the Jataka tales you start to see certain things emphasized in the Buddha's previous lives which in one life time obviously create more suffering, but in the grander scheme of things contribute to buddhahood and the enlightenment of all beings. You are viscerally experiencing a conflict between early and middle periods of Buddhism. I'm not saying how you approach/feel about the matter is wrong, and I'm certainly not much interested in arguing the other side much further beyond pointing out that quote:The purpose of Buddhism is to lessen suffering. The very purpose of Buddhism, the end goal of Buddhism, is freedom from all suffering, forever. starts to take a backseat in terms of the individual over the religion's history in certain instances. If nothing else its certainly interesting grist for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:The proliferation of literature after the period of the Buddha's lifetime and the early sangha puts great emphasis on the Buddha's previous lives and the Bodhisattva vow. Particularly in the Jataka tales you start to see certain things emphasized in the Buddha's previous lives which in one life time obviously create more suffering, but in the grander scheme of things contribute to buddhahood and the enlightenment of all beings. You are viscerally experiencing a conflict between early and middle periods of Buddhism. I'm not saying how you approach/feel about the matter is wrong, and I'm certainly not much interested in arguing the other side much further beyond pointing out that Thanks for pointing this out 
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Thanks to Parametric and Rhymenoceros for replying. Both answers make sense with Buddhism as a critical system. There's a specific story that made me ask this question. I read this book about Zen calligraphy and there were several places where it made note that such and such a monk was known to drink alcohol. Which surprised me, because I know from experience that religious orthodoxy is easier to navigate around than nonbelievers think but it makes more sense to me in the Abrahamic tradition where the spirit of the law is so important. That's a scriptural tradition that's heavier on moral stories and prophetic invective than detailed argumentation, so if a Christian says "I don't believe the proscription against homoeroticism applies to homosexuality in the modern sense" - No problem. That's probably more historically accurate if anything. But in Buddhism it seems like a lot of the most important ideas are put down so carefully and in so much detail I don't know how you get something like a drunk Zen monk or how a person like that would have explained himself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Pijonsnodt posted:There's a specific story that made me ask this question. I read this book about Zen calligraphy and there were several places where it made note that such and such a monk was known to drink alcohol. Probably Ikkyu, who was a bit of an iconoclast. There is plenty of other writing out there that'll probably explain it better than I'm attempting to. But essentially the idea is that a lot of times the formalisms that we tie ourselves up in become barriers to approaching emptiness and non-conditioned living. Ikkyu railed heavily against a lot of the institutions of Buddhism during his time and context which he saw as a sham. One element of this was this system in place for verifying/validating enlightenment and the transmission of zen experience from one's own master, Teisho. He felt in many instances that the dharma emblems people attached themselves to and sought out were a farce, so he tore his in half and eventually burned it when his students tried to glue it back together. He also would flout convention, often drinking and going to whorehouses. A similar trend was seen in the development of Tantric Shaivism, where many wandering ascetics would flout taboo by entering cremation grounds, and smothering themselves with ashes. Something you still see many Indian babas doing today. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Mar 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Pijonsnodt posted:Thanks to Parametric and Rhymenoceros for replying. Both answers make sense with Buddhism as a critical system. Zen in Japan is basically a family funeral business thanks to the Imperial Governments during and after the Meiji. They handle around 90% of funerals but something around 8% (or 2%? It is some single digit number) of Japanese people consider a Zen Monk as someone who is worth approaching for life advice or instruction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Zen in Japan is basically a family funeral business thanks to the Imperial Governments during and after the Meiji. They handle around 90% of funerals but something around 8% (or 2%? It is some single digit number) of Japanese people consider a Zen Monk as someone who is worth approaching for life advice or instruction. This may be so, but the allusion his book is making is to a person that predates the degeneration you're referring to by about four to five centuries and wasn't just some funeral officiator with life advice, but rather a fully ordained monastic. Which is generally a reason why Ikkyu was so controversial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:This may be so, but the allusion his book is making is to a person that predates the degeneration you're referring to by about four to five centuries and wasn't just some funeral officiator with life advice, but rather a fully ordained monastic. Which is generally a reason why Ikkyu was so controversial. Oh, sorry. I didn't read the second sentence and thought he was alluding to the modern zen monk stereotype.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Zen was considered to be largely degenerate even before the more recent degenerations. Going back to Chan in China there's quite a lot written about the rather alarming ratio of self-interested scoundrels to people who are serious about chan/zen itself.PrinceRandom posted:Oh, sorry. I didn't read the second sentence and thought he was alluding to the modern zen monk stereotype. Out of curiosity, what exactly is this stereotype?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Is "secular buddhism" worth looking into? I just found this by googling for "secular meditation", and this was the first hit. I know there's http://secularbuddhism.org , but I thought maybe one of you knows a bit of context that's not readily available. There are so many different traditions united under the term "buddhism", it's a bit overwhelming.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 14:54
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Is "secular buddhism" worth looking into? Straight up, it isn't Buddhism. If it helps you out then it's worth looking into, but Buddhism is a religion and it absolutely has supernatural elements. If you want to not challenge your belief system, then great, look into Buddhist texts and take out of it what you think makes you a better person, but people representing themselves as Buddhists who ignore the basic parts of the faith cause a huge amount of friction in access to Sanghas for Buddhists.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Is "secular buddhism" worth looking into? I just found this by googling for "secular meditation", and this was the first hit. I know there's http://secularbuddhism.org , but I thought maybe one of you knows a bit of context that's not readily available. There are so many different traditions united under the term "buddhism", it's a bit overwhelming. I think it's a bit silly because why would you take a teaching about how to end rebirth and then somehow explain away rebirth? Edit: If there's no rebirth, then great! There's an eternity of not suffering to look forward to. In the case that there is rebirth - in the case where your consciousness has hereto wandered through beginningless samsara - then great! There is a teaching specifically on how to get out of that (i.e. the teaching of the Buddha, his followers usually called Buddhists). I'm being a bit cheeky here to get my point across. Personally I think people can call themselves whatever they want. Rhymenoceros fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
Plus, attempts to explain it away are usually rooted in a poor understanding.quote:84. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views? That said, there is absolutely value in the teachings regardless of what you believe. The main reason I'm bringing this up (and hopefully this can pre-empt any circlejerk) is that there've been issues in the past with Sanghas turning away or restricting access to Hopefully that's helpful.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Well since my last post on page 8 I can't say I've delved much deeper into things but I have tried to take a more practical approach using some insights/snippets that have stuck in my mind; "Just try to do the right thing" "If it's not helpful, don't say it. If it's not true, don't say it. If it's true but not helpful, don't say it. If it's helpful but not true, don't say it. If it's both helpful and true, wait for the right time" "Treat others with compassion. Viewing a situation from the reverse angle can help achieve this" Again, not exactly very deep or spiritual but Paramemetic said; quote:He taught to practice what works, and abandon what doesn't I guess I've taken that on board and abandoned things that don't work for me, rather than continuing them and hoping circumstances would change. I have at times in the past been quite self destructive, harsh with myself and quick to react. I've found that being mindful of my emotions and thoughts has enabled me to slow things down, consider them, then act (or not) as the case may be rather than just running with something. These exercises in compassion, communication, understanding and mindfulness have worked very well for me. It's not a lot, but it is something I have practiced and hopefully this will open up something more going forward. I can certainly say, with just a few things in mind it has certainly improved my life. Sometimes I still fail, but we're only human and can be more mindful next time. Thank you again for creating the thread and for everyone who has contributed with insightful and helpful replies. Very informative and useful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:
Just to expand on this a bit, Shambhala is great in that a lot of the Shambhala teachings are aimed at being very secular, but the introductory stuff is basic Tibetan Buddhism re-branded to make it palatable, especially to someone who might be turned off by the more supernatural elements. They ease you into it, but the farther you get in their programs, the more people you'll meet who are very serious about Buddhism. If you're not interested in that whatsoever, you can completely avoid that and never have to deal with it, but still find some relief from suffering in the more secular teachings. In other words, everyone is welcome, and you can engage with the community and teachings at whatever level you feel comfortable without obligation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
The only major problem I have with rebirth as presented in Buddhism is the question of what gets transmitted and what carries consciousness between beings. I've heard it termed as a mindstream, or a subtle body. Isn't that just another name for a soul, even if it lacks individual identity? The only way I can make sense of rebirth at this point is just saying that my actions might create conditions that another being will be born into, but I don't expect it to retain this same stream of awareness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Nietzsche would have a field day with people naturalizing religion
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Nietzsche would have a field day with people naturalizing religion Could you expand on this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Straight up, it isn't Buddhism. If it helps you out then it's worth looking into, but Buddhism is a religion and it absolutely has supernatural elements. If you want to not challenge your belief system, then great, look into Buddhist texts and take out of it what you think makes you a better person, but people representing themselves as Buddhists who ignore the basic parts of the faith cause a huge amount of friction in access to Sanghas for Buddhists. Hello ! Could you name buddha's teachings that speak about supernatural stuff ? For example in the pali canon ? I never read one, would be curious to do it ! I mean, of course in the end it's all about interpretations. For example, when he speaks about demons that visit him, you can choose to believe there were real demons who came and paid him a visit, or you can choose to believe that he faced his own demons, fear, suffering, in a metaphorical way. But this choice, as buddha taught, should be based on our own experience of reality, and usually, except when on heavy drugs, we don't see demons paying us a visit. I know that in soto zen there is absolutely nothing (that i read) about any supernatural elements. But i don't think you can put soto zen out of buddhism. Ugrok fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Ugrok posted:Hello ! But, okay, in the Pali canon I can mention the following supernatural stuff: The Buddha experiencing past lives during his Awakening. Siddhis, or psychic powers, ie the ability to teleport an entire group of monks and nuns from one side of a river to another. Mentioning gods by name, and indeed travelling to the various cosmological realms and conversing with them. Edit: Yep, just like literally every other religion you'll find differing interpretations, although they don't really compete per se, as in practice whether you believe that the Buddha was assaulted by Mara or was simply trying to get past his own desires is irrelevant to practice either way. Cumshot in the Dark fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:18
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:The only major problem I have with rebirth as presented in Buddhism is the question of what gets transmitted and what carries consciousness between beings. I've heard it termed as a mindstream, or a subtle body. Isn't that just another name for a soul, even if it lacks individual identity? The only way I can make sense of rebirth at this point is just saying that my actions might create conditions that another being will be born into, but I don't expect it to retain this same stream of awareness. Edit - I'm not talking about beliefs or even assumptions. I mean something much more fundamental. As long as you perceive your world to be solid and self existing, it will be that way. And that solidity will terrorize you. At least it terrorized me. Maybe you like it that way. ThePriceJustWentUp fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Mar 20, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Could you expand on this? People proclaiming the death of god yet living in the shadow of the church? Seems to be kind of a theme for him that he disdained atheists who tried to replace god with a "god-shaped object".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:People proclaiming the death of god yet living in the shadow of the church? Seems to be kind of a theme for him that he disdained atheists who tried to replace god with a "god-shaped object".
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:The only major problem I have with rebirth as presented in Buddhism is the question of what gets transmitted and what carries consciousness between beings. I've heard it termed as a mindstream, or a subtle body. Isn't that just another name for a soul, even if it lacks individual identity? The only way I can make sense of rebirth at this point is just saying that my actions might create conditions that another being will be born into, but I don't expect it to retain this same stream of awareness. I think this line of questioning is a category mistake, the consequence of attempting to take the non-physical causal processes of karma, and reify them as an object or substance. If you insist there has to be a vehicle or storage medium for karmic potentials to transfer from life to life, then you're left asking whether there's a vehicle or storage medium for the first vehicle/storage medium, and so on. After we arbitrarily identify disparate sensations, energies, and collections of physical elements as a 'self', then we struggle to figure out 1) when this self began and 2) what world-state would count as the end of that self or the destruction of that self. When you say "my actions might create conditions that another being will be born into, but I don't expect it to retain this same stream of awareness", it's worth asking whether there are specific characteristics of experience that make your current "stream of awareness" the same as the one you had as a child, or whether your stream of awareness will be the same when you're old. You're able to remember the continuity of your current life into the past, and similarly if you start digging into past lives you'll be able to remember the lives whose karmic potentials resulted in your current one. You may find that your past lives feel like "self" in some sense, because you can see how those lives causally resulted in your present life, yet those past lives are clearly "not self" in other ways. Conventionally, your current life from beginning to end is definitely "self", but what does that mean in experiential terms? If you want to eliminate your own suffering, what would it be like to regard all present phenomena as "not self"? The existence of a causal relationship between lives is definitely not the same as having an unchanging soul.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:29
|
|
Ugrok posted:I know that in soto zen there is absolutely nothing (that i read) about any supernatural elements. But i don't think you can put soto zen out of buddhism. Soto has rebirth and karma, if you want to call those supernatural.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Cumshot in the Dark posted:The only major problem I have with rebirth as presented in Buddhism is the question of what gets transmitted and what carries consciousness between beings. I've heard it termed as a mindstream, or a subtle body. Isn't that just another name for a soul, even if it lacks individual identity? The only way I can make sense of rebirth at this point is just saying that my actions might create conditions that another being will be born into, but I don't expect it to retain this same stream of awareness. Rebirth is not reincarnation. The you that wakes up tomorrow is not the you that went to sleep last night. The you that is born in the future is not the you that was born in the past. What you're saying is absolutely tautological. Of course a future rebirth will not be the same as you. There is nothing transmitted. There is nothing preserved. It is a causal stream. A mindstream can be called a "stream" not because of linear progression, but because like a stream, we look at it daily and go "it is the same stream," despite all the water being different. The detailed nature of this one will click into place for you. You're right to try to discard or defeat concepts that don't make sense. Buddhism is a beautiful, internally consistent jigsaw puzzle. Sometimes you have to have other pieces already in place before you see the shape of one, but once you do, it will go in without any difficulty. Until the other things are in place, though, you don't know where any pieces can fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Rebirth is not reincarnation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2014 06:50
|
|