TheSerpentLord

I have some questions for the Buddhists on this forum and hope they can clarify some issues for me:

1) The three marks of existance: impermanance, change and non-self [anicca, dukka, anatta]
Just wondering what is the range of the three marks of existance. It supposedly includes everything, but just how much is everything? Does this include the laws of nature as well? In that case, does the laws of nature change as well? In that case, what about the law of change itself? Does anyone think this is a valid question? or is it just a play on words? And why is it that Nirvana is excluded from the three marks? I know that if Nirvana itself is characterized by the three marks, then liberation would not be possible but is there any other reason apart from that?

2) Rebirth
I have no problem with rebirth happening within this life, from mind moment to mind moment but my issue is what happens when a person dies. As far as I know, if a person is to die, say in Japan, and is to be reborn in, say in a planet in Adromeda galaxy, its supposed to be more or less instantaneous --- actually, its one mind moment isn't it, between the last [death] thought and the first thought in the new life?

Anyways, in the light of new developments in physics including recent understanding of time [eg. theory of relativity], what are most Buddhists' thoughts regarding rebirth. Do all of the Buddhist's here believe in rebirth?

In the Milinda Panna [Questions of King Milinda], Nagasena compares rebirth to something as follows: two birds flying and landing on two different branches at the same time, one higher than the other; their shadows fall on the ground at the sametime despite the difference in height. Rebirth is meant to be something along these lines. If two people died on the same spot, but one is to be born in America and the other in another galaxy, they would be born at the same time despite the difference in distances [am I correct in this analysis?] Does anyone else share this view of rebirth?

On a less serious side, I used to think that the "information" that passes between the death though moment and first new life thought moment travels in somewhat like an electromagnetic wave or a photon. So, if my basic understanding of relativity is correct, from the reference point of the photon, time passed between the two points is zero, hence the rebirth is instantaneous. Does this make sense to anyone? Note, I am not trying to reconcile Buddhism with modern physics.

I am awaiting comments for my two questions. I have more questions actually but this two should be enough for now. Expecting all of the stuff I wrote to be taken into pieces like most of you guys do here most of the time .

Just to know where I am coming form, I grew up in a Theravidin Buddhist background though I am now completely non-religious. My family have been Buddhists for generations. I think I have quite a deep understanding of Buddhism (I said I think) but just trying to clear up some of the issues that I am having for a while now which apparently no one seems to have the answers for. May be you guys can help, since you all seem to be well versed in quite a lot of subjects.

TheSerpentLord

muon

Good questions, Serpent Lord!

Well, there are multiple ways to try and answer these questions. The first would be what I think the "canonical" answer would be. I have seen repeated statements in the suttas that say that all of existence shares the three characteristics. But at the same time the dhamma is believed to be eternal for all ages and times, for all beings. This would imply to me that the three characteristics themselves are not subject to change.

My understanding as well is that only "compounded" things are subject to impermanence. Nibbana is not conceived of as a compounded thing. Nor could "laws of nature" be considered compounded.

As for nibbana ... my interpretation is simply that nibbana is a state of being that is free from dukkha. I would still say that nibbana is characterized as anatta. As for anicca, I think the Buddha himself refused to answer the question of what happens to an arahant after death. Perhaps the question is not meaningful, or at least not important.

Certainly many here do not believe in rebirth of a physical sort. Personally I don't see any means of reconciling any continuation of personal identity, even of the sort described in the Milindapanna Sutta, with modern physics and especially neuroscience.

The whole Buddhist enterprise makes a lot more sense to me when interpreted as purely psychological description of how human minds work, what causes them to suffer, and how to avoid and abolish suffering. I admittedly have been very influenced by the Thai monk Buddhadasa along these lines.

Volker.Doormann

I am not a member of any religion. But I think it is very helpful to understand the core elements in all the religions. That, what we (western culture) know as existence is different to the existence in Buddhism. The western idea of existence is related to permanent elements as physical parts in nature, while the idea of the existence in Buddhism is the dynamic (time dependent) character of physical life. No one is the same one after ten years, because all cells in a body are interchanged after approximately seven years. This dynamic process of impermanence is related to the body consciousness. Ducca seems to be a state of a mixed consciousness of the body (mind, self, ego) and the soul - in Buddhism this is the 'non-self' - as an immaterial state of existence. This state of consciousness is related to the soul only, and is the only form of existence, which exist after the death of the body (mind, person, ego, self). All effects only can be worked out in a physical world (body, mind, self, person) until the consciousness of the soul is more present as the body or self consciousness of the (physical/emotional) person. Nirvana is not excluded. Nirvana is the state of the soul consciousness, that is not to be affected by (karmic) actions. Nirvana means: 'where the wind of Karma do not blow'. It is the freedom of each one to decide on which state of consciousness (body/emotional, mind, person versus soul) he likes to be aware.
If a person dies, all of the person dies, which is of any material property. This is also the person, because a person is identical with the physical mind. That, what is of non-material property as the soul, - or the non-self in Buddhism - can be taken place in a newborn person and it sleeps as soul until it awakes in the person, maybe when the person ask: 'Who am I?'. A soul or a non-self has no relation to time or to any space or America or a distant galaxy, because the state of a soul is immaterial as a number or a truth has no physical properties. But the soul has as long as it is loaded with Karma a preference to be placed in new born persons, which are related to this Karma, because the (immaterial natural) law of causality is also valid for hurts of the spiritual laws in the spiritual world for that state of Nirvana as a natural order can be found to break the curcuit of death and life for souls or non-selfs, who are free from any Karma. It is the recognizing of the very different worlds of a physical and a spiritual world, which can help to let the soul consciousness awake. This is never to be made with the mind; a mortal mind, only without the mind, a mind which is still.

Volker

Aradia

The laws of nature do not "exist" in the manner that the Buddha was describing. They are constructs describing the underlying relationships between things that exist.

Depends upon one's definition of nirvana.

Since I don't believe in rebirth, I won't respond to the second part (although I probably could).

FYI, I'm a buddhist (theravadin if forced to categorise myself ).

bagong

Just wondering what is the range of the three marks of existance. It supposedly includes everything, but just how much is everything? Does this include the laws of nature as well? In that case, does the laws of nature change as well? In that case, what about the law of change itself? Does anyone think this is a valid question? or is it just a play on words? And why is it that Nirvana is excluded from the three marks? I know that if Nirvana itself is characterized by the three marks, then liberation would not be possible but is there any other reason apart from that?

The 3 Marks apply to the 5 Khandhas: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. Laws of nature like gravity or Dependent Origination cannot be classified in any khandha: I guess they are better understood as descriptions of the interaction between compounded phenomena than as compounded phenomena themselves. The Tipi.taka stresses in many places that the 3 Marks (and the Dhamma in general) hold at all times:

'Whether Buddhas appear in the world or do not, it still remains a firm condition, an immutable fact and fixed law that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that everything is without a self.' A. III 134, emphasis mine

And yes, nibbaa.na (nirvana) is excluded from the first 2 marks simply by definition, there is no other reasoning. Of course, anatta still applies.

I have no problem with rebirth happening within this life, from mind moment to mind moment but my issue is what happens when a person dies. As far as I know, if a person is to die, say in Japan, and is to be reborn in, say in a planet in Adromeda galaxy, its supposed to be more or less instantaneous --- actually, its one mind moment isn't it, between the last [death] thought and the first thought in the new life?

Anyways, in the light of new developments in physics including recent understanding of time [eg. theory of relativity], what are most Buddhists' thoughts regarding rebirth. Do all of the Buddhist's here believe in rebirth?

I'm afraid I don't fully understand your question - are you asking how it's possible for a rebirth to "travel" instantaneously across many lightyears? To answer that question, no travelling takes place. Nothing transmigrates, the only thing that happens is that the consequences of our volitions manifest themselves in another being after we die (of course, the consequences of our volitions are borne by many beings both during our lifetime and after death, but Buddhism teaches that a single being will have a particularly close karmic connection.) For the purposes of karmic cause and effect, physical distance is irrelevant - in fact fruits can ripen in completely different planes of existence, like the sphere of form or formlessness, in which case it's impossible to speak of distance.

I know next to nothing about physics, so I can't comment on your other thoughts.

muon

Hi Bagong---your words on the three characteristics and nibbana echo my own. Glad to hear another voice saying the same thing.

I think where Serpent Lord is coming from regarding the physics is that special relativity prevents the transferral of any information at velocities greater than the speed of light. Presumably "the consequences of volitions", to use your phrase, must have information content---it would be unmeaningful to even speak of rebirth if they didn't. So according to the current laws of physics, it would take millions of years for this information to affect a being in another galaxy.

I see a number of possible ways out of this dilemna:

1) One can propose that consequences of volitions, whatever they may be, violate special relativity. I think this is very shaky ground. From a physicist's standpoint, it's very hard to do this without resulting in all sorts of logical paradoxes involving time travel. From an epistemic standpoint it's also very unsatisfying----any time your philosophy only works if you disregard a well-established law of physics, that's usually a good sign that you're on the wrong track. It's a little reminiscent of Christian creationists rejecting scientific evidence in favor of evolution, or trying to carve our "exemptions" for humans.

2) You could simply decide that physical rebirth does not happen. Probably the safest solution in my opinion. There are a number of other reasons for deciding that science and physical rebirth are in conflict in any case.

3) You could decide that rebirth happens, but that you're perfectly happy for it to take millions of years for karmic information to travel to its new home. I don't see that anything is really lost by denying the "instantaneous" nature of rebirth. In this case there would be no intervening periods of consciousness or existence between lives----just a hiatus while the information travels.

TheSerpentLord

Many thanks to everyone that answered. With your replies and some independent research, I could clear up my misconceptions on the impermanace/non-self issue. My mistake was to assume that impermanance (annicca) and suffering/change (dukka) applies to all phenomena (dhamma), including non-conditioned phenomena. I was wrong, it only applies to conditioned/compounded phenomena (samkara). On the contrary, non-self (anatta) applies to all phenomena (dhamma).

While we are on topic, I thought I will share some other research I was doing on the topic. This is from the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula (pages 59-60):

I will post my replies to the answers regarding rebirth at a later time. Go to be going now. Any comments regarding the quoted text?

Volker.Doormann

Yes.

There is an arguing. It seems that a person is arguing. The person deals with terms. The terms shell have any importance. But - a term is just only an idea in the mind. The mind is physical located in the brain. A brain is as impermanent as a person. An arguing person dealing with terms is impermanent. This means, that all thought arguing has no permanence. The person is the self. If the arguing person is impermanent, then the Self is impermanent and has no life after the death of the body. This Self dies.

But this is not all of the truth. There is a permanent soul, that is aware about this and can perceive truth and love. Truth and love are permanent, absolute, and immaterial. Immaterial 'existance' can only be recognized. The person who says, that there is no Self, is either a Self or a soul. It seems, that the arguing person is a Self. From this it can be learned, that there is no way over the thought - which is physical - to understand the permanent soul. The permanent soul itself must recognize the truth. There is a personal Self, but it has no spiritual meaning. If Buddhists do not search for their own soul, they do ignore themselves as soul and are mortal Self's, mortal persons, physical persons, impermanent persons of flesh only. Nothing else. (?)

Volker

TheSerpentLord

Hi Volker

Ok, I am a bit confused by your reply. Actually, I am very confused. First, what do you mean by a Self? as in when you say that "the arguing person is a Self".

I personally do not believe is a soul or self. My understanding of a self or soul is that it is some sort of a permanent & unchanging identity or substance. In that case, I agree with the Buddhists that there is no such thing. Another reason for my disbelief is that there is no way to detect such a thing.

I can't speak for all Buddhists but I can say that most believe that a human being is composed of the five aggregates: matter, sensation, perception, mental formations & consciousness which are constantly changing. This is why they deny a permament self or a soul. Therefore, searching for a soul would be pointless for most Buddhists.

In an earlier thread, you say:
I have not seen nirvana defined as a "soul consciousness" anywhere before. As far as I know, nirvana literally means 'blowing out' and one is said to have realized nibbana when he has rid himselfof ignorance, desire and hatred.

TheSerpentLord

I think you have got the gist of my problem oser, you seemed to have paraphrased it much better.

Out of the three solutions you offered, I will have to go with 2 as well. I see the kind of rebirth when one person dies and is reborn in another place as a bit too far fetched to me personally.

However, I have no problem with the continuation of thoughts (or the rebirth of thoughts) as described in the Abbhidhamma, what they call the cittavithi or the though process. However, at this stage, I am reluctant to extend this process to future lives as well.

One more question for you: what is the connection between one thought that has given birth to another thought? Say thought X results in thought Y, then what is the relationship between them? Is there only a causal relationship between them according to the Buddhist perspective?