"What happens when we die?"

Many people pose this question to me. First of all, as with most questions, it begs definition of its terms. What is meant by "we" and what is meant by "die"?

If by "we," one is referring to the physical body, well, clearly we already know that after the physical body dies, worms eat it. But I don't think people are talking about the physical body when they ask this question.

So, what are they talking about? When a man asked Buddha this question, he responded by saying something like: "So silly to ask what happens after death, when you don't even know what happens in life." 


What did he mean by that? Well, in reality, whether or not we call something life or death, still it all happens automatically with nobody in it. You are no more alive than the word "you" is alive. It is an illusion that there is a true "you" that the word "you" points to which itself is alive. In direct experience we can see that the concept of self is created in the brain/mind in order to integrate various streams of perception through time and space, but it is not any kind of essence that actually exists anywhere.

Now, there is a lot of literature on Near Death Experiences (NDEs) which I have read, so probably people are thinking in those terms. The interesting thing about NDEs is that they are very much influenced by culture. There are some common themes that cut across cultures, but a Thai NDE is nothing like a western NDE, is nothing like a Tibetan NDE. What does that tell us about the nature of the NDE? It tells us that what the mind expects to happen at death (even via subconscious things like hearing stories of others who have had NDEs) is very likely what it will get. There are actually some very strange and hilarious Hindu NDE stories. I've read numerous accounts of people going thru the whole life review process and seeing into the afterlife and all this, and then being told by some kind of cosmic clerk, "woops, sorry, we thought you were this other guy who was supposed to die (same name and town)... we're going to send you back now... sorry about that." 

The other thing about NDEs is that they are not true DEATH experiences. They are only NEAR death experiences. Nobody ever *actually* dies in an NDE. So what do I mean by "actual" death? Well first of all, we are now learning that it is almost impossible to define what physical death is, since people have been declared dead and then woken up a week later as if nothing happened. Brain death is a term which is quite difficult to define, since the brain may appear dead on an EEG or fMRI, and then later it may boot back up again. But again, I don't think most people reading this care about this idea of physical death. 

So what is "real" death then, if not physical death? To me, "real" death is when the sense of self is obliterated completely, at least for a period of time. The only way that it could get any realer is if the person physically died and did not have any more rebirths (no more identification), but then we would never hear from that person again so there would be know way of knowing what this state (called parinirvana) is, except to extrapolate from what we know of the state of nirvana that is experienced by many beings who are awakening today, as well as folks all thru the ages who have learned the nature of reality (dependent origination). 

The strange thing is that many people, including "myself" have "experienced" the obliteration of sense of self, either via psychedelics or meditation (like this technique that I employ) or just realization due to logical thinking. And this experience of no self can be somehow remembered and conveyed, although one who has not experienced it can not quite imagine what is being conveyed, generally speaking. Imagine everything in the universe, all appearances, instead of being seen from one point of view, are seen from every perspective, every angle, without any seer behind all the seeing. All the appearances (at every level, from atoms to stars) are self-seen without any reference point nor background observing awareness whatsoever. Since all the appearances are dependently originated, they are fully interpenetrating, tho still not simply One appearance. Depending on what kinds of traces of clinging remain in this state, there may or may not be infinite bliss associated with it--for "me," at first, there was not bliss, due to the habit of identity still remaining strong, but after time, the state was filled with infinite happiness. 

In my day-to-day waking life, as of this writing, I remain stuck in the self-delusion experientially, but my teacher, Soh Wei Yu, and many others on the facebook group Dharma Connection, are living day-to-day without sense of self interfering most of the time (in what is called "the natural state").

What's wrong with just trying to "live the dream"? Forget liberation...

J: From the perspective of self, all is not perfect. All is really quite shitty but most people don't spend the time to think about it.

 

D: Not perfect, true, all shitty is perspective. All is clearly not any one thing except illusion, no?

One person says all is shitty, one says eighty percent shitty…etc… once says all is good…

one says all is mustard…

J: No, it is *logically* truly shitty from the perspective of self. Why? Because everything the self thinks is pleasing to it vanishes. The self never gets what it truly wants. The self never escapes death. The self can never hold on to any loved ones. In fact, even the self that thinks things are lovely is not the same self the next moment who thinks they suck, so what kind of insanity is it to say that the first self, the one who spoke  a minute ago, is correct that things are really great?

If we cannot see how truly shitty it is to be a self, then we have no desire nor hope for liberation. 

But I am not going to try to convince you to see it this way any longer. It's up to you (well, ultimately it isn't even up to you, it's up to conditions that nobody has any control over--again, that's why this self stuff is so shitty, we have no control over anything but we are so insane that we think we do). 

  

 J: Like I said, it's like a dream. In a dream, there are dream characters. Do they exist? Will they exist in the next dream?

 

D: Yes.

J: Hmm... that's pretty rare for me to have dream characters cross over from one dream to another and feel that they are the same people in each dream. Even the one I associate myself with is totally different from one dream to the next and generally has no recall of the past dream. 

 

J: The illusion goes on forever until it is seen thru. You will die when the body dies, and then someone else will be born in another realm, having no memory whatsoever of your life, but identifying due to you not quitting your habit of identification. Thus your selfishness now leads to the suffering of the "next" person who you think is you, but who really isn't you. Remember the analogy of the candle lighting another candle. The candle is the identity (you). You are helping to light up another suffering identity by not blowing out your own flame of identification.

 

D: Someone else? Again, perspective, someone else, you could say that sure. Still you, you could say that too. People have “past life” experiences… or, at least they say they do.

J: If you said that someone in a future or past life is "you" then you would have to define what you mean by that, because it makes no logical sense as I see it. What makes "you" "you"? Is it not the memories that you have and the feeling that these memories define you? Otherwise, how are you any different from anyone else? Indeed, even in this life, our sense of self is always shifting, so it is a stretch to say that I am the same person I was when I was a baby--there really isn't much at all the same about me. But to say I'm the same person I was when I was, say, a caterpillar, 3 million years ago, is really quite a stretch of the imagination, and I doubt the caterpillar (nor his friends & family) would agree with me. 

And I myself have past life memories. But I don't feel at all like those past lives are *me*. They are not this life. I am not a woman in love with a man from Mexico, heart broken that he lied to me about not being married already to a Mexican woman and maybe just using me to get a green card. I am not a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period. These are simply memories that somehow came across--anyone could have these memories. 

In fact, if I truly did feel that these past lives were me, then I might be in quite a mess, because I would probably still want to find some of these loved ones that I had and let them know that I'm ok and so forth. One guy did some 5-meo-dmt and came back with such vivid past life memories of "his" old family that he left his current family and tried to reconnect with "his" old one. It ruined his life to identify with "his" past life. 

 

D: I'm perfectly happy with illusion.

 

J: Sorry to hear that. Looks like LU hasn't helped you at all then, and neither have I.

 

D: Not perfectly happy. There are two of me, many in fact. One part says this, one part says that. They’re just words. Some aspects of life I feel happy with in some moments I think and as far as I can tell.

J: Ok, so now you see that the you who said you were perfectly happy with illusion is not even the you that you are now. So how on earth could you identify with a past life when you can't even identify with yourself from last night? 

So let's say there's one of you that is happy, and the others of you are not as happy. Which ones of you are seeing things more clearly? I'd say, the ones of you which see that they are only versions of you which come and go, are seeing things more clearly. Do you notice that those ones of you who know they are just versions who come and go are also the less happy versions of you, who are more interested in liberation from suffering?

 

D: I want to learn more about this letting go you speak of and don’t understand it yet. Never seeing the sun or the ocean, petting a cat, hugging someone... I'm not going to lie and say that sounds good to me because it doesn't but I am interested in understanding non-duality of that's what it can be called.

J: When I speak of letting go, I'm talking about letting go of delusion. It is delusion for you to see the sun, because the universe does not exist for you to see it. The universe is not revolving around you, even though it feels like that when you are identified as a self. You are not doing anything and you never have. You are a concept created in this brain to associate disparate perceptions with one unified subject.

In reality, the sun experiences itself, the petting experiences itself, every appearance is self-seen and already perfect in reality, none of it is yours, nor could it logically be so. Obviously it is hard to imagine what I'm talking about, so instead of imagining it, just look hard at this sense of *owning* experience. Look hard enough to see that it is a delusion and don't forget that. Wish only for an end to the delusion of owning experience.  

 

J: [Any view of ultimate reality, whether true or not, will] have the same results for someone who doesn't actually care, like you (or the you that just wrote that message, which kind of seems like a different you than normal). 

 

 

D: I forgot what I don’t care about but I’m pretty sure I care whatever it was.

J: So, you forgot what you don't care about, but you are pretty sure you still care about whatever it was. Hmm... why does that sound like a cop out to me? I was saying that you (the you who was writing before) don't care about liberation, since as "you" said, the illusion is (was) quite lovely. 

J: For someone who wants to stop birth and death, it is important to know the difference between God/divine intelligent planning/creator/dreamer and automatic perfection with nobody in it.

 

D: Would you explain the difference?

J: A creator God is an extension of the delusion of self-view. Because you see yourself as existing, then if you think about the death of yourself, you imagine that there must be some higher self which doesn't die. Because you see yourself as creating things with your will power, you imagine there must be a higher self that is creating things with its will power. 

Dependent origination/automatic perfection with nobody in it, is the understanding that nobody is creating anything and that such a view is completely illogical, since everything happens due to conditions. The appearance of "self" happens due to conditions, and it does not mean there actually is any true entity called self. Just as the feeling of divinity does not mean that there is a true entity called God who creates the universe. 

Liberation from delusion requires seeing things as they are, not from the perspective of fantasy. 

 

J: And btw, I'm no stranger myself to falling back into the illusion. So don't take it personally that I'm trying to slap you out of it. I wish I had a friend to slap me out of it on a daily basis. I guess that's why folks become monks.

 

D: I won’t take it personally and appreciate your help and friendship. But monks don’t go out and talk to people, they just stay home and pray, don’t they?

J: Monks are all different. But all of them have left behind the life of "someone" who has worldly goals, and have donned the robes to remind themselves of their purpose here. 

Some monks wander through forests, wishing to not get too comfortable in any one place. Other monks stay in a monastery in order to help each other remember why they became monks.  Other monks stay in caves for long periods in order to focus on the sense of self without the distraction of relating to others. 

Not everyone has the capacity to become a monk (due to family obligations, etc.), but those of us who are not monks actually have a much harder time letting go of delusion, because we still act in the world just like everyone else. We still have to get the same things others have to get accomplished. We fall into delusion and forget about liberation with nothing nor anyone to remind us, except for when we experience more suffering.

I once read a quote from an elder monk regarding newly ordained monks. He said that 99% of the new monks end up quitting, because they are not yet done with their attachment to suffering. 

Rebirth is vital to understand for liberation to be realized

Namaste friends!

I find that even tho many people are able to see that there is no self, they still do not understand rebirth, which means they still are not likely to be liberated from rebirth (how can you liberate yourself from something you don't see? But perhaps "magically" that wisdom will come to you anyway?).

The inability to consider rebirth (c.f. the article on SecularBuddhism), is often conflated with scientific skepticism, when in fact it is merely relying on habitual assumptions. Please note, I am not speaking of rebirth of the mind but rather rebirth of some of the clinging habits of the mind due to reification, or in other words, the continuation of a "mind-stream" from one mind to another (like the continuation of the process of burning when you let one candle light another--it is not the same flame, tho there was never really any continuous thing called flame).

To me, Secular Buddhism should be about taking the core teachings of Buddha and investigating them. To say that rebirth is impossible to investigate is completely untrue, and it does not require memories of past lives to understand rebirth as a rational notion. Furthermore, the Secular Buddhist Assocation should not even call itself Buddhist if it does not promote the goal of Nibbana. The point of Nibbana is to end birth, and the suffering attendant with identifying as a body/mind. Buddha never taught the way to live a happy life on Earth. He rejected all kinds of earthly pleasures in order to not be (and as a result of not being) attached to this body/mind. By teaching anatta, Buddha was showing us the root ignorance that keeps us bound up in samsara. If ignorance somehow "magically" ends for "me" at the death of this mind ("my" mind), then there is no need to practice at all. We could simply kill ourselves. Indeed, there are some folks who seem to think this might work, though they are a bit shy of saying exactly that, over at SecularBuddhism.

One thing I can agree with regarding the SecularBuddhism position on rebirth is that it actually happens [not just after physical death, but] moment to moment the sense of self is re-established, re-imagined to be a continuously existing entity, as explained scientifically by Bro. Billy Tan, and philosophically/dharmically/experientally by Soh Wei Yu.

It *does* make sense to say that the human mind is a product of the physical brain (which is actually not a thing but a collection of processes that are not separate from nature/its environment). But there is no reason to assume that the brain leaves no trace after its death. Everything else in nature continues on in some form after decaying. TV signals go out into space forever, for example. Waves on the ocean form new waves after breaking. Brainwaves/mind patterns do also, even if they attenuate to be unmeasurable by our instruments at a certain distance. If you want a scientific hypothesis to explain rebirth, I suggest you check out neuroscientist Todd Murphy's book, Sacred Pathways.

But suffice it to say that there is no evidence in science that the human brain produces awareness. This is called the "hard problem of consciousness" in neuroscience. Most people simply assume that awareness (what some call consciousness) is produced in the brain, but they have no understanding of how that might happen--how could some molecules in a certain formation produce awareness? It makes more sense to assume that awareness is simply a fundamental aspect of nature, but the human brain is special in that it is capable of reflection, symbolic thought, and imagination. Thus we have self-awareness as a result of the mind/brain, but it is built upon nature's pre-existing awareness. Don't get confused and think that I'm saying there is a background awareness... I'm saying that all appearances are by nature aware, so awareness and appearances are not separate (i.e. everything is a process happening AS awareness, not IN awareness). 

Whenever there is identification as a habit of mind, there will be a "body" of some sort to support that identification with a "part" of reality. Recent neuroscience has proven that when people are shown images of arms attached to their body in some VR goggles, their brain quickly assumes that those arms are actually their own arms (the person can feel the pain from those arm images being smashed with hammer images). This proves that the mind/brain can imagine itself up a body. There is also research showing that just by imagining exercise, the mind can tone the body's muscle mass. So it is not a huge leap to say that the mind can also create the brain, even as the brain forms the mind.

When identification stops as a result of the culmination of insight, there is a phenomenon called "Mind/body drop" experienced by stream enterers (the first of four levels of awakening to No Self), in which now there is no longer a division between seen and seer, nor is there "seeing" of the seen. In the seen, only the seen. In the heard, only the heard. In the cognized, only the cognized (taken from the Bahiya sutta). Thus, even while others may still see a body/mind operating, from the perspective of this liberated one, there is not a mind/body at the center of experience. There is only reality itself which is prior to experience of it. 

Without a belief in the likelihood of rebirth, it is hard to take all of this spirituality stuff seriously, because this human life is good enough (or if it isn't, then we can try to improve it rather than focusing on overcoming the view of actual beings existing). Even if beings suffer enough to seek wisdom, and then understand No Self & automatic perfection, liberation doesn't make much sense, because liberation from what? If death is the end of this mind/body which thinks it is you, then that's all, that's it, so what? Everyone gets to the same no-self place at the end, right? Even the Catholic nun Bernadette Roberts who wrote the book "What is Self," does not understand liberation from birth & death, although in an unpublished paper she wrote, she did recently start to express doubt that all people end up in the same no-Self realization at death. But that is all she can do, doubt, because she does not understand rebirth--it doesn't fit into Catholic dogma (neither does No Self, but she has wedged that in somehow).

But with an understanding of rebirth, one realizes how important it is to break this cycle of identification (even while understanding that ultimately, there never was anyone here). 

When you are dreaming, notice that you generally do not have any more dreams after becoming (fully) lucid, but until you become (fully) lucid, you continue having more dreams, one after another, and in all of them you seem to exist in a body. Now, if you get to the Advaita realization of "I AM" (awareness seeing itself), your mind may seem to encompass the entire universe. But that is not liberation from the mind, just a very high degree of luminosity of mind. It is like becoming lucid in a dream but identifying as the dream itself rather than realizing the dream has no identity to it. When the dream ends, "you" (as the dream itself) still die & may take another body/mind in the next dream, just as a wave forms into another wave after breaking.

In fact, there is no way to prove that we are not currently in a "meta-dream"... that is, there is no reason to believe that this so-called physical reality is not just another dream in which we go to sleep every night and have sub-dreams (a la the movie Inception). On the other hand, if we try to define what "physical reality" means and how it would be different from what "meta-dream" means, we may find that we can't exactly differentiate the two. But I just like the sound of "meta-dream" because it allows us to stop identifying with this body as much. 

To sum up, there is no actual scientific reason to believe that rebirth is not possible, as long as we do not assume that the mind/brain is what is being reborn. Thus, it is a logical assumption to make, based on our experience in dreams and our knowledge of how the mind is able to conjure up bodies for itself in this so-called physical reality.

I found this excerpt from the Dharma Connection facebook group to be useful:

Kyle Dixon: Raan writes:

"From the standpoint of Anatta realization there is apparently nothing and no one to be reborn and on one and nothing to which karma might apply even if these were not a matter of belief. So I have not seen yet how any of the above discussion or definition has established these as more than beliefs anyway. Do we need to swallow the litany of dependent origination blindly after all? I understand the intent of it certainly however I do not agree entirely with the order and structure. The question remains as to how ignorance might occur in the first place. It is tantamount to the Theistic "problem of evil" I have yet to see a Theodicy, if you will, of ignorance. But really when it comes down to it, it does not matter since a realization of Anatta dispels it all anyway."

-----------------

Regarding the idea of no-self and rebirth: from the standpoint of anatta or otherwise there has never, ever once at any time been someone or something for karma to apply to. That is the entire point of this, and that is why realizing anatta, etc., is possible. If there truly were a 'self' endowed with valid existence then anatta would be an impossibility.

Buddhism is never dealing with 'selves', it is dealing with causes and conditions, afflictive processes and habitual patterns. The 'self' is merely a useful (ultimately unfounded) convention attributed to the sum total of those processes. There is no self enduring from moment to moment, there is patterns of conduct, behavior, grasping, which are simultaneous causes and effects for further proliferation of the same expressions.

For example, from Nāgārjuna's Pratītyadsamutpādakarika:

"Empty dharmas are entirely produced
from dharmas strictly empty;
dharmas without a self and [not] of a self.
Words, butter lamps, mirrors, seals,
fire crystals, seeds, sourness and echoes.
Although the aggregates are serially connected,
the wise are to comprehend nothing has transfered.
Someone, having conceived of annihilation,
even in extremely subtle existents,
he is not wise,
and will never see the meaning of ‘arisen from conditions’."

And in his Pratītyasamutpādakarikavhyakhyana, Nāgārjuna states in reply to a question:

"Question: Nevertheless, who is the lord of all, creating sentient beings, who is their creator?
Reply: All living beings are causes and results."

And in the same text:

"Therein, the aggregates are the aggregates of matter, sensation, ideation, formations and consciousness. Those, called ‘serially joined’, not having ceased, produce another produced from that cause; although not even the subtle atom of an existent has transmigrated from this world to the next."

And lastly from Lopon Kunga Namdrol:
The point is that the question is phrased wrong requiring at best an ambigious answer that will confuse more than edify.

Buddha in fact discussed this with Sharputra saying that if he answers the question "yes there is something that undergoes birth" people will become confused and assuem there is a permanent self that undergoes retribution of action and so on. Likewise, if he answers the question "no, there is nothing which undergoes rebirth" likewise there are those who will assume there are no consequences of action and so on and will therefore feel no compelling need observe the principles of karma and so on.

Therefore when asked the question "what takes rebirth" he points out that question itself is flawed.

The question should be "Why is there birth?" The answere to that question is easy. There is birth, i.e. suffering, because of affliction and action.

As long as the aggregates are afflicted, afflicted aggregates will continue to be appropriated.

In Madhyamaka it is explained there is birth because of the innate self-grasping "I am" appearing to the afflicted mind. It is asserted that what appropriates birth in a new series of aggregates is the mental habit "I am." That "I am" is baseless, has no correspondence in the aggregates or seperate from them or in any one of them, just as a car is not found in its parts, seperate from them, or in any one of the parts. Nevertheless, the imputation "car" allows us to use cars effectively. Likewise, the mental habit "I am" is proper as both the agent of action and the object upon which it ripens even though it is basically unreal and has no basis in the aggregates, outside the aggregates, or in any one of them, but allows us to treat the aggreates as a nominally designated "person".
3 hrs · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon So there is a conventional self, but that doesn't truly constitute a self. The self is an expression of karma, where there is karma there is conditioning, and the perception of a self appears as a result of those processes. There is no actual self (nor actual absence thereof) though, in any sense of the term.

If those karmic propensities are allowed to proliferate, then the conditions persist. The continuity of those afflictive propensities is reincarnation. What reincarnates is habitual patterns, however again, there is no actual self within that patterning. That is why when one's karma is exhausted then liberation occurs.

The entire occurrence is equivalent to an illusion, it is no different than going to bed at night and waking up the next morning with the impression that the same entity who went to sleep the night before is now waking up to begin a new day. Those processes of confusion beget further confused processes. When confusion is overturned, then those processes are seen for what they are, devoid of substantiality
3 hrs · Edited · Unlike · 3
Kyle Dixon: And if the issue arises from a Zen standpoint; here are a few excerpts from Dōgen's Shōbōgenzō:

5.386 "If people who study Buddha Dharma have no genuine faith or true mindfulness, they will certainly dispense with and ignore [the law of] causality."

6.437 "denying karma is wrong view, zazen with wrong view is useless"

7.504 "Tathagatas [Buddhas] never go beyond clarifying cause and effect"

7.510 "Students of the way cannot dismiss cause and effect. If you discard cause and effect, you will ultimately deviate from practice-realization."
3 hrs · Unlike · 4