🔴 My Dhamma Book (also available on Amazon): drive.google.com/file/d/1d8VYL5iOi76u1AEmyI7iGpgPP3T5FaNa/view?usp=sharing 🔴 My Almanac (also available on Amazon): drive.google.com/file/d/1VzAw8zHdhOsDDUzPEubTN64qhVmQhZ0m/view?usp=sharing 🔴 True Dhamma Lecture: kzread.info/dash/bejne/X6mjvJWCl9erlbQ.html 🔴 True Dhamma Hub Discord: discord.gg/AcDwZ78ybn

Thank you for making these videos. they inspire me to deepen my practice and further study the dharma.

thank you! I was pondering about "reincarnation" for a little a while and you video helped clarify that the actual point is rebirth which is a very different thing.

I think the candle simile is actually somewhat misleading. Better to describe it in terms of "there is birth, there are the aggregates", if you know what I mean.

Could you explain the mechanism that allows kamma to persist between lives? It seems (in my limited personal understanding) that the aggregates will end completely upon physical/mental death. There is no self beyond these aggregates, so how at the point of death can ‘my’ kamma light any other ‘candle’? What difference does it make if I break a cycle that only exists within my impermanent aggregates?

@carotxauxi8409

Жыл бұрын

Just try to reply to see how much I understand about this matter, for further and accurate answers, please wait Flaus. After dissolution of the body, the consciousness is still there in universe, the consciousness is the accumulation of our deeds (that match our craving in this life or another life), so the flame from this candle to another candle, it's a new starting for consciousness I guess. And self as Flaus said, it's just conditional, with too much craving, self continue to grow, with less craving, self will taking away, that's why how suffering ending, there is no sense of ownership. If you break the cycle, there will be no starting and ending (nirvana). The Buddha did use a simile of fire to explain it, but I forgot sutta number.

@TheDhammaHub

Жыл бұрын

The "aggregates" only truly break apart for an arahant, as the supporting conditions for them have vanished. They persist for as long as there is an owned body as their basis but lo longer than that. So what you describe is the "reality of an arahant". For everyone else, the supporting conditions for the aggregates remain and as a result, the conditions for the renewal of being are met. It is a "conditional statement", as I often say. For a person who still has avijja, there _is_ self. Self only stops being there when ignorance stops being there as a support.

@ismetcardak

Жыл бұрын

Aggregates are not only impermanent at the point of death. Impermanent means they're out of you hand at any point. You're subjected to death because the aggregates are impermanent, not vice versa. You can think of kamma as the momentum of your being. Your being is always directed, always moving, fueled by craving. So as long as that engine is running your being is manifested and you'll be subjected to impermanence of the aggregates: birth, aging, sickness, death.

@DannyColSpector

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub Okay, so kamma continues as long as the supporting conditions remain, including craving, and self continues as long as ignorance remains. But I still wonder what the mechanism is at the point of death to allow the kamma to be ‘transferred’ to another life. Can it be explained via a physical mechanism, for example? (Conventionally, it is pregnancy that gives rise to a new life, for example. How does rebirth relate to that physical mechanism?)

@TheDhammaHub

Жыл бұрын

@@DannyColSpector You will not find any satisfying scientific explanation as science is based on a set of assumptions/axioms that contradict with observable reality about suffering and most things that have to do with it. Buddhism is about "personal experience" while science tries to eliminate the subjective observer. Yet, rebirth happens "within" subjectivity. That said, physically is involved too. The Buddha named 3 conditions that lead to an imminent rebirth. Technically, the new "viewpoint" is assumed on the point of conception when mother, father and the consciousness to be "meet".

I listened multiple times to the video, but really it doesn't make much sense to me - is their a "self", that changes its point of view and basically takes on a new personality, or not? Because, if not, the whole thing with karma is pointless, since it is not "me" in any sense, just other people and there is no causation of circumstances.

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

As I said before, as long as we are affected by ignorance/avijja, there _is_ a sense of being/self. The problem is, that this self that we _assume_ to be unchanging and eternla, is in fact _not_ unchanging. We implicitly navigate through life assuming that the "one who sits behind our eyes" is always the same to which things happen. That is our "basic assumption" or simply ignorance. As you pointed out, rebirth _only_ makes sense based on the wrong view that there is this everlasting, permanent being. And with this assumption, rebirth "feels real to us". Yet, the reality constantly contradicts our default assumption but we look away. This looking away is, again, ignorance/avijja. Based on this ignorance, there is being and rebirth that we assume to be happening to "us". But yet, in a sense it is indeed pointless and not worth maintaining. It is a bit like starting a video game over and over while losing your memory. Hence the Dhamma offers an escape from this.

@Starborne398

Ай бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I will think about this.

You remind me of many suttas that say “the aggregates are not me, I am not the aggregates, the aggregates are not mine.” Is this why the self cannot be seen and the mind cannot comprehend the reality of the self? Because there is a self, but it is nowhere directly present in experience? Would this also imply ownership also only outside the aggregates?

@TheDhammaHub

Жыл бұрын

Hey! Interestingly, the Buddha said that "self" is neither _in_ the aggregates, nor exists _apart from_ them. He explained the relationship as one who is "burning dependent on fuel" (which is in your RELATIONSHIP with the aggregates). He also said many times that there is nothign apart from the aggregates ;D

@5piles

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub technically the buddha said PERSONS are neither the same as mind and body nor separate than mind and body. the self ie. atman on the other hand is an object to be entirely negated by correct view since it does not exist at all, whereas arhats and buddhas are dependently arisen persons who are the accurate referents of names ie. a particular person is the referent of the name 'lord shakyamuni buddha'. like ven. ananda thera said decades ago theravada is dead and this can be seen in modern explanations where persons are outright negated, mistaking nihilism as no-self, and believing such things as objects of awareness are not seen by any validly existing person. they have also completely redefined shamata and jhanas and the result as ven. ananda said was essentially noone is achieving even basic shamata/access concentration anymore though they believe they do in their mass of confusions.

@TheDhammaHub

Жыл бұрын

@@5piles I think its easier to use Pali terms here if we want to be specific^^ What term are you referring to when you say "person"? Puggala/creature? And concernign self, as far as I know the Buddha said not even once in the entire Canon that "self does not exist". He only said that nothing should be regarded as self, which is a crucial difference. For someone with wrong view, self is very real and even for a person with Right View, being/self is still there to some degree. Otherwise the entire chain of dependent origination would be kinda useless^^

@5piles

Жыл бұрын

@@TheDhammaHub yes a dependently arisen puggala/person, which is the valid referent of names and 'i'. we deny impossible ways of existing of persons. we deny a self/atta (atman) to persons. in other words we deny an unchanging, monolithic, and independent self to persons by realizing vipassana which establishes the actual nature of dependently arisen persons. therefore the primary goal of the buddha is anatman, the denial of the self/atta, through explanations such 'the person is neither the same as mind and body, nor different than mind and body.' the buddha did not say 'the atta is neither... etc', because the buddhas whole point is that the atta does not exist at all and never did. it is only a deluded appearance. in other words a self is not a valid referent of names and 'i', and is not an object that has relationship with mind and body at all let alone being neither same as or different to mind and body. only existing things such as dependently arisen persons can be indicated and shown their status as not identical to nor different than mind and body....saying such things about nonexistent things like a self or upsidedown purple elephants is void of any meaning. sautrantika and up of course having far more sophisticated comprehension of the self to persons to be negated, establishing deeper meaning to dependent arising

Thanks! I have so many questions on this topic! I'll send you an email if you don't mind. I'm very much interested in your opinion.

Okay, but What or Who changes their point of view?

@TheDhammaHub

Ай бұрын

With ignorance as a condition, rebirth applies. Without ignorance as a condition, rebirth does no apply^^ There is a process that is guided by desires and past choices that manifests as being which has a pov

Isn't it thought Pyrrhus was developing a sort of Buddhism?

@TheDhammaHub

Жыл бұрын

I do not know that person, maybe someone else can answer this?