i have one question
-
since there is noself in buddhism, so what's the entity have been cycling and re- cycling again and again in samsara?
-
This is actually a common question and has been addressed in the previous thread "soul" rebirth lifespan . There is no self, no soul, no experiencer to take rebirth -- every instance of momentary consciousness or re-birth arises according to conditions.
Consciousness is that entire process of re-becoming, it is not a fixed entity or experiencer or soul. So you should not be asking 'what is the entity?' -- There is no entity. You should be asking: 'what is the conditions for the re-becoming of consciousness?'
In short,
---------------------------QUOTE(Darkknight @ Jan 8 2007, 06:17 AM)Q. So there is no self (Atman). so what exactly is it that is reborn, and how does what is reborn pass from one body to another?
Thanks in advance for any answers received.
-----------------------------
The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"
The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.
Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu -
We have to understand, what is 'self'. In Buddhism it is taught there is no self other than the 5 skhandas (form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness).
To put it more simply: there is no self other than thoughts arising and ceasing, sounds arising and ceasing, sight arising and ceasing.
There is no permanent entity behind who is doing the experiencing, who is watching, controlling, thinking.
Instead, there is just thoughts arising and ceasing, deeds being done, sights and sounds arising, all according to conditions. There is no separate hearer, doer, thinker, etc.
-
Alternative answer from Yogacara branch of Buddhism. It is the Alaya consciousness (阿赖耶识)
-
Even Alaya consciousness must not be seen as an entity.
It is a momentary stream of consciousness.
-
å¦‚æ˜¯ï¼Œå¦‚æ˜¯ã€‚ã€‚ä¸€åˆ‡å”¯å¿ƒé€ ã€‚ã€‚ã€‚é˜¿èµ–è€¶è¯†ï¼Œ å½“ä½ æˆ�ä½›å�Žå°±æ²¡äº†ã€‚ã€‚å› ä¸ºä¸�能æˆ�ä½›ï¼Œæ˜¯å› ä¸ºæœ‰æ— æ˜Žï¼Œæ— æ˜Žä¹Ÿæ˜¯ä»Žå¦‚æ�¥è—�性所现。
ä½ èƒ½çœ‹è¿™çœ‹æ³•ç•Œè¡¨
-
如是，如是
阿陀那识 (阿赖耶识) 甚深细，一切ç§�å�如瀑æµ�，我于凡愚ä¸�开演，æ��彼分别执为我...
-
actually we first we need to understand what's no self, i think self consist of five skhandas ,even the sixth conciousness,or seventh cnciousness,末那识，which means 心识（�善��）,but not alaya conciousness, alaya conciousness is like sun light, it shines everywhere, i kind of think alaya conciousness is universal, so it's not self, it store the 业力 of each person, so i think alaya conciousness is the force driving us cycle in samsara.
-
å”�玄奘法师作有《八识规矩颂》，其ä¸é˜¿èµ–耶识颂二如下：.
“浩浩三è—�ä¸�å�¯ç©· 渊深七浪境为风 å�—ç†�æŒ�ç§�æ ¹èº«å™¨ 去å�Žæ�¥å…ˆä½œä¸»å…¬”
阿赖耶识 is the last leaving the dead body and the first to enter a new life.
Yes, 阿赖耶识 is empty of inherent existence ...
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
actually we first we need to understand what's no self, i think self consist of five skhandas ,even the sixth conciousness,or seventh cnciousness,末那识，which means 心识（�善��）,but not alaya conciousness, alaya conciousness is like sun like, it shines everywhere, i kind of think alaya conciousness is universal, so it's not self, it store the 业力 of each person, so i think alaya conciousness is the force driving us cycle in samsara.
Alaya is not universal, alaya is an individual stream of consciousness containing all our karmic seeds. Your alaya and my alaya is not the same, my karma and your karma are not the same. Relatively speaking each stream of consciousness is individual and different from every other stream of consciousness. Buddhism does not postulate a universal soul or consciousness -- that would be Hinduism and other religions.
However, there is at the same time No-Self.
For example, what I am seeing and what you are seeing is different. What I am hearing and what you are hearing is different. What I am thinking and what you are thinking is different. That is relatively speaking, 'I' and 'you' are different.
At the same time, there is no separate thinker apart from thought. There is no seer apart from scenery. There is no hearer apart from sound. Everything manifests differently at every single moment, and in every single mindstream, due to differing conditions. But they are just conditioned manifestation -- they are not happening to 'someone'. They are simply spontaneously manifesting, IMPERSONALLY, due to conditions.
There is no 'you' thinking, there is just thoughts arising. There is no 'you' hearing, there is just sound. Sound and hearing are one. There is nothing that can be attributed to 'I', and nothing can be attributed to 'mine'. The word 'self' is just a conventional term or imputation -- it has no substance, no reality, no findable essence.
No self can be found within nor apart from the 5 skhandas. 5 Skhandas or 18 Dhatus are all there is.
Buddha-Nature (not Alaya) is sometimes described as sun-like, it is all pervading, but again don't think of it as having an inherent essence -- it is also empty, xing kong. So it is not a universal essence. But it manifests in all appearances -- that is miao you.
-
Excuse me, uhm.. I don't know whether this is the right forum to ask this, but... is there anyone who knows where I can download full version of Da Bei Zhou and The Chant of Metta? Thanks before :)
(can reply to my msn : [email protected] :))
-
Originally posted by Futagoza girl:
Excuse me, uhm.. I don't know whether this is the right forum to ask this, but... is there anyone who knows where I can download full version of Da Bei Zhou and The Chant of Metta? Thanks before :)
(can reply to my msn : [email protected] :))
Right forum, wrong thread. -
Originally posted by Futagoza girl:
Excuse me, uhm.. I don't know whether this is the right forum to ask this, but... is there anyone who knows where I can download full version of Da Bei Zhou and The Chant of Metta? Thanks before :)
(can reply to my msn : [email protected] :))
i have... will send to you soon ...ignore Prof Herz flaming :) -
Excuse me, uhm.. I don't know whether this is the right forum to ask this, but... is there anyone who knows where I can download full version of Da Bei Zhou and The Chant of Metta? Thanks before :) (can reply to my msn : [email protected] :))
大悲咒.rar
direct link
-
Originally posted by rokkie:
since there is noself in buddhism, so what's the entity have been cycling and re- cycling again and again in samsara?
It is an illusion that is in and out of samsara.
It is not that you are dreaming, but you are a dream.
You can also say there is no such entity, because "there is" ultimately could also means "there is no". -
So can it be concluded that because there is no permanence of these elements (soul, self, entity), therefore, everything is a result of the inter-relation of the 5 skhandas (form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness). And therefore, if the 5 skandas stop interacting, all will become void and empty and thus leading to Nirvana?
-
Originally posted by Juiyong:
So can it be concluded that because there is no permanence of these elements (soul, self, entity), therefore, everything is a result of the inter-relation of the 5 skhandas (form, feelings, perceptions, volition, consciousness). And therefore, if the 5 skandas stop interacting, all will become void and empty and thus leading to Nirvana?
No. Though it is true that in an Arhant without vows to continue the Bodhisattva path he will experience cessation of the mind continuum for a prolonged period of time (in Mahayana we consider that Arhats will eventually return to continue his path to Buddhahood), Enlightenment and Nirvana should not be understood as simply about the relative cessation of the mind continuum.
You should not understand 'void' or 'emptiness' as being 'absence' or 'nihilism' -- rather what it means is there is no findable, graspable, inherent, permanent entity called 'self'. Just in the same way the word 'weather' is simply a conventional designation for the patterns of clouds, lightning, thunderstorm, wind, etc etc, a fully interdependently originated phenomena in which these factors and combinations are constantly changing every moment, and thus there is no locatable or fixed entity nor thing called 'weather' -- similarly 'self' has no findable essence anywhere within nor apart from the everchanging and interdependently originated five aggregations of form, feelings, perceptions, volition, and consciousness.
Another analogy is that the word 'car' is simply a conventional designation of the combination of windows, wipers, engines, and many other car 'parts'... there is in fact no inherent 'car-ness' to be found anywhere. You can remove the parts one by one, and you cannot find a 'car essence' in any of the parts. Nor can you find any existence of 'car' beyond or outside those parts. The parts are simply parts, the window is simply window, the engine is simply engine. There is no car-ness to be found. And if we investigate further, even the 'parts' are empty. What we call 'car' is simply a convention/designation for a group of parts connected in an arrangement to produce a particular function -- there is no independent or inherent existence to be located anywhere, it is one whole dependently originated phenomena, it has no independent, inherent substance or existence.
This can be applied to 'self' and the 'five skandhas' as well.
You can see: Conceptions of the Self in Western and Eastern Psychology
and a more experiential investigation of the 'self' phenomena: What Is The "Me"?
Finally with regards to Nirvana, actually Nirvana is not apart from this world. Arhats experience Nirvana even within the world, that is called 'Nirvana with residue'. The world is experienced as it is, but no longer with the delusion or ignorance of being a separate self. He realises the non-dual ultimate reality.
As Academic and Zen teacher Dr. David Loy says:
"Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth"Hope all these isn't too confusing.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
No. Though it is true that in an Arhant without vows to continue the Bodhisattva path he will experience cessation of the mind continuum for a prolonged period of time (in Mahayana we consider that Arhats will eventually return to continue his path to Buddhahood), Enlightenment and Nirvana should not be understood as simply about the relative cessation of the mind continuum.
You should not understand 'void' or 'emptiness' as being 'absence' or 'nihilism' -- rather what it means is there is no findable, graspable, inherent, permanent entity called 'self'. Just in the same way the word 'weather' is simply a conventional designation for the patterns of clouds, lightning, thunderstorm, wind, etc etc, a fully interdependently originated phenomena in which these factors and combinations are constantly changing every moment, and thus there is no locatable or fixed entity nor thing called 'weather' -- similarly 'self' has no findable essence anywhere within nor apart from the everchanging and interdependently originated five aggregations of form, feelings, perceptions, volition, and consciousness.
Another analogy is that the word 'car' is simply a conventional designation of the combination of windows, wipers, engines, and many other car 'parts'... there is in fact no inherent 'car-ness' to be found anywhere. You can remove the parts one by one, and you cannot find a 'car essence' in any of the parts. Nor can you find any existence of 'car' beyond or outside those parts. The parts are simply parts, the window is simply window, the engine is simply engine. There is no car-ness to be found. And if we investigate further, even the 'parts' are empty. What we call 'car' is simply a convention/designation for a group of parts connected in an arrangement to produce a particular function -- there is no independent or inherent existence to be located anywhere, it is one whole dependently originated phenomena, it has no independent, inherent substance or existence.
This can be applied to 'self' and the 'five skandhas' as well.
You can see: Conceptions of the Self in Western and Eastern Psychology
and a more experiential investigation of the 'self' phenomena: What Is The "Me"?
Finally with regards to Nirvana, actually Nirvana is not apart from this world. Arhats experience Nirvana even within the world, that is called 'Nirvana with residue'. The world is experienced as it is, but no longer with the delusion or ignorance of being a separate self. He realises the non-dual ultimate reality.
As Academic and Zen teacher Dr. David Loy says:
"Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth"Hope all these isn't too confusing.
:-) Thanks ... it does sound confusing ... but if I get what you are trying to say here is
1) There is no self, soul or any form of entity (car-less) to start with. Only the 5 skhandas (in this case the windows, wipers, engines, and many other car 'parts'...).
2) Thus The self, soul or any form of entity exists because the 5 skhandas come together to enable the illusion self, soul, or entity to become what we are today...
Can i in layman term conclude the concept in such a manner? cheers
-
You cannot say that the self, soul, or entity exists. It cannot be found. Yet, the illusion arises because we are ignorant of its emptiness. We have not realised the nature of reality. But just because we think there is a self, doesn't mean there is one. If we investigate, we realise that the notion of a separate self was just an illusion -- no matter where we look it cannot be found.
All there is is thoughts, feelings, sensations, sounds, sight, taste... etc, arising and passing momentarily. There is no 'soul' to be found apart from these arising phenomena. No one behind the experiencing, only the experience -- sounds, sights, sensations, happening on its own accord due to causes and conditions.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
You cannot say that the self, soul, or entity exists. It cannot be found. Yet, the illusion arises because we are ignorant of its emptiness. We have not realised the nature of reality. But just because we think there is a self, doesn't mean there is one. If we investigate, we realise that the notion of a separate self was just an illusion -- no matter where we look it cannot be found.
All there is is thoughts, feelings, sensations, sounds, sight, taste... etc, arising and passing momentarily. There is no 'soul' to be found apart from these arising phenomena. No one behind the experiencing, only the experience -- sounds, sights, sensations, happening on its own accord due to causes and conditions.
In short, everything is about what we are and who we are is an impermanence state of things as a result of our experience - sounds, sights, sensations, etc...
Which leads to the next question - what best describes the state of enlightenment?
-
Yes and not only is it in a state of impermanence, there is no separate distinct entity apart from the phenomena. For example when seeing a bird, there is no seer behind seeing, the seeing IS the scene/sight. When hearing music, there is no hearer, there is simply music. Everything is self-aware where it is without a separate experiencer or self. Everything is just the display of Dharmakaya or Buddha-Nature, being vivid luminosity/awareness and emptiness inseparable.
About enlightenment, it's not exactly a state -- it's a realisation of what has always been the case, thus ending all ignorance and suffering that arises out of delusion. For example we should not mistaken no-self as being a state where 'self' is annihilated, rather realising no-self means we realise that all along, there never was a separate self within nor apart from phenomena. To say that 'self' is annihilated is wrong because it implies there was a 'self' in the first place to 'get annihilated', and so this is false view, since no 'self' could be found to begin with that could 'exist' or 'annihilate'. Hence enlightenment is 'realisation' and not a 'state'.
Here's an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary:
Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the Ä�tman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Yes and not only is it in a state of impermanence, there is no separate distinct entity apart from the phenomena. For example when seeing a bird, there is no seer behind seeing, the seeing IS the scene/sight. When hearing music, there is no hearer, there is simply music. Everything is self-aware where it is without a separate experiencer or self. Everything is just the display of Dharmakaya or Buddha-Nature, being vivid luminosity/awareness and emptiness inseparable.
About enlightenment, it's not exactly a state -- it's a realisation of what has always been the case, thus ending all ignorance and suffering that arises out of delusion. For example we should not mistaken no-self as being a state where 'self' is annihilated, rather realising no-self means we realise that all along, there never was a separate self within nor apart from phenomena. To say that 'self' is annihilated is wrong because it implies there was a 'self' in the first place to 'get annihilated', and so this is false view, since no 'self' could be found from the beginning that could 'exist' or 'annihilate'.
Here's an excerpt from a Buddhist glossary:
Two emptinesses (二空) include (1) emptiness of self, the Ä�tman, the soul, in a person composed of the five aggregates, constantly changing with causes and conditions; and (2) emptiness of selves in all dharmas—each of the five aggregates, each of the twelve fields, and each of the eighteen spheres, as well as everything else with no independent existence. No-self in any dharma implies no-self in a person, but the latter is separated out in the first category. Realization of the emptiness of self in a person will lead to attainment of Arhatship or Pratyekabuddhahood. Bodhisattvas who have realized both emptinesses ascend to the First Ground on their Way to Buddhahood.
Thanks. Back to your post on the following "Though it is true that in an Arhant without vows to continue the Bodhisattva path he will experience cessation of the mind continuum for a prolonged period of time (in Mahayana we consider that Arhats will eventually return to continue his path to Buddhahood)..."
So are we saying that the practice of the Arhat way is incorrect given that it differs from that of the Bodhisattva's path? Will it not eventually lead to the state of realization and entering into Nirvana? if so, and if time is just a matter of relative long or short, it does not matter which path is being follow?
Thanks for making the effort to reply and helping understand the Buddhist thinking process.
JY
-
-
What I meant is this: Arhats, when they are alive, already experience Nirvana. Nirvana means Cessation. It is the end of clinging to the aggregates, the ceasing of viewing the aggregates as self or pertaining to a self. That ceasing is what is called the not-born and not-conditioned, because once attachment vanished it cannot arise again.
However, while alive, the Arhats will still experience sensory awareness and be able to think and function as a normal human being like us (albeit without ignorance and mental suffering) and are also capable of ageing, sickness and physical pain, etc. That has to do with the normal bodily function of a human being.
However, what happens after physical death for an Arhat is, the relative cessation of the mind continuum in Nirvana. This is because the causes for uncontrolled rebirth has been ended, and that liberated sage is no longer trapped in the cycle of samsaric rebirth. Being liberated he no longer needs to get reborn due to karma, and so there is no more conditions for his birth. For most Theravadins this is the end goal. For Mahayanist, we believe that the Arhats will eventually return to continue their journey to Buddhahood.
For a Mahayanist, the Bodhisattva, even though he might be liberated from uncontrolled rebirth, due to their vows will still return again to save other sentient beings and continue his practice to Buddhahood.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Even Alaya consciousness must not be seen as an entity.
It is a momentary stream of consciousness.
i realise this thread is related to what i've posted in the other "no-self" thread.the question which i've wanted to ask is about the "true mind" or "buddha nature". according to what i've read in surangama or whatever, the alaya consciousness is very close to the "true mind". and also, this "true mind" is treated as something permanent. maybe it is due to limited understanding and delusion, but isnt there something got to be permanent when we pass from life to life? like what i've said in the other thread, its like a same "you" experiencing it and no one can take that place.