Immortal Atman?

[RongzomFan]

Buddhists say empty of identity

 

Advaitins say identity is Brahman

[yabyum24]

I placed it here in order to get Vedantist views on Atman and to discuss this. The thread is neither entirely one nor the other but if people would prefer to move it elsewhere, then it's no problem. The key thing is that the dialogue is worthwhile, rather that what label we put on it.

[yabyum24]

Advaitins say identity is Brahman

But how do Vedantists define identity? I bet there's a bit more to it than that?

[gatito]

I placed it here in order to get Vedantist views on Atman and to discuss this. The thread is neither entirely one nor the other but if people would prefer to move it elsewhere, then it's no problem. The key thing is that the dialogue is worthwhile, rather that what label we put on it.

 

Then if it is neither Buddhism nor Vedanta, it belongs in General Discussion.

 

I may rejoin the conversation if it gets moved there - however, I think that at this point, it's extremely unlikely.

[yabyum24]

I've sent a request to the admin that this thread be moved to general discussion. My apologies for any offense I may have caused by placing it here.

[RongzomFan]

But how do Vedantists define identity? I bet there's a bit more to it than that?

identity is identiy.

 

They just say ones identity is actually Brahman

[Trunk]

~~~ official somethingorrather ~~~

 

This thread has been moved into General

with permission of the original poster.

 

~~~ /stop yadda-yadda ~~~

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[yabyum24]

identity is identiy.

 

They just say ones identity is actually Brahman

I'm currently reading a translation of the Yoga Vasistha by Swami Venkatesananda. This indicates that all i-making is false, that thoughts moving through consciousness are like a hissing snake. This is our basic "identity" which even a caveman had.

 

So it looks like there are 2 different things; an illusory intellectual "identity" and a true self of pure consciousness, which is beyond duality. I don't know if something beyond duality can be termed an "identity", as the mind in non-duality would necessarily not be able to uphold such structures.

 

I would say that such a worldly "identity" is dependent on the aggregates which give rise to, and support, it. A product of one life and transient within that life as well. So, this "identity" does not suffice as a target for refutation either.

 

It could be that there are two ways to reach the goal, that of the (+) and that of the (-) . It just depends which way you come at it. Perhaps the destination lies between both?

[3bob]

The Self is not found in or of the mind, thus tools of the mind can not reach It or nail it down.

The Self chooses the Self, no other forms of power can touch it.

[yabyum24]

1. The Self is not found in or of the mind, thus tools of the mind can not reach It or nail it down.

2. The Self chooses the Self, no other forms of power can touch it.

I get what you mean with 1. but could you explain 2. - how the self chooses the self. That I don't understand.

[3bob]

yabyum24,

 

I'm not qualified to explain it, although one might say something like Spirit unto Spirit,

 

To be under a Self realized teachers guidance is the method spoken of and that is not done on a wide open public website; still and in the meantime one can study the Upanishads if that has not already been done....

Edited December 26, 2013 by 3bob

[gatito]

I've sent a request to the admin that this thread be moved to general discussion. My apologies for any offense I may have caused by placing it here.

 

I'd be very suprised if anyone was offended by you placing your question in the Vedanta forum

[Simple_Jack]

 

Some materialists don't like the idea of any experience at all, as they feel it's a betrayal of the doctrine of cessation. But what if the consciousness/nirguna Brahman is experienced in the same way as the clear light of the dharmakaya or Consciousness without feature, without end, luminous all around (Viññanam anidassanam)?

 

By materialists you mean the Carvakans? Both Buddhists and Hindus trashed the Carvaka/Lokayata school of materialism. Anyways, you've opened up a can of worms by mentioning vinnanam anidassanam. It's quite common for people to initially interpret this term as a sort of abiding unconditioned/pure consciousness. You should consider that this term only appears twice in the entire sutta-pitaka [MN 49 & DN 11], while in comparison, formulations such as: "...From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form..." [MN 38] and "...Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am..." [sN 22] appear many more times throughout the sutta-pitaka. I think the distinguishment between a provisional and definitive categories of discourses are apt in this case. In any case, it's been traditionally explained as a description for the arahant's consciousness, due to the extinguishment of ignorance, craving, aggression; this lines up with the rest of the sutta-pitaka, when Buddha describes the nibbana of an arahant as the extinguishment of ignorance, craving, aggression, when interpreted in this way. Ven. Brahmali both describes and criticizes Ven. Bodhi's & Ven. Thanissaro's description of nibbana - http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/731-Consciousness-without-surface-Vinnanam-Anidassanam-Mn-49-38-DN-11: "...I might as well be straightforward on this issue. I do not wish in any way to be disrespectful of someone like Ajahn Ṭhanissaro who has done so much good work for Buddhism. At the same time, I think everyone stands to lose if we are not open and direct.

 

First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated. Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible. Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease. What is it that ceases? Just suffering.

 

Is extinguishment ineffable? Only insofar as we do not understand non-self. Once you understand non-self, the idea of extinguishment is quite plain..."....http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/432-Nibbana?s=1a638d713a5f8115199abbc50cf3d736: "...So these very questions are just proliferations; they are misconceived. The Dhamma is not about attaining or not attaining an existing reality. It’s about ending suffering. The reason why anyone is concerned about what happens when the arahant dies is because of their sense of self. The sense of self makes us perceive the death of an arahant either as annihilation or some sort of eternal existence. Once the false sense of self is removed, one no longer perceives the death of anarahant in either of these ways, and the concern about what happens to them after death just falls away. I feel Ven. Bodhi should have pointed this out rather than try to answer the question. That would have been much more useful for the inquirer’s understanding of the Dhamma.

 

 

Having said this, I also do not find Ven. Bodhi’s arguments persuasive. Before I consider Ven. Bodhi’s individual points, I should point out a general danger in arguing that Nibbāna is “an existing reality”. It is impossible to conceive of a reality beyond the six senses, at least for non-ariyans. For this reason, any idea ofNibbāna as an existing reality will by default be understood in terms of the eternal continuation of one or more of the five khandhas. The result of this will often be attachment to a refined form of the five khandhas, in particular refined states of samādhi, and taking this as Nibbāna. So the best thing to do is to put this question aside and instead practice the path until one penetrates non-self. Only when one sees this will one understand that the very question was misconceived..". Ven. Brahmali further explains nibbana in the Nikayas in this link- http://community.dhammaloka.org.au/showthread.php/244-Meaning-of-Vi%C3%B1%C3%B1%C4%25: "...To be able to answer this question you first of all need to be clear about which nibbāna you are referring to. The usual meaning of nibbāna in the suttas is the attainment of arahantship. Clearly consciousness does not cease with this attainment of nibbāna . The other meaning of nibbāna is the final nibbāna attained by the arahant when he or she dies. It is only at this point that the five khandhas, including consciousness, cease. (This distinction between two meanings ofnibbāna is explicitly made in the Itivuttaka.) Once you make this distinction, it becomes much more clear how the numerous sutta references you bring up should be understood..."

 

Here are a series of posts, by knowledgable forummer/translator Nyana/Jnana, which are reliable and accurate; he's responsible for making this site http://measurelessmind.ca/ - http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8350&start=20: "...IMO any speculation regarding the postmortem status of an arahant -- either pro or con -- is counterproductive. MN 72 Aggivacchagotta Sutta informs us that any view regarding the postmortem existence or non-existence of an arahant is a fetter of view (diṭṭhisaṃyojana) which doesn't lead to direct gnosis, to awakening, to nibbāna:<p>

 

• The view that after death a tathāgata exists is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

   

  The view that after death a tathāgata does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

   

  The view that after death a tathāgata both exists and does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

   

  The view that after death a tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a vacillation of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by dissatisfaction, distress, despair, and fever. It does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calmness, direct gnosis, full awakening, nibbāna.

 

 

 

When the mind is completely awake and fully aware there is no urge to project or speculate about a hypothetical future. An arahant has realized that there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be grasped at or clung to. And when the moment of death arrives he or she meets it with consciousness not established (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa)."....http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/463722: "...To paraphrase Ven. Ñāṇananda, it's not that an arahant gets half of nibbāna upon awakening, and the other half when s/he dies. Upon awakening they have already "gone out," they are "cool," and they have reached "the end." Even parinibbāna can be used to refer to a living arahant.

 

The dhamma isn't about some sort of thanatos desire to attain completion in the grave. It's about realizing "the end" here and now.

 

Geoff:

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382&start=320

 

"retrofuturist wrote:some idea as to how consciousness might "function" ... i.e. without sankhara as its foundation"

 

I think that there are numerous sutta references to the awakened mind which explain what is not the foundation of an arahant's experience. Firstly, by way of training: The seen is merely the seen (diṭṭhamatta). The heard is merely the heard (sutamatta). The sensed is merely the sensed (mutamatta). The known is merely the known (viññātamatta). Ud 1.10 Bāhiya Sutta:

 

"‘The seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known.’ This is how you should train, Bāhiya.

 

When, Bāhiya, for you the seen will be merely the seen, the heard will be merely the heard, the sensed will be merely the sensed, the known will be merely the known, then Bāhiya, you will not be that. When, Bāhiya, you are not that, then Bāhiya, you will not be there. When, Bāhiya, you are not there, then Bāhiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor between-the-two. Just this is the end of unsatisfactoriness."

 

Secondly, the absence of specific fabrication (abhisaṅkharoti) or volitional intention (abhisañcetayati) towards either existence or non-existence. MN 140 Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta:

 

"One does not form any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence. Not forming any specific fabrication or volitional intention towards either existence or non-existence, he does not cling to anything in this world. Not clinging, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’"

 

Cf. Ven. Ñāṇananda, Nibbāna Sermon 04:

 

"What is called the cessation of consciousness has a deeper sense here. It means the cessation of the specifically prepared consciousness, abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. An arahant's experience of the cessation of consciousness is at the same time the experience of the cessation of name-and-form."

 

And Nibbāna Sermon 06:

 

"The more one sees preparations (saṅkhāras) as preparations, ignorance is dispelled, and the more one dispels ignorance, the preparations lose their significance as preparations. Then one sees the nature of preparations with wisdom as signless, desireless, and void. So much so that, in effect, preparations cease to be preparations.... The relation of saṅkhāras to ignorance is somewhat similar to the relation a drama has to its back-stage preparations. It seems, then, that from the standpoint of Dhamma the entire saṃsāra is a product of specifically prepared intentions, even like the drama with its back-stage preparations...."

 

The phrase saṅkhataṃ paṭiccasamuppannaṃ (e.g. M III 299), 'prepared and dependently arisen', suggests that the prepared nature is also due to that contact. What may be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa (S III 58), 'specifically prepared consciousness', is that sort of consciousness which gets attached to name-and-form. When one sees a film show, one interprets a scene appearing on the screen according to one's likes and dislikes. It becomes a thing of experience for him. Similarly, by imagining a self in name-and-form, consciousness gets attached to it. It is such a consciousness, which is established on name-and-form, that can be called abhisaṅkhata viññāṇa. Then could there be also a consciousness which does not reflect a name-and-form? Yes, there could be. That is what is known as anidassana viññāṇa, or 'non-manifestative consciousness'.

 

And thirdly, consciousness which is unestablished (appatiṭṭha viññāṇa). SN 22.53 Upaya Sutta:

 

"When that consciousness is unestablished, not increasing, not concocting, it is liberated. Being liberated, it is steady. Being steady, it is content. Being content, he is not excited. Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here.’"

 

As for the qualm that this last passage refers to the death of an arahant, the phrase: "Unexcited, he personally attains complete nibbāna. He discerns that, 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, done is what had to be done, there is nothing further here,'" is the standard paricope referring to the time of awakening, i.e. a statement of the attainment of arahant fruition (e.g. DN 15, MN 105, etc.), and not the time of death of an arahant.

 

The above passages referring to the cognition of an arahant are succinctly presented in AN 4.24 Kāḷakārāma Sutta:

 

"Thus, monks, the Tathāgata does not conceive an [object] seen when seeing what is to be seen. He does not conceive an unseen. He does not conceive a to-be-seen. He does not conceive a seer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] heard when hearing what is to be heard. He does not conceive an unheard. He does not conceive a to-be-heard. He does not conceive a hearer.

 

He does not conceive an [object] sensed when sensing what is to be sensed. He does not conceive an unsensed. He does not conceive a to-be-sensed. He does not conceive a senser.

 

He does not conceive an [object] known when knowing what is to be known. He does not conceive an unknown. He does not conceive a to-be-known. He does not conceive a knower."

 

Ven. Ñāṇananda considered the Kāḷakārāma Sutta important enough to write a text on it..."....http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/447451: "Nibbāna is a negation. It means extinguishment. With the fruition of each of the four paths one knows the termination of the fetters which are eliminated by that path. This termination is nibbāna appropriate to that path. The Paṭisambhidāmagga:

 

How is it that the discernment of the termination of continuance in one who is fully aware is gnosis of full extinguishment (parinibbāna ñāṇa)?

 

Through the stream-entry path he terminates identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi), doubt (vicikicchā), and mistaken adherence to rules and duty (sīlabbataparāmāsa).... This discernment of the termination of continuance in one who is fully aware is gnosis of full extinguishment....

 

He causes the cessation of identity view, doubt, and mistaken adherence to rules and duty through the stream-entry path.

 

 

And so on for the fetters which are terminated on the remaining three paths. The once-returner path terminates the gross fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The non-returner path terminates the secondary fetters of desire for sensual pleasure (kāmacchanda) and aversion (vyāpāda/byāpāda). The arahant path terminates the fetters of passion for form [existence] (rūparāga), passion for formless [existence] (arūparāga), conceit (māna), restlessness (uddhacca), and ignorance (avijjā).

 

All the best,

 

Geoff

 

...

 

Firstly, nibbāna isn't a "state." Secondly, nibbāna is the cessation of passion, aggression, and delusion. For a learner it is the cessation of the fetters extinguished on each path. The waking states where "suddenly all sensations and six senses stop functioning" are (1) mundane perceptionless samādhis, and (2) cessation of apperception and feeling. Neither of these are supramundane and neither of these are synonymous with experiencing nibbāna.

 

All the best,

 

Geoff

....

 

This type of blackout cessation is experienced by all sorts of yogis including those practicing non-Buddhist systems. Thus, it has nothing to do with the correct engagement of vipassanā. The cessation of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhanirodha) is the cessation of craving (taṇhā), not the cessation of phenomena. DN 22:

 

 

 

And what is the noble truth of the cessation of stress? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

 

What craving? Craving sensual pleasure (kāmataṇhā), craving existence (bhavataṇhā), and craving non-existence (vibhavataṇhā). The cessation of unsatisfactoriness is the cessation of very specific fetters pertaining to each of the four noble paths. There is no canonical support for your interpretation of nibbāna or saupādisesa nibbānadhātu (nibbāna element with fuel remaining).

....

 

The suttas define and describe the goal in sufficient terms. The difficulty in this discussion relates to whether one accepts what the canon states about the fruition of the path, or alternatively, accepts much later commentarial interpretations of the "path-moment" and "fruition-moment" as re-interpreted by a few 20th century Burmese monks. Without sufficient common ground for discussion there isn't much possibility of meaningful dialogue....He goes on to say that "a dhamma is a truly existent thing (sabhāvasiddha)." This is a completely realist view. And the inevitable consequence entailed by this realist view, wherein all conditioned dhammas are "truly existing things," is that path cognitions and fruition cognitions of each of the four paths and fruits must occur within an utterly void vacuum state cessation, which is considered to be the ultimately existent "unconditioned."...This notion of path and fruition cognitions is not supported by the Pāli canon. Moreover, there are now numerous people who've had such experiences sanctioned by "insight meditation" teachers, and who have gone on to proclaim to the world that arahants can still experience lust and the other defiled mental phenomena. Taking all of this into account there is no good reason whatsoever to accept this interpretation of path and fruition cognitions. Void vacuum state cessations are not an adequate nor reliable indication of stream entry or any of the other paths and fruitions."

 

 

 

Considering the above posts, we then can understand what Ven. Nanananda says here - http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/clm_main1.asp: "...Now vi¤¤àõaü anidassanaü is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect any­thing. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nàma-råpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nàma-råpa, when he reflects, which he calls `I' and `mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which how­ever he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of `I' and `mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's con­scious­ness is an unestablished consciousness.

We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the estab­lished consciousness and the unestablished conscious­ness.[ix] A non-ara­hant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established con­sciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or en­tanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of pene­tration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to un­ravel the meaning of the expression anidassana vi¤¤àõa..."

 

 

It's up to you to decide what to make of this. In case you're interested, Jnana/Nyana summarizes the different understandings of nirvana in Hinayana and Mahayana in this link - http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/nirvana-in-different-schools-of-buddhism.html

Edited December 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[yabyum24]

It's up to you to decide what to make of this. In case you're interested, Jnana/Nyana summarizes the different understandings of nirvana in Hinayana and Mahayana in this link - http://dharmaconnectiongroup.blogspot.com/2013/06/nirvana-in-different-schools-of-buddhism.html

Interesting link and some good points made there.

[yabyum24]

 

By materialists you mean the Carvakans?

No, more this kind of thing:

First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated.

Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible. Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease. What is it that ceases? Just suffering.

They DO cease, then all consciousness ceases, aggregates rot away and there is no rebirth (how could there be?). It's clinical death as per our western understanding. No difference at all. Pure materialism - life is a mere mechanical, biological event which commences at conception and ceases at death. Nirvana is the cessation of suffering within this life (by default, as there aren't any other lives).

 

This philosophy renders karma and rebirth obsolete. It's entirely body-focussed.

 

It does not address the deeper ramifications of dependent origination outlined in tantra.

[Simple_Jack]

No, more this kind of thing:

They DO cease, then all consciousness ceases, aggregates rot away and there is no rebirth (how could there be?). It's clinical death as per our western understanding. No difference at all. Pure materialism - life is a mere mechanical, biological event which commences at conception and ceases at death. Nirvana is the cessation of suffering within this life (by default, as there aren't any other lives).

 

This philosophy renders karma and rebirth obsolete. It's entirely body-focussed.

 

It does not address the deeper ramifications of dependent origination outlined in tantra.

 

Not necessarily, but within the wider framework of Mahayana, the arhats & pratyekabuddhas cessation is referred to as a "nirvana with remainder"; Mahayana denigrates the Hinayana nirvana as a one-sided extreme. Basically the attainment of arhats & pratyekabuddhas represents a non-afflictive ignorance. There are different explanations as to the fate of an arhat & pratyekabuddha after death, but here's one from Fazang: http://huayanzang.blogspot.com/2011/07/fazang-on-fate-of-arhats-and.html

Edited December 27, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[yabyum24]

I agree with this:

"Fazang's position is essentially that arhats and pratyekabuddhas (and modern scientific materialist Buddhists - my italics) are under the mistaken notion that their nirvāṇa is an absolute cessation of existence". (From your link).

 

My biggest problem is that I feel it even misrepresents the Pali teachings.

 

Let's look at that clip in more detail:

"First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated".

 

This looks logically reasonable at first glance but look a little closer at what is happening. Firstly, Buddha taught anatta (not-self) he never taught "no-self" as this is a speculative view. The writer does not understand that not-self is a realisation, not an ontological position. If it's a realisation, then there is a consciousness which realises it - a consciousness which knows (at a very deep level) the attainment of nirvana. If nirvana were a state of nothing, then no recognition of it would be possible.

 

"Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible."

 

Here, he is saying that self has no existence. This is another ontological position which fails to take into account the dynamic process underpinning self (becoming) - it's transient (what isn't?) nature and how to go beyond it into liberation. For him, it simply doesn't exist but that was not what Buddha taught.

 

"Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease."

 

Everything is a process, mind and body - the whole universe. But what does that tell us? It tells us that everything is in flux within time/space. It doesn't tell us that things don't exist or that they inherently exist or any other such baloney. It doesn't even touch on dependent arising.

But his point here, is that all process of "becoming" ceases at death - conveniently ignoring all the suttas where Buddha mentions past lives and failing to see the relevance of that recall to anatta.

 

For materialists like this, rebirth is anathema, as they believe past life recall validates an 'eternal' self of some kind. If they had experienced any valid recall they would know that it is quite a different story.

Edited December 27, 2013 by yabyum24

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[Simple_Jack]

I agree with this:

"Fazang's position is essentially that arhats and pratyekabuddhas (and modern scientific materialist Buddhists - my italics) are under the mistaken notion that their nirvāṇa is an absolute cessation of existence". (From your link).

 

My biggest problem is that I feel it even misrepresents the Pali teachings.

 

Let's look at that clip in more detail:

"First of all, extinguishment (nibbāna) is clearly not annihilation. The reason for this is simply that there is nothing to be annihilated".

 

This looks logically reasonable at first glance but look a little closer at what is happening. Firstly, Buddha taught anatta (not-self) he never taught "no-self" as this is a speculative view. The writer does not understand that not-self is a realisation, not an ontological position. If it's a realisation, then there is a consciousness which realises it - a consciousness which knows (at a very deep level) the attainment of nirvana. If nirvana were a state of nothing, then no recognition of it would be possible.

 

"Only existing entities can be annihilated, and since Buddhism rejects the idea of a self, annihilation is by definition impossible."

 

Here, he is saying that self has no existence. This is another ontological position which fails to take into account the dynamic process underpinning self (becoming) - it's transient (what isn't?) nature and how to go beyond it into liberation. For him, it simply doesn't exist but that was not what Buddha taught.

 

"Processes, on the other hand, may come to an end. Since humans are processes, they can cease."

 

Everything is a process, mind and body - the whole universe. But what does that tell us? It tells us that everything is in flux within time/space. It doesn't tell us that things don't exist or that they inherently exist or any other such baloney. It doesn't even touch on dependent arising.

But his point here, is that all process of "becoming" ceases at death - conveniently ignoring all the suttas where Buddha mentions past lives and failing to see the relevance of that recall to anatta.

 

For materialists like this, rebirth is anathema, as they believe past life recall validates an 'eternal' self of some kind. If they had experienced any valid recall they would know that it is quite a different story.

 

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion considering that materialists deny karma, rebirth, etc.

 

""What is it, Venerable Sir, that will be reborn?"

"A psycho-physical combination (nama-rupa), O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir? Is it the same psycho-physical combination as this present one?"

"No, O King. But the present psycho-physical combination produces kammically wholesome and unwholesome volitional activities, and through such kamma a new psycho-physical combination will be born..."Does, Venerable Sir, rebirth take place without transmigration?"

"Yes, O King."

"But how, Venerable Sir, can rebirth take place without the passing over of anything? Please, illustrate this matter for me."

"If, O King, a man should light a lamp with the help of another lamp, does the light of the one lamp pass over to the other lamp?"

"No, Venerable Sir."

"Just so, O King, does rebirth take place without transmigration."

~ Milindapanha

 

 

There is no doer of a deed

Or one who reaps the deed's result;

Phenomena alone flow on -

No other view than this is right.

 

And so, while kamma and result

Thus causally maintain their round,

As seed and tree succeed in turn,

No first beginning can be shown.

 

Nor in the future round of births

Can they be shown not to occur:

Sectarians, not knowing this,

Have failed to gain mastery

 

They assume a being, see it as

Eternal or annihilated.

Adopt the sixty-two wrong views,

Each contradicting one another.

 

The stream of craving bears them on

Caught in the meshes of their views:

And as the stream thus bears them on

They are not freed from suffering.

 

A monk, a disciple of the Buddha,

With direct knowledge of this fact

Can penetrate this deep and subtle

Void conditionality.

 

There is no kamma in result,

Nor does result exist in kamma;

Though they are void in one another,

There is no fruit without the kamma.

 

As fire does not exist inside

The sun, a gem, cow-dung, nor yet

Outside of them, but is brought to be

By means of its component parts,

 

So neither can result be found

Within the kamma, nor without;

Nor does the kamma still persist

[in the result it has produced].

 

The kamma of its fruit is void;

No fruit exists yet in the kamma;

and still the fruit is born from it,

Wholly depending on the kamma.

 

For here there is no Brahma God,

Creator of the round of births,

Phenomena alone flow on -

Cause and component their condition

~ Visuddhimagga Ch. XIX sec. 20

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html#fnt-1

 

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Sāti, that this pernicious view has arisen in you — 'As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another'?"

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."

"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?" [1]

"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

...

Inappropriate Questions Avoided

"Now, monks, knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the past, thinking, 'Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what were we in the past'?"

"No, lord."

"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you run after the future, thinking, 'Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we be in the future'?"

"No, lord."

"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound'?"[7]

"No, lord."...

 

Now, if we accept the cessation of arhats and pratyekabuddhas as a type of samadhi, then according to Mahayana: they will regress to the state of a non-returner which means rebirth in a pure abode, after the merit of attaining cessation is consumed. This is stated as lasting 84,000 eons which basically means an incalculable amount of time. Otherwise, they can be roused from their cessation by a buddha to cultivate the path of a bodhisattva towards the omniscience of a samyaksambuddha. Of course, all of this is speculative at best, if we ourselves aren't established on the path of an arya.

[yabyum24]

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion considering that materialists deny karma, rebirth, etc.

Which was my point too,

[yabyum24]

Are you sure you found the ego, yabyum24?

How do you define it?

[3bob]

better to drink one cup of water than read a thousand books about oceans of it

[Boy]

...

Edited January 15, 2014 by Boy

[Simple_Jack]

Which was my point too,

 

Sorry, I'm unable to take these points seriously, because they are a straw man argument.