PDA

View Full Version : Re-birth: Do you believe it?



Pages : [1] 2 3

jack
14 May 10, 00:06
Just wondering who here practices Buddhism with a belief in re-birth and who does not. Either way, could you also give the reasons behind your belief.

Esho
14 May 10, 00:46
Hi jack,

Well, in Zen rebirth is not an issue but I believe in it. I do not have heavy reasons; is more like an insight when I observe how nature is arround us; like understanding that "things" manifestate when some conditions are present and do not when that same conditions fade away.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

stuka
14 May 10, 02:11
Hi Jack,

The idea of "re-birth" is a much later invention that has been cobbled together with patchwork to get around the problems that the Buddha's teaching of Anatta poses for reincarnation beliefs. It is often falsely substituted for the word "birth" (jati) in translations of the Buddha's teachings, but jati is not the word for reincarnation. Functionally, the idea of "re-birth"is a workaround, a "reincarnation that is not reincarnation", a "reincarnation that does not involve an 'atta'." It's patchwork, it's sloppy,and the Buddha didn't teach it.

You refer to "belief" in your request: "...the reasons behind your 'belief'." This is not a matter of "belief", any more than the question "do you believe in God, Allah, and/or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?" -- the question tends to presume the existence of the subject: "if you don't believe in God, why don't you believe in him?.." My non-belief is not based upon a belief with respect to the speculative view/superstition of "re-birth"; it stems from seeing and knowing for myself that such superstitions and speculative views are irrelevant to the Buddha's own, unique, liberative teachings and practices. I do not presume that the liberative teachings of the Buddha have anything to do with pre-Buddha beliefs in reincarnation and their assumptions that liberation is annihilation. I note that the Buddha proclaimed that his teachings were designed to quench suffering through the elimination of ignorance, craving and clinging, and I do not subscribe to the point of view that equates "suffering" with "round of re-births".

Personally studying and practicing the teachings of the Buddha, I find such superstitions and their various convoluted explanations wanting and irrelevant. I find that the Buddha's liberative teachings have no "loose ends", and are -- just as he himself claimed -- universal, timeless, relevant to everyone, visible to anyone, free of patchwork, and to be experienced by the wise for themselves. The idea of "re-birth" is none of these.

jack
14 May 10, 02:33
stuka,

Thanks. So what happens at the end of the physical body? Does some sort of life (not the soul, or a self delusion) get carried on somewhere else, eventually giving birth to another illusory self? Or does it end there i.e. ultimate nibanna?

If it does, what's the point, and things like suicide, would be just fine?

What was the Buddha talking about when he talked of rebirth then? He did talk of rebirth, and of samsara.

jack
14 May 10, 03:00
Some confusing excerpts from Buddhanet:


Take away the notion of a soul or a being living inside the body; take away all ideas of self existing either inside or outside the body. Also take away notions of past, present and future; in fact take away all notions of time. Now, without reference to time and self, there can be no before or after, no beginning or ending, no birth or death, no coming or going. Yet there is life! Rebirth is the experience of life in the moment, without birth, without death; it is the experience of life which is neither eternal nor subject to annihilation.

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:01
What Stuka says is very reasonable and well said.

I also know that I live on a infinitesimally microscopic bubbling mote of dirt, water, fire, and air that's whizzing around a huge flaming sphere at 65,000 miles an hour...in a space that is believed to be infinite, that is full of bursting universes inside of larger universes, cyclical tidal forces, explosions that hurl flaming matter at a million miles an hour, whirlpools a billion times larger than Earth, dark energy fields, and black holes. On this tiny, dynamic, volatile speck of material chaos that we call home...there are creatures that are animated by air that have a strange habit of occasionally supersizing or miniaturizing, every once in a while a mountain of stone and fire collides with the planet with interesting results, and when atoms are mined for their smallest components freaky physics things start happening "in there". And don't get me started on the oddity of the human being morphing out of monkeys with the ability to do trigonometry and fly to the moon, and whether we should even exist in an environment that we are physically unprepared to live in without compensating radically for a variety of seemingly missing features and essential capabilities.

So, given the nature of where we're appearing, I wouldn't rule out anything. It's pretty darn strange here if we look close and far enough.

As for literal rebirth, I don't know and don't care -I just do my best to be clear about where I am and what time it is here in Wonderland, where everything is odd (though oddly taken for granted by most). I'm here, and it's now...I find it hard enough to stay clear on just this...I don't need to get distracted by what is, at least for me, an abstractive imponderable that has no answer.

jack
14 May 10, 03:07
I don't need to get distracted by what is, at least for me, an abstractive imponderable that has no answer.

Fair assessment. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif



I'm here, and it's now...

There's no "I"!!! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:10
There's no "I"!!!

Ultimately, true. But it's practice that makes that clear, not just "believing" it or thinking it.

jack
14 May 10, 03:13
Ultimately, true. But it's practice that makes that clear, not just "believing" it or thinking it.

Same goes for rebirth, I suppose. It's one of those itching issues though, you have to admit. Like the whole mind reading thing, I have an inkling that I've met such a person.

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:14
Like the whole mind reading thing, I have an inkling that I've met such a person

There are many who can communicate beyond the physical mechanics of language. This was once very common, and when conditions are right it will be common again.

jack
14 May 10, 03:18
There are many.

Didn't expect that from you trike. You've had such an experience?

jack
14 May 10, 03:19
who can communicate beyond the physical mechanics of language. This was once very common, and when conditions are right it will be common again.

Oh, you mean like body language?

EDIT: Ah you said physical mechanics of language, which would include body language.

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:21
Oh, you mean like body language?

No.

jack
14 May 10, 03:24
No.

Ah you said physical mechanics of language, which would include body language.

You either have experiential knowledge of this, or you believe it. You're not crafting your replies according to what you think you should say best-fit for me are ya? http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/joker.gif

stuka
14 May 10, 03:30
from post #4

Jack, you asked a question and I answered it,and gave the reasons for it.

Now you are asking me to speculate upon irrelevant conjectural matters, and in doing so proselytizing the "re-birth" superstition to me, which now appears to be the reason for starting the thread in the first place.

The point is the quenching of suffering. The Buddha was clear on that, and so was I. Brahmavamso's "without 're-birth' we might as well die and be done with it" fallacy is a circular argument that only appears to make sense from its own perspective, that of its own assumptions. From any other angle it's nonsense.

In the context of his own teachings, the Buddha spoke of "jati", "birth", which carries the same sort of meanings as it does in English, including the "birth" if ideas, and the "birth" of self-view. He spoke of the nidanas of the paticcasamuppada as "arising and taking birth" depending upon each other. The Buddha never taught reincarnative "re-birth" of a "non-atta", or especially of any kind of "consciousness" -- and the latter of the two he humiliated a monk for claiming he taught, in MN 38.

Samsara for the Buddha was the misery of habitual patterns of thought that produce suffering in the here-and-now.

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:31
You're not crafting your replies according to what you think you should say best-fit for me are ya?

No.

The more familiar we are with mind, the more we know about how it works...but it's just more mind in action. Note it, move on.

jack
14 May 10, 03:33
The more familiar we are with mind, the more we know about how it works...but it's just more mind in action. Note it, move on.

Yes oh great enlightened one. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/bow.gif http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/whiteflag.gif

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 03:35
Samsara for the Buddha was the misery of habitual patterns of thought that produce suffering in the here-and-now.

Exactly so. The more familiar we are with mind, the clearer we see the dissatisfaction associated with the constant "becoming" stream that the mind is habituated to. Observing it without involvement in it reveals a constant rebirth of agitation and combustion that causes anguish in varying degrees.

stuka
14 May 10, 03:44
Jack said:

There's no "I"!!!



from post #7

Sure there's an "I". Its just that no Atta can be found among its constituent parts.

jack
14 May 10, 03:45
Brahmavamso's "without 're-birth' we might as well die and be done with it" fallacy is a circular argument that only appears to make sense from its own perspective, that of its own assumptions. From any other angle it's nonsense.


I have to disagree with that. If you and I both have no evidence of something, we can neither prove it or disprove it. We can only come to a conclusion given our experiences. My view on it, remains sceptical, although slightly inclined to believe it might be so, given what I thought about mind reading, and my recent experience of it that made me feel that it might very well be true.

jack
14 May 10, 03:46
Atta

What's atta?

jack
14 May 10, 03:54
I've heard of anatta and atman. Which are no-self and self. My view on no self is the total dissolution of the ego, where our mind stops identifying with that delusion. I'm not pretending to have reached that state, I only have an intellectual understanding of what it is.

stuka
14 May 10, 04:02
from post #20



I have to disagree with that. If you and I both have no evidence of something, we can neither prove it or disprove it. We can only come to a conclusion given our experiences. My view on it, remains sceptical, although slightly inclined to believe it might be so, given what I thought about mind reading, and my recent experience of it that made me feel that it might very well be true.

Just because there's no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean He doesn't exist.


Brahmavamso's assertion nonetheless only makes sense to one who cannot see past that speculative/superstitious perspective. To one who is not attached to that view, it's pure gobbledygook.

stuka
14 May 10, 04:07
from post #21



stuka #19:
Atta

What's atta?

...you are debating with me about what the Buddha taught, and you don't know this?

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/sad.gif

frank
14 May 10, 04:09
from post #18

As always Pink beautifully said.

stuka
14 May 10, 04:12
I've heard of anatta and atman. Which are no-self and self. My view on no self is the total dissolution of the ego, where our mind stops identifying with that delusion. I'm not pretending to have reached that state, I only have an intellectual understanding of what it is.

More like "non-self". Thinking in terms of totalities tends toward extremism. This is a developmental process, not a "either/or", "black/white" endeavor.

jack
14 May 10, 04:12
Brahmavamso's assertion nonetheless only makes sense to one who cannot see past that speculative/superstitious perspective. To one who is not attached to that view, it's pure gobbledygook.

Is there a possibility some people might be attached to the opposite of the notion of being superstitious?

Bottom line though, none of this matters, like you've pointed out and we all agree. Thanks for replying. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif


With metta,
Jack

jack
14 May 10, 04:14
...you are debating with me about what the Buddha taught, and you don't know this?

That's what I don't understand, I'm not debating. Honest, you guys come on strong, hence my question from trike, about whether answers are being engineered for me, sort of assuming, my stance.

frank
14 May 10, 04:15
Bottom line though, none of this matters, like you've pointed out and we all agree.

We do???

jack
14 May 10, 04:17
We do???

Well, about not worrying about abstract concepts, and the importance being on practice.

stuka
14 May 10, 04:34
Is there a possibility some people might be attached to the opposite of the notion of being superstitious?

"Some people"...? Let us please discuss issues and leave the personal innuendo behind.


Bottom line though, none of this matters, like you've pointed out and we all agree.
Sure this matters. It goes to the heart of what the meaning of the Buddhadhamma is. Is it about practical liberation from suffering, or is it just another pack of superstitions and empty platitudes?

stuka
14 May 10, 04:36
That's what I don't understand, I'm not debating. Honest, you guys come on strong,

What do you call this, then?:



If it does, what's the point, and things like suicide, would be just fine?

What was the Buddha talking about when he talked of rebirth then? He did talk of rebirth, and of samsara.

jack
14 May 10, 04:44
Ok, I think i'm beginning to understand what you have been saying all this time.

Excerpts from an MN 38 commentary found here (http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/library/download.php?aipath=259):


Bhikkhu Sàti is clearly influenced by the Buddha's teaching of rebirth. If there is rebirth, there
must be someone or something that is reborn; and that, ultimately, I am. Because if there is no-one
who is reborn, then who experiences the result of good or bad actions? The Buddha rejects the
notion that some-one is reborn; but then there must be some-thing, and this clearly is
consciousness. Bhikkhu Sàti says, "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not
another." Remaining the same long enough to be reborn, consciousness is permanent, and
therefore "my" ultimate identity must be found in consciousness. It all makes sense. Certainly this
logic would make perfect sense to the sages of the Upanisads, for whom this ultimate
consciousness, and this ultimate identity, is called àtman (self).

But it does not make sense to the Buddha, who declares, "have I not stated in many discourses
that consciousness is dependently arisen (pañiccasamupanna vi¤¤àõa), since without a condition
(paccaya) consciousness does not come into being?" It is not "this same consciousness" that runs
and wanders at all, for at any moment - at this moment - the consciousness which we experience,
and with which we identify, has arisen because of a condition, and it ceases because of a
condition.

But I don't believe I ever said that it is a self that gets reborn, the way I understood it was it was a rekindling of something inside, but not a permanent thing. Maybe that's me identifying with a self again. How do I explain it, lets say, that every being is made up of vibrations, and this vibration is a life force, which makes up the physical self and the mind, at death, do these vibrations move on?

Or do you think even that is just identifying with a self? It can't be, because the way I've understood it all this time, is that identification of a self is purely in the mind, and there is experience outside that.

jack
14 May 10, 04:45
What do you call this, then?:

Um, questions. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

jack
14 May 10, 04:47
"Some people"...? Let us please discuss issues and leave the personal innuendo behind.

Apologies, I felt a similar vibe from your posts, which is my fault.

jack
14 May 10, 04:54
What is atta? You never told me. Does it mean truth?

jack
14 May 10, 04:56
is it just another pack of superstitions and empty platitudes?

Another pack of superstitions? I'm getting that vibe from you again, my fault again.

frank
14 May 10, 05:06
Another pack of superstitions?

So what are "superstitions"?

stuka
14 May 10, 05:09
Um, questions.

This is a question...?


He did talk of rebirth, and of samsara.
Yo originally asked what people thought. When you got answers, you began to challenge them and present arguments. That is debate.

Aloka
14 May 10, 05:11
Another pack of superstitions? I'm getting that vibe from you again, my fault again

Hiyah Jack,

Lets not worry too much about imagining that there are 'vibes' huh? http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

This seems like an interesting discussion.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

jack
14 May 10, 05:12
So what are "superstitions"?

There are superstitions, and then there's things that you don't know about. I remain sceptical, I'm not going to class it superstitious and disregard it completely.

Unless of course I've got this all wrong, and there's something which would show me there is nothing to be sceptical about, a something to which I'm very open and willing to learn here.

jack
14 May 10, 05:13
Lets not worry too much about imagining that there are 'vibes' huh?

Yes ma'am. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif



That is debate.

No debate.



you began to challenge them and present arguments.

No challenges. Open discussion.

Aloka
14 May 10, 05:23
Hi Jack,

In answer to your question #1, my stance is neutral on rebirth. I can't see any point in speculating about it.

The Buddha said :


This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity.

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

MN 2

URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html)

stuka
14 May 10, 05:30
from post #33

The commentary you quote errantly assumes that the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada in general and vinnana in particular are a reincarnation/"re-birth" teaching. They are not. The author also makes unfounded and unsupported assumptions about Sati's reasons for the claims he makes.



How do I explain it, lets say, that every being is made up of vibrations, and this vibration is a life force, which makes up the physical self and the mind, at death, do these vibrations move on?
That, like aliyavijnana and "three lives", is pure conjecture. Wishful thinking can take us into all sorts of speculative convolutions. In the end, its just making things up as one goes along, trying to make the Buddha's teachings out to be the speculative worldview they aren't.

jack
14 May 10, 05:31
I can't see any point in speculating about it.

I agree, this whole thread was just asking for it. I'm sorry if I got on anyone's nerves. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/bag.gif

jack
14 May 10, 05:36
Wishful thinking can take us into all sorts of speculative convolutions.

I love you too man. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hug.gif

Aloka
14 May 10, 05:37
I agree, this whole thread was just asking for it. I'm sorry if I got on anyone's nerves

Not at all, Jack. I was just expressing a personal view.

It's good to discusss/debate things that we're unsure about and it can lead to further investigation and practice, which can only be a good thing.

frank
14 May 10, 05:42
lets say, that every being is made up of vibrations

Just out of interest,what vibrates?

stuka
14 May 10, 05:48
stuka #39:
That is debate.

No debate.

stuka #39:
you began to challenge them and present arguments.

No challenges. Open discussion.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Aloka
14 May 10, 05:49
That, like aliyavijnana and "three lives", is pure conjecture. Wishful thinking can take us into all sorts of speculative convolutions.

Agreed.

Aloka
14 May 10, 05:52
from post #49

Hilarious http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

Love Monty Python sketches !

stuka
14 May 10, 06:06
There are superstitions, and then there's things that you don't know about. I remain sceptical, I'm not going to class it superstitious and disregard it completely.

Ah, the Courtier's Reply:

"The Emperor has no clothes!"

"Sure he does, you just aren't qualified to see them"

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 07:04
Honest, you guys come on strong

I think what you might be hearing and possibly misinterpreting is a confidence of view that arises out of committed and consistent practice.

Aloka
14 May 10, 09:09
Jack dear,

Its always really good to see you here. Can I gently suggest that you ask questions in the Beginners forum if you don't want to have a debate?

The other forums such as this one are for everyone from all levels of experience to discuss/debate various topics .

(The Beyond Belief forum is mainly for experienced practitioners, however.)


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
14 May 10, 13:29
The viewing of samsara of the person who believe in rebirth is very big different with the person who not beleive.

One live suffering .vs. infinity live suffering. (On heaven still suffer. Deva suffer as Deva, Bhamma suffer as Bhamma)

IMO. The best way is middle way. We should prepare ourself ready to face with rebirth if we have to.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
14 May 10, 14:24
The best way is middle way. We should prepare ourself ready to face with rebirth if we have to.

Yes sukitlek dear,

I feel it is not convenient to take an extreme posture. In the tradition I have choosed we do not hold up our practice in rebirth but as I said in #2 I keep an open mind about the issue.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
14 May 10, 14:36
We should prepare ourself ready to face with rebirth if we have to.

"There is reincarnation ('re-birth')" is a cesspool of views.

"There is no reincarnation" is a cesspool of views.






" 'There is reincarnation' is a cesspool of views. 'There is no reincarnation' is a cesspool of views. There is suffering, whose cause is craving born of ignorance and which can be cured by practicing the Noble Eightfold Path" is an empirical observation of what can be seen and known for oneself.





"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."


-- AN 3.65

jack
14 May 10, 16:27
I think what you might be hearing and possibly misinterpreting is a confidence of view that arises out of committed and consistent practice.

Personally, it's yet to be seen in me, but I'll certainly take this issue up with monks and nuns I meet and see their perspective on it. It's difficult to take the word of someone who claims to be something online. No hard feelings.

jack
14 May 10, 16:30
IMO. The best way is middle way.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Element
14 May 10, 23:06
Just wondering who here practices Buddhism with a belief in re-birth and who does not. Either way, could you also give the reasons behind your belief.

Dear Jack

I could list many reasons but I will mention just one.

I am more interested in taking full refuge in the Buddha's supramundane teachings as the way to end suffering.

When there is no rebirth view, the mind must take full refuge in the teachings of impermanence & not-self. The only means of escape from dukkha is complete relinquishment.

It follows I disagree with those who say non-rebirth is 'Dharma-Lite'.

To me, it is the very opposite.

Kind regards

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Element
14 May 10, 23:14
Brahmavamso's "without 're-birth' we might as well die and be done with it" fallacy is a circular argument that only appears to make sense from its own perspective, that of its own assumptions.

The fallacy of this kind of view is it asserts there is no dukkha in the here & now and thus there is no need & motivation to quench dukkha in the here & now.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
14 May 10, 23:57
When there is no rebirth view, the mind must take full refuge in the teachings of impermanence & not-self. The only means of escape from dukkha is complete relinquishment.

well said (although I would say "resolve dukkha" rather than "escape from dukkha").

Element
15 May 10, 01:39
well said (although I would say "resolve dukkha" rather than "escape from dukkha").

hi Pink

the term "escape" or "no escape" adds a sense of drama & urgency

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

sukitlek
15 May 10, 01:53
(although I would say "resolve dukkha" rather than "escape from dukkha").

But I would say "resolve dukha" or "escape from dukkha" are not the concerning in term of Vipassana. But "observe dukkha", see it arising, continuing and ceasing are the way of Vipassana. Not fighting or run away from dukkha. Observe as best as we can. But if the dukkha is too much and the mind can not observe then do another.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Sobeh
15 May 10, 02:44
Our nature is nothing else than our habit. A nature or habit destroys a preceding nature or habit. On these two observations we hope to build an absolutely certain proof of rebirth...

...it is as certain as our own existence. By sheer reflexion at any time it is possible for us to see in the structure of our present experience that our existence is necessarily without a beginning and that it necessarily continues until it puts an end to itself from within. And to the extent that we see these necessities at all we see them with certainty: but the trouble is that to see them is by no means easy -- that needs hard work.

stuka
15 May 10, 05:12
from post #64



Not fighting or run away from dukkha. Observe as best as we can.

The point of the Buddhadhamma is to quench dukkha, to cause it to cease. We can observe it for a thousand years and accomplish nothing.

stuka
15 May 10, 05:24
from post #65

The point of the series of suttas that this "beginningless time" quote is constantly taken from out-of-context is that part that never gets quoted:

"Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss... it is enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

The Buddha is pointing to the irrelevance of such speculations, and toward the task at hand.


Why is it that folks who proclaim reincarnation/"re-birth" theories as fact spend so much time trying to find proof for them? One doesn't shout from the rooftops that the sun will rise tomorrow.


Even Nanavira, however, although he shouts "Rebirth!" from the rooftops, he nonetheless admits the irrelevance of "rebirth" to the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada, and its complete absence from them.

Pink_trike
15 May 10, 06:35
It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...and have missed an opportunity for the cessation of "becoming".

Aloka
15 May 10, 06:39
It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...and have missed an opportunity for the cessation of "becoming".

Well said ! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Element
15 May 10, 07:30
It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...and have missed an opportunity for the cessation of "becoming".

Mmm...very clearly expressed and certainly warranting investigation.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

stuka
15 May 10, 15:02
It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...and have missed an opportunity for the cessation of "becoming".

Well said. Mettiko Bhikkhu points to a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of paradigm: Rebirthers see the Dhamma through that lens, and it colours everything they see. "Samsara" is the "round of births and death" (as is "dukkha"), with no consideration or even attention to personal misery in the here-and-now, no matter how many times the Buddha says His Dhamma is "visible here-and-now, timeless, to be experienced by everyone", etc. The final result of PS is merely "birth, decay, and death" (one ]in short, the whole mass of suffering[/i]" is completely ignored. It doesn't fit in the rebirth paradigm, so it is simply ignored. PS, just like everything else, is regarded as an explanation for how "re-birth" happens, just like everything else. That is, if we can just massage the meaning of certain words enough, and make up a plausible enough evolving story to explain how this or that teaching fits into "rebirth". Mettiko points this out in Bhikkhu Bodhi's polemic against Nanavira's here-and-now explanation of PS:


"On the subject of saṅkhāra nothing else remains to be done for the Ven. Bodhi than to unwrap again the commentarial gimmicks, which were mentioned and refused by Ven. Ñāṇavīra—the diverse variants of the patchwork rug strategy ('here it means this, there it means that'):..."


Mettiko's essay is quite illuminating. It's at http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view& id=244 (http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244) , and Nanavira's Note on Paticcasamuppada is at http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view& id=34&Itemid=62 (http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=62) . Bodhi;s polemic against Nanavira's work can be found in hte Files section of the Yahoo "DhammaStudaGroup" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ .

Good food for thought.

jack
15 May 10, 20:47
Stuka,

I kind of understand your rationale, and what you say might very well be the truth. But the problem is, anything you say has to be observed by myself as the truth, until then, it could very well be some deep rooted illusion inside me that makes me think the way I think (which is: I have no clue!).

Interpreting the text one way or the other is only a mental exercise, and while both interpretations about rebirth are valued, neither are experienced as fact. Maybe it is so that neither can be experienced as fact, so dwelling in this, is far from the cessation of suffering.

Trike was right when she said the following, which I extend to the concept of non-rebirth equally:


It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...and have missed an opportunity for the cessation of "becoming".

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

jack
15 May 10, 20:54
The point of the Buddhadhamma is to quench dukkha, to cause it to cease. We can observe it for a thousand years and accomplish nothing.

Observation, insight or Vipassana is part of that Buddhadhamma. My expereience of anicca has come out of this observation. Seeing the apple gives a much different change in life from tasting the apple. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Sobeh
15 May 10, 21:13
Even Nanavira, however, although he shouts "Rebirth!" from the rooftops, he nonetheless admits the irrelevance of "rebirth" to the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada, and its complete absence from them.

A very important point; moreso than merely admitting it, he also shouts that from the rooftops. The two ideas are completely distinct.

stuka
15 May 10, 21:36
But the problem is, anything you say has to be observed by myself as the truth, until then, it could very well be some deep rooted illusion inside me that makes me think the way I think (which is: I have no clue!).

That's easy to say about anything one does not wish to face.



Trike was right when she said the following, which I extend to the concept of non-rebirth equally:

That is indeed true about the position, "there is no rebirth", just as "there is no God", or "there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster"..

The Buddha pointed out that such positions were (and are) speculative views, and dispensed with all of them in favor of his own liberative teachings: Ignorance leads to suffering. (ex. MN 72)





Observation, insight or Vipassana is part of that Buddhadhamma. My expereience of anicca has come out of this observation. Seeing the apple gives a much different change in life from tasting the apple.

Sukitlek and I talking about "observing dukkha", not "observing anicca". Vipassana is much more than mere passive "observation".

stuka
15 May 10, 21:48
A very important point; moreso than merely admitting it, he also shouts that from the rooftops. The two ideas are completely distinct.

He did in fact point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

sukitlek
15 May 10, 22:21
Sukitlek and I talking about "observing dukkha", not "observing anicca". Vipassana is much more than mere passive "observation".

Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta : are 3 views in 1 thing. Come together, Can not separate. Everytime Buddha taugh, he taugh all 3. Because Anicca then Dukkha. Because Dukkha then Anatta. During observe, we feel only 1 view. That is enough to develope our mind. But we need much more feeling. Only 1 view each time but many times. Sometime we feel Anicca. Sometime we feel Dukkha and Sometime we feel Anatta.

For example, During observe the breath. We feel the breath is there, we are here. That's mean the breath is not us or the breath is Anatta.
At the end of exhale, if we just observe, not force body to inhale, let the body need to inhale. We found Dukkha of body or sometime we found the Anicca of the breath.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
15 May 10, 22:34
The point of the Buddhadhamma is to quench dukkha, to cause it to cease.

Some meditation school in Thailand teach like this. Do a sitting meditation for 3 hours or more or allnight to pass Dukkha from sitting for long.

IMO. If we can quench Dukkha. We increase "I". We feel "I good at". "I can quench dukkha.", "I'm the best",... then we cling "I". The point of Buddhadhamma is to uncling "I" not need to win anything.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
15 May 10, 23:19
Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta : are 3 views in 1 thing. Come together, Can not separate.

If that were true, there would be no point to the Buddhadhamma. Whether one experiences dukkha or not, things remain impermanent and not self. The Buddha teaches the quenching of dukkha, in spite of the realities of anatta and anicca.

The fact that something is impermanent and not self does not intrinsically mean we have to suffer over it.





( In response to stuka #66: "The point of the Buddhadhamma is to quench dukkha, to cause it to cease"):



Some meditation school in Thailand teach like this. Do a sitting meditation for 3 hours or more or allnight to pass Dukkha from sitting for long.

What you describe is not "teaching like this". That is *nothing* like what I am saying.




We increase "I". We feel "I good at". "I can quench dukkha.", "I'm the best",...

If that is why they are meditating, then they are doing it completely wrong. Nothing to do with what I am talking about, nothing to do with what the Buddha taught. This isn't a contest. The Buddha did not treach meditation or quenching dukkha as a contest. Meditation and quenching dukkha is not done for the sake of ego.




IMO. If we can quench Dukkha. We increase "I".

Quenching dukkha is accomplished precisely by quenching the notion of "I", removing it from the equation.

jack
15 May 10, 23:51
Quenching dukkha is accomplished precisely by quenching the notion of "I", removing it from the equation.

I'm curious, how do you go about removing "I" from the equation?

Pink_trike
15 May 10, 23:55
I'm curious, how do you go about removing "I" from the equation?

By seeing this "I" clearly for what it isn't, which isn't an intellectual exercise - this clarity and recognition arises out of the practices that the teachings serve as support tools for.

jack
16 May 10, 00:00
By seeing this "I" clearly for what it isn't, which isn't an intellectual exercise - this clarity and recognition arises out of the practices that the teachings serve as support tools for.

Practices which have nothing to do with rebirth, even considering such a thing, correct?

frank
16 May 10, 00:08
It seems to escape the attention of rebirthers that every time the mind rises up to defend the mental/emotional narrative of "rebirth" they have "become" yet again...

This point applies to any thought process.

frank
16 May 10, 00:25
from post #63

All the World's a Stage


All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages

I sometimes wonder if Shakespeare was Enlightened

stuka
16 May 10, 00:35
stuka #79: Quenching dukkha is accomplished precisely by quenching the notion of "I", removing it from the equation.
I'm curious, how do you go about removing "I" from the equation?

I said removing "the notion of 'I'" from the equation. This is accomplished by seeing and understanding that our self-concepts are illusions, and learning to avoid falling under the influence of self-conceptualization (along with selfishness, self-absorption, self-centeredness, adn all the other traps that come with self-conceptualization).

stuka
16 May 10, 00:37
This point applies to any thought process.

Not to any thought process that one does not cling to.

sukitlek
16 May 10, 00:47
sukitlek #77: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta : are 3 views in 1 thing. Come together, Can not separate.




If that were true, there would be no point to the Buddhadhamma. Whether one experiences dukkha or not, things remain impermanent and not self. The Buddha teaches the quenching of dukkha, in spite of the realities of anatta and anicca.

The fact that something is impermanent and not self does not intrinsically mean we have to suffer over it.

I'm afraid the Dukkha you mean, may different from I mean. Dukkha in Trilakkana does not only the feeling of suffer. It mean :-
(1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhatā)
(2) the suffering inherent in the formations (saṅkhāra-dukkhatā)
(3) the suffering in change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)" (S. XLV, 165; D. 33).
---------------------------

For the third one, this mean because Anicca then Dukkha.

The fact is no "I" then no Dukkha to be guenched from "I". Just observe the fact until understand that our body, our mind are not "I". No need to quench anything or another word, Just only quench Avijja (Ignorance).

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
16 May 10, 03:27
Hi, Sukitlek,

Here is what was said:



( In response to stuka #66: "The point of the Buddhadhamma is to quench dukkha, to cause it to cease"):


Some meditation school in Thailand teach like this. Do a sitting meditation for 3 hours or more or allnight to pass Dukkha from sitting for long....We increase "I". We feel "I good at". "I can quench dukkha.", "I'm the best",... then we cling "I".

You are misrepresenting the dukkha I am talking about as "dukkha-as-physical-pain", and insinuating that I am advocating sitting in meditation as some sort of physical pain endurance contest. That is not at all what I am talking about.

I agree that people suffer all the time over change. This is the kind of suffering that the Buddha describes as grief, lamentation, sorrow, despair, beating one's breast, crying out "why me?", of not getting what one wants, of getting what one does not want; in short, the entire mass of suffering. But people can choose to not suffer in these ways over change. And part of what the Buddha teaches is exactly how to not suffer over change.

There is anicca with dukkha, but there can also be anicca without dukkha. Simple as that.

frank
16 May 10, 13:28
from post #86

Of course.

sukitlek
16 May 10, 14:25
You are misrepresenting the dukkha I am talking about as "dukkha-as-physical-pain", and insinuating that I am advocating sitting in meditation as some sort of physical pain endurance contest. That is not at all what I am talking about.

Sorry stuka http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif. I agree with you. Just need to show that some meditation school misunderstand that they should quench dukkha and practice by their method. And also sorry if I made wrong English.



I agree that people suffer all the time over change. This is the kind of suffering that the Buddha describes as grief, lamentation, sorrow, despair, beating one's breast, crying out "why me?", of not getting what one wants, of getting what one does not want; in short, the entire mass of suffering. But people can choose to not suffer in these ways over change. And part of what the Buddha teaches is exactly how to not suffer over change.

There is anicca with dukkha, but there can also be anicca without dukkha. Simple as that.

If the definition of dukkha is pain feeling. I agree with you.

But I try to show more meaning than that. The anicca, dukkha, anatta are the same thing but different view. Because it can not continue the situation then it have to change. Because it have to change then it is not the thing that in control. All anicca, dukkha, anatta show in the same time. But which view our mind observe and found.

Sometime we feel happy but we can see dukkha. Because we see the level of happiness. It's fluctuate. It could not keep the happiness in the same situation. It have to crease. We could not control it.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
16 May 10, 18:26
some meditation school misunderstand that they should quench dukkha

...but quenching dukkha (eradicating misery and suffering) is what the Four Noble Truths are all about. If dukkha were not a problem, we there would be no need to quench it. We would have no need for the Four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path.





If the definition of dukkha is pain feeling. I agree with you.

...over impermanence? I am speaking of misery, suffering, anguish. Mental agony, not physical pain. The fact of impermanence does not necessarily entil these things. It often does, because of ignorance, but the Buddha's teachings are designed to eradicate this ignorance and thus quench this sort of dukkha. This can be done in the here and now, by anyone, including you and me. Things change, and we do not have to get bent out of shape over them.. Thus change (anicca) does not equal dukkha (misery and suffering).

sukitlek
16 May 10, 22:12
I really appreciate to discuss with you but my English is not good. I may explain with child words and sometime I use like translate directly from Thai becuase I don't know how using in English. Sorry if I made you misunderstand.



...but quenching dukkha (eradicating misery and suffering) is what the Four Noble Truths are all about. If dukkha were not a problem, we there would be no need to quench it. We would have no need for the Four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path.

The 4NT are the Truths that we should understand. The dukkha were a problem or not, depend on how did we value to it. If we feel it is a problem then we will be forced to quench it. If we don't then no force. But to quench dukkha or not, is no meaning in term of Buddhism. Not a problem, did not mean not true. We still need 4NT to understand the world or understand us.

This metaphor may help you more understand.
If we hold something that was a poison but we don't know it was and we still hold for long time. After somebody explain it was a poison and we beleive him, then we throw it away automatically. The poison still a poison but not effect to us. No need to teach how to throw away but need to know the truths that it was a poison. No need to quench the poison because it is not a duty of us. Let it stay on the ground or garbage.

I understand that the duty for dukkha of 4NT is "should understand" (not quench).

One of the famous monk in Thailand which I beleive that he was Arahunt, was asked during he was severe sick and at the dead door - "Do you suffer". He answer "Suffer but no sufferer".

This mean the suffering still arise, the suffer was not quenched but it was not effect to him because no "him" to be effected.



but the Buddha's teachings are designed to eradicate this ignorance and thus quench this sort of dukkha.

Yes. indeed. To quench this sort of dukkha. Not quench dukkha.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Dazzle, Sorry for miss the topic. I think it will be valuable to move some post to new topic.

sukitlek
16 May 10, 23:18
Topic head. "The duty to dukkha" or another if you would like.

Esho
16 May 10, 23:32
The 4NT are the Truths that we should understand. The dukkha were a problem or not, depend on how did we value to it. If we feel it is a problem then we will be forced to quench it. If we don't then no force. But to quench dukkha or not, is no meaning in term of Buddhism. Not a problem, did not mean not true. We still need 4NT to understand the world or understand us.

I can take this point... its nearer from the way we practice... in few words the 4NT bring you the chance to develop "Right View"; trying to quote Dogen Zenji... understanding the self is to forgot the self... and the path is through the practice of zazen.

Thanks sukitlek

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
17 May 10, 00:25
in few words the 4NT bring you the chance to develop "Right View"

Yes... Kaarine.

If we read "Right View Sutta" URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html) , Many of samples that Ven Sariputta gave us, going to the same way of 4NT.

From this ]URL[/url] that we ever discussed before.
----------------------------
What views are the right views ?
If something arise to the mind and we observe :-
1. That thing,
2. The origin of that,
3. The cessation of that,
4. The way leading to the cessation of that.
Then we are in the right view.
----------------------------

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
17 May 10, 00:31
from post #95

thanks sukit dear,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
17 May 10, 01:45
Sukitlek,



Yes. indeed. To quench this sort of dukkha. Not quench dukkha.

You see, "Cessation of dukkha"? "Quenching of dukkha" is same-same. That is what the 4NT/8FP is for. What part of that are you not understanding?

""When, friends, a noble disciple understands suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." -- from the "Right View Sutta" you cited above

Aloka
17 May 10, 03:58
Hi Sukitlek,

I think there is some confusion with the meaning of the English words here.

"Quenching" is a word being used instead of "cessation" and it means "cooling " or "extinguishing."

You can find the word 'quenching' being used by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa in the third paragraph here where he says:

"This principle enables us to know how to choose the teachings which are truly capable of quenching suffering (dukkha). The ten examples which the Buddha gave in the Kalama Sutta follow."

URL (http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltruth/kalamasutta1.html)

He also uses the word again here:

"The Lord Buddha taught only dukkha and the total cessation of dukkha. He taught that we must study these two things within our bodies. You can only do this while the body is alive. Once the body dies, you don't have to concern yourselves with this problem any more. But now, while there's life, constantly, continuously, and inwardly study dukkha (spiritual disease) and the utter quenching of dukkha (the cure of the spiritual disease)."

(From the section "Just One Teaching" here:
URL (http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/arts/ret/natcure1a.htm)


I have started a new topic "What do we mean by dukkha (suffering) and its cessation". Please continue there if its necessary.

Kind regards,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif
Dazz


Back to topic....does anyone have anything else to say on the subject of rebirth?

Sobeh
17 May 10, 04:36
does anyone have anything else to say on the subject of rebirth?

I'd like to suggest once again that rebirth and paticcasamuppada are not the same thing, and that the DhammaVinaya is otherwise complete without recourse to any sort of rebirth metaphysics.

sukitlek
17 May 10, 05:53
from post #99

I think so. Sobeh.

Or another words. DO is the rebirth of mind that no Sati in each piece of second. But rebirth after dead still occur for the mind that still cling.

I ever heard Buddhadasa's pupil explain after someone ask "Is the rebirth true ?". He said ' Rebirth is true but no "I" rebirth '

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Sobeh
17 May 10, 07:08
DO is the rebirth of mind

Well, except that the word "rebirth" never actually occurs in any Sutta teaching on paticcasamuppada.

sukitlek
17 May 10, 13:08
from post #101

Yes. I see that and I believe in rebirth after dead.

Just need to compromise that rebirth may more complicate than we understand.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
17 May 10, 14:43
from post #102

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
17 May 10, 18:24
Just need to compromise that rebirth may more complicate than we understand.

And also just need to compromise that it may not be at all.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
17 May 10, 18:25
I'd like to suggest once again that rebirth and paticcasamuppada are not the same thing, and that the DhammaVinaya is otherwise complete without recourse to any sort of rebirth metaphysics.

Agreed.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
17 May 10, 19:26
from post #104

Absolutely yes. stuka.

During we face to the dead. There 2 possible happening that we will be met. Rebirth or Not rebirth, only one is fact.
If we prepare ourself ready to face with rebirth. Then no worry if we have to rebirth.

If the preparing is the investment.
Then rebirth is fact -> profit , No rebirth is fact -> loss.
The weight of profit .vs. weight of loss are so much different because to stop rebirth is not only stop 1 rebirth. It stop infinity rebirths (no more infinity lives). The investment that we will loss if no rebirth is fact just only 1 live and don't need to spend all live time.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
17 May 10, 20:05
If the preparing is the investment.
Then rebirth is fact -> profit , No rebirth is fact -> loss.
The weight of profit .vs. weight of loss are so much different because to stop rebirth is not only stop 1 rebirth. It stop infinity rebirths (no more infinity lives). The investment that we will loss if no rebirth is fact just only 1 live and don't need to spend all live time.

The Buddha said that if we address the here-and-now, any imagined future will take care of itself without any need to run and worry about death or any superstitions about death:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

stuka
17 May 10, 20:07
There 2 possible happening that we will be met. Rebirth or Not rebirth, only one is fact.

There are hundreds of speculative views about what might happen at death, none of which have any backing in fact. Each one of them poses its own sets of "possible happenings".

Aloka
17 May 10, 20:19
There are hundreds of speculative views about what might happen at death, none of which have any backing in fact. Each one of them poses its own sets of "possible happenings".

Well said, Stuka http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
17 May 10, 20:34
The Buddha said that if we address the here-and-now, any imagined future will take care of itself without any need to run and worry about death or any superstitions about death:

Yes. I agree with. This is an investment. Very easy, right ?
I spent 4 months to understand what is addressing the here-and-now. Very little first investment. But I still have to invest.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
17 May 10, 20:36
There are hundreds of speculative views about what might happen at death, none of which have any backing in fact. Each one of them poses its own sets of "possible happenings".

I also agree. But all of these can be group to 2, rebirth or not rebirth, right ? Just the weight of profit are different.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
17 May 10, 21:06
The Buddha said that if we address the here-and-now, any imagined future will take care of itself without any need to run and worry about death or any superstitions about death:

This has to be understood as the Right View when practising the Dharma.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
17 May 10, 22:35
I also agree. But all of these can be group to 2, rebirth or not rebirth, right ? Just the weight of profit are different.

Perhaps, but each one posits a certain set of rules that must be followed, and most exclude the rules sets of all others. For example, the Christian rules specify certain non-negotiables that exclude Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and all others from their promise of rewards.

But the Buddha does not say, "you must believe in rebirth, or you go to hell".

Though many of his followers do.

sukitlek
17 May 10, 23:47
But the Buddha does not say, "you must believe in rebirth, or you go to hell".

Though many of his followers do.

Yes....... indeed I agree with.
I never explain that we should rebirth. I explain that if we have to rebirth.
I did not show Gain or Profit only. I also show Loss (In case invest and no rebirth). I don't need to explain somebody to follow me. Just show a wide view cover all beleive and not beleive. Someone that not beleive may decide to invest.
If someone think he don't invest because he don't need to Loss or he beleive that no rebirth and ready to face with the risk. Then no gain no loss because no invest. It is OK. It is his choose.
Also somebody that beleive in rebirth but he choose not to invest because some reason. This also may happen.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

jack
18 May 10, 00:29
I sure opened a can of worms. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Esho
18 May 10, 00:39
from post #115

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/meditate.gif

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Aloka
18 May 10, 09:13
I sure opened a can of worms

Not at all Jack ! We're here to have discussions/debates about different aspects of interpretation,understanding and practice. Whether we agree or disagree with other posters, its a good way to examine our own attitudes and understanding of different teachings. Sometimes there's the possibility that an in-depth discussion might be a springboard to a fresh perspective on things.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

jack
18 May 10, 10:28
from post #117

Yup, worms, healthy for the soil eh? http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Aloka
18 May 10, 12:56
Yup, worms, healthy for the soil eh?

Absolutely ! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif




http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/worms.gif

Esho
18 May 10, 13:58
from post #119

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

stuka
18 May 10, 15:40
If someone think he don't invest because he don't need to Loss or he beleive that no rebirth and ready to face with the risk. Then no gain no loss because no invest. It is OK. It is his choose.

The Buddha pointed out, in the Four Solaces, that if one acts morally because it is the right thing to do, and cultivates mental discipline in the endeavor to do so, then there is not risk at all.

stuka
18 May 10, 16:03
I sure opened a can of worms.

Not at all. There are many misconceptions about the Buddha's teachings, even among folks who claim to adhere to them. Many of these misconceptions have been upheld by institutions that claim to concern themselves with passing his teachings on. But misconceptions die in the light of day, and the Dhamma is clarified when we talk about it, bring those misconceptions out into the open, and compare them to what we see the Buddha saying about his Dhamma.

It is a joy to talk about the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that it is the only thing really worth talking about. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

sukitlek
18 May 10, 18:53
if one acts morally because it is the right thing to do, and cultivates mental discipline in the endeavor to do

Yes... This is investment for next 1 rebirth.

Everyone that came to BWB. They already invest something to understand what Buddha taught. At lease they spend some of times. I hope they will not be loss their time.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

TexasBuddhist
18 May 10, 21:40
I personally believe in these ideas, yes. I have always believed in them. Again, it's hard to explain. It is something within me that tells me this.

I have told countless people over the years that ask me for advice this one simple answer. "To seek the answers to your questions, all you have to do is look within you. It's all there already. You just have to believe in yourself (have faith) and take the step toward your own understanding."

I still believe this. I do not think there is one answer that we do not already know. But, we as children fail to understand that we must first remember what we know, in order to know it.

I know, I know - sounds like hogwash. And, that's ok. This is my belief, and only I claim it.

frank
19 May 10, 04:27
It is a joy to talk about the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that it is the only thing really worth talking about.

Just so,everything else is animal talk.

Aloka
19 May 10, 04:48
It is a joy to talk about the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that it is the only thing really worth talking about

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/good.gif

Aloka
19 May 10, 05:18
"One group of people believes that there is self, there is atman, there is a soul which is born as this person. Once the body dies, this thing doesn't die. It goes to a new birth. Most people believe this, they take it as the basis of their beliefs. The Upanishad texts believed this. In Buddhism, however, there isn't such a thing. Buddhism does not believe there is a self or soul which is born and then dies. Thus, the rebirth of this or that person doesn't occur, because that person doesn't exist here in the first place.
This is called "physical rebirth." It is something that should not be spoken of as "rebirth".

The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that consciousness or a spirit goes to be born."


from 'Anatta and Rebirth' by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa -definately worth reading. (see URL below) http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

URL (http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pages/images/stories/dokumente-englisch/Ajahn-Buddhadasa/Ajahn_Buddhadasa--Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf)

stuka
19 May 10, 06:22
Yes... This is investment for next 1 rebirth.

No need to invest in "next rebirth". If there is such a thing, the Buddha says it will take care of itself. If not, then we will not have wasted any time worrying about it. No need to worry, only to practice. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'"

"No, venerable sir."

"Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'"

"No, venerable sir."

"Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'"

"No, venerable sir."

-- MN 38






"Gotama, the Accomplished One, why do various wandering mendicants when asked the following questions,

Is the world eternal and everlasting,
Is the world not eternal?
Does this world have an end point?
Does this world have no end?
Are life and the body one and the same?
Is life one thing and the body another?
After life, does a being (satta) continue to exist?
After death, does nothing exist?
After death, do beings both exist and not exist?
After death, is it impossible to say that something exists and nothing exists?

..respond by saying that 'The world is eternal', 'the world is not eternal"...'after death, we cannot say that something exists and nothing exists'? Why is it when asked such questions Gotama does not respond that 'the world is eternal' or 'The world is not eternal'...?

"Vaccha, some of these mendicants who adhere to various doctrines tend to believe that the body is the self; some say that the self has a body; some say that the body dwells within the self; some say that the self dwells within the body; some understand sensation...perception...mental formations...to be the self, and so on; some take consciousness to be the self; some say that the self has consciousness, some say that consciousness dwells within the self; some say that the self dwells within consciousness. Therefore, these mendicants who adhere to various doctrines, when they are asked these questions, explain by saying that 'The world is eternal'...

As for the Tathagatas, the fully enlightened arahants, they do not understand the body to be the self or way that the self has a body, or say that the body dwells in the self or that the self dwells in the body...therefore, when they are asked these questions, they do ont offer the explanation that 'the world is eternal' or that 'The world is not eternal'"...Bud Vaccha, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, regards the eye...the ear...the nose...the tongue..the body...the mental faculties thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers."

"It is wonderful, Master Gotama! It is amazing, Master Gotama! How the meaning and the phrasing of both teacher and disciple coincide and agree with each other and do not diverge, that is in regard to the chief matter...."


S.IV.395

stuka
19 May 10, 06:39
stuka #122:
It is a joy to talk about the Dhamma. The Buddha pointed out that it is the only thing really worth talking about.

Just so,everything else is animal talk.

Indeed. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

sukitlek
19 May 10, 11:10
No need to invest in "next rebirth".

I understand your view. We did not conflict. I just show a picture or map of the persons who study Buddhism and thier choices to response. If we spent, this already invest. Need or No need, is not my concern. Someone may spent with other reason.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

During talking, we can practice the dhamma.

Talking with metta. This is a Bodhisatta charactor.
Talking with the feeling that "I'm great, I know better than, I ...". This increase "I".
Talking with need to get more information. This is student charactor.

But any feeling that arise to mind during talking, we observe. This is dhamma practice.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

FBM
19 May 10, 15:25
I'm a bit puzzled by this sutta wrt death/rebirth:

URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.041.than.html#spit)

SN 48.41 PTS: S v 216 CDB ii 1686
Jara Sutta: Old Age
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother. Now on that occasion the Blessed One, on emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, sat warming his back in the western sun. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, massaged the Blessed One's limbs with his hand and said, "It's amazing, lord. It's astounding, how the Blessed One's complexion is no longer so clear & bright; his limbs are flabby & wrinkled; his back, bent forward; there's a discernible change in his faculties — the faculty of the eye, the faculty of the ear, the faculty of the nose, the faculty of the tongue, the faculty of the body."

"That's the way it is, Ananda. When young, one is subject to aging; when healthy, subject to illness; when alive, subject to death. The complexion is no longer so clear & bright; the limbs are flabby & wrinkled; the back, bent forward; there's a discernible change in the faculties — the faculty of the eye, the faculty of the ear, the faculty of the nose, the faculty of the tongue, the faculty of the body."

That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-gone, the Teacher, said further:

I spit on you, old age —
old age that makes for ugliness.
The bodily image, so charming,
is trampled by old age.
Even those who live to a hundred
are headed — all — to an end in death,
which spares no one,
which tramples all.

And from the Jara (Decay) Sutta in the Sutta-Nipata:

Seen and heard are those people whose particular names are mentioned; but only the name of a person remains when he has passed away.

Aloka
19 May 10, 15:36
Hi FBM,

What it is that puzzles you exactly ?


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

FBM
19 May 10, 15:59
The end of the first one seems to reveal something like bitterness, which surprised me when I first read it a couple of years ago, and still surprises me now.

The second short excerpt doesn't seem to fit with the way I've heard rebirth described by many.

Aloka
19 May 10, 16:12
For me it just appears to show an acknowledgement of the disadvantages of old age.

I've just looked at SN 48.41 Jara Sutta and I can't see the last 2 lines you mentioned in #131.

FBM
19 May 10, 16:19
It's #808 in my copy. In the first passage, I'm surprised by the tone, not the content.

Aloka
19 May 10, 16:26
from post #135

Hi FBM, I meant post #131 in this thread.

I was looking at the sutta at the Access to Insight website and can't find anything mentioned about rebirth.URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.041.than.html#spit)

Sorry but I don't understand what you meant in post #133 when you said "the second short excerpt doesn't seem to fit with the way I've heard rebirth described by many " .....Where is it, please ? The last 2 lines of your quote in post #131 aren't there. You mentioned the same sutta at the top and at the bottom of #131.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

stuka
19 May 10, 17:43
I understand your view. We did not conflict. I just show a picture or map of the persons who study Buddhism and thier choices to response.

What you present is a reincarnation-myth-centric version of "Kepler's Wager". But Kepler's Wager is also founded in superstitions which have their basis in speculative views. "Prepare for re-birth (reincarnation)" is same as "prepare for Jesus" or "Prepare for the Jewish God" or "Prepare for Yhwh" or "Prepare for Allah" or "Prepare for Brahma" or "Prepare for the Flying Spaghetti Monster". But the problem is that each of these sets of rules that this "preparation" entails is different, and many times they conflict with each other. For some, "Prepare for Allah" means "Go walk into that marketplace with a bomb strapped on your person, and you will be greeted in Heaven by 72 virgins." Obviously, this is not what the point of religion truly is, but it nonetheless falls within the same wager: "If you 'prepare for Allah', you 'invest' in the next re-birth'."

So what is the point of religion, then? The Buddha understood that: religion begins and ends with ethics. Almost all of the religions present an ethical system designed to develop a sense of morality in their adherents, coming to ethics through speculative view and superstition: stories, anecdotes, cosmological and metaphysical conjecture. But the Buddha comes to ethics though ethics itself and discernment of action and consequence in the here-and-now:


"Householders, a Noble Disciple reflects thus: 'I am one who wishes to live, who does not wish to die, I desire happiness and abhor suffering...if someone were to take my life, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. If I were to take the life of another, one who wishes to live an does not wish to die, who desires happiness and abhors suffering, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another, that which is displeasing and disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he abstains from killing others, exhorts others to refrain from killing others, and speaks in praise of abstaining from killing others. Thus his bodily conduct is purified in three ways" (same treatment for stealing, adultery, false speech, harsh speech, divisive speech, and frivolous talk and idle chatter). Veludvareyya Sutta

So what we see above is the Buddha coming to an moral stance and standards of ethical conduct through discernment of observable ethical principles, rather than through superstition and stories, cosmologies and metaphysical speculations. And since all religions are aimed at generating ethical behavior by instilling a sense of morality in their adherents, the overarching sense morality and the ethical behavior that the Buddha arrives at are universal: don't kill, don't steal, don't misconduct yourself sexually, don't lie, don't slander, don't divide each other from friends, and do treat each other well. Having transcended speculative views, superstitions, stories, and cosmological and metaphysical speculations, and presenting an ethics developed for its own sake, the Buddha offers his own wager: Because ethics is a universal principle, if you act ethically and develop moral discipline because it's the right thing to do, your actions will naturally fall in line with the moral standards of any legitimate ethical system based in superstition, and you will have no need to worry about, or even pay attention to, their stories and the consequences they speculate.



Talking with metta. This is a Bodhisatta charactor.
Talking with the feeling that "I'm great, I know better than, I ...". This increase "I".
Talking with need to get more information. This is student charactor.

There is no "I" in the Dhamma. We talk about the Dhamma and there is no "I" there, only the Dhamma and confidence in the Dhamma from seeing the Dhamma. "I" is not interesting. Everybody have "I". "I" is not worth talking about, not worth increasing. The Dhamma is worth talking about, worth increasing.


Hearing one talk about the Dhamma with the feeling "the one talking about the Dhamma thinks he is great, he thinks he knows better than I.." -- that is not listening to the Dhamma, that is listening to "I", that is "I-making". That increase "I".

stuka
19 May 10, 18:10
I'm a bit puzzled by this sutta wrt death/rebirth:

Everyone is subject to old age, and everyone will eventually die. Even the Buddha, which came as absolutely no surprise to him. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

These little poems that we see sprinkled in at the end many suttas look more like something that has been added in later, perhaps as some form of mnemonic, reiterating the words of the Buddha in simpler and perhaps more poetic form.


Are you seeing any sort of affirmation of, or allusion to, "re-birth" at all in the passages you are citing here, FBM...?

sukitlek
19 May 10, 19:41
What you present is a reincarnation-myth-centric version of "Kepler's Wager".

Thanks, stuka. At lease somebody view this way.



But Kepler's Wager is also founded in superstitions which have their basis in speculative views.

Thanks again, stuka for make my view more width. I am just a piece of dust , no any meaning.



There is no "I" in the Dhamma. We talk about the Dhamma and there is no "I" there, only the Dhamma and confidence in the Dhamma from seeing the Dhamma. "I" is not interesting. Everybody have "I". "I" is not worth talking about, not worth increasing. The Dhamma is worth talking about, worth increasing.

This point I think different. Because in my meaning "I" is "Atta". Then no "I" mean "Anatta". IMO "Atta" and "Anatta" is Dhamma, is worth talking about.
If your meaning of "I" didn't like me then I agree with you.



Hearing one talk about the Dhamma with the feeling "the one talking about the Dhamma thinks he is great, he thinks he knows better than I.." -- that is not listening to the Dhamma, that is listening to "I", that is "I-making". That increase "I".

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif Thank you very very ... much. I will more observe my mind for this point. And very very... sorry if I make someone feel like this. I just need to share my experience with and hope that someone could feel like me (It is very wholesome to found the feeling of "I"). I don't mention to force someone to beleive me.
The experience that I posted If feeling it is useless or nonworth then forget it. Let me did animal talk alone.
But if someone feel it is worth, just 1 http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif for me or do nothing is OK.

with Metta. (If I right observe my mind)
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
19 May 10, 20:20
I just wanted to say that I've been finding all of the posts in this topic really informative and interesting to read.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/flower.gif


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

sukitlek
19 May 10, 20:45
from post #140

Thanks Dazzle.

Talking dhamma, Studying dhamma. The dhamma will come to your brain.

Practice dhamma, Feeling dhamma. The dhamma will come to your heart.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
19 May 10, 21:27
Practice dhamma, Feeling dhamma. The dhamma will come to your heart.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Esho
19 May 10, 21:27
from post #140

Yes, they have been interesting to read.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

woodscooter
19 May 10, 22:20
This is a lively and interesting discussion.

A question, though, about Kepler's Wager:

In the world of science, making a bet is a customary form of accountability. The earliest scientific wager on record was between the astronomers Johannes Kepler and Christian Longomontanus in 1600. Kepler bet his arch rival that he could derive the formula for the solar orbit of Mars in eight days. He lost. Although his slow calculations were correct and spawned modern astronomy and physics, they took him five years.
-From http://www.wired.com (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.05/longbets.html?pg=2)



What you present is a reincarnation-myth-centric version of "Kepler's Wager". But Kepler's Wager is also founded in superstitions which have their basis in speculative views.

How do you mean "Kepler's Wager ... founded in superstitions" ?

stuka
19 May 10, 23:00
A question, though, about Kepler's Wager:

LOL it was "Pascal's Wager'...brain cramp http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/biglol.gif..

stuka
20 May 10, 00:34
IMO "Atta" and "Anatta" is Dhamma, is worth talking about.

Dhamma is about getting rid of "I", getting rid of "Atta". Getting rid of "I" is worth talking about and worth doing.




And very very... sorry if I make someone feel like this.

You don't make anybody feel anything. And I don't make anyone feel "stuka talking about the Dhamma thinks he is great, he thinks he knows better than I..". That is their own I-making.





Talking dhamma, Studying dhamma. The dhamma will come to your brain.

Practice dhamma, Feeling dhamma. The dhamma will come to your heart.

Studying Dhamma and talking Dhamma is part of practicing Dhamma and feeling Dhamma. Buddha say that. Buddha is smart.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

jack
20 May 10, 00:38
That is their own I-making.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

FBM
20 May 10, 00:51
from post #136

Sorry! I'm still a noob here. ^^^ Here's another translation, quite similar to the one I got from my hard copy: URL (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.irel.html)

The way I hear some people (only some) talk about rebirth still carries an undertone of something personal continuing on and being literally reborn in another form. My readings and experiences to date make me think that there's nothing personal in the universe in the first place, just conventional nouns and convenient (useful) fictions.

And I'd like to reiterate for the sake of the other person who responded that it's only the tone of the first passage that surprises/puzzles me, not the content.

sukitlek
20 May 10, 02:20
from post #146

Satu. stuka. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
20 May 10, 04:56
Satu.

I've not seen that word before.

srivijaya
20 May 10, 07:26
The way I hear some people (only some) talk about rebirth still carries an undertone of something personal continuing on and being literally reborn in another form.

I think that's understandable. Most people see the issue as affording two options; clinical death, as per western science or some kind of afterlife, as per most religions.

You take your pick. Buddhism is considered a major world religion, so logic dictates it must offer the latter choice (otherwise what's the point of it?).

Aloka
20 May 10, 08:16
from post #148

Hello again FBM , no probs, I was just getting a little muddled ! http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

thanks for the new ]http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/img/smilies/hands.gif[/img]

Aloka
20 May 10, 13:20
Here's something from Ajahn Sumedo's Book ' The Sound of Silence' which I feel is relevant to the discussion

(Ajahn Sumedho is the soon to be retiring abbot of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition Amaravati monastery in the UK)


"Rebirth", like "reincarnation," is a term that's used generally referring to having gone through a series of different lives, and then there are various views about whether once you get reincarnated into human form where you can go, become a frog again or something like that.

I was teaching a retreat in Australia at the Theosophical Society where people's views were split. Some held that once you've made it to the human level you can't slide back into a lesser animal one, whereas others insisted that you could. But the truth of the matter is nobody really knows.

The historical Buddha refers to previous lives in the scriptures and things like this, but for me these things are speculative. Maybe you can remember previous lives, but I have no such memory.

So all I know is from the here and now. We're talking about direct knowing, rather than Buddhist theory, or Buddhist doctrine. When Ajahn Chah taught about rebirth, he did so in the context of paticcasamuppada, or dependent origination. He was talking about the kind of rebirth you can actually witness in daily life; birth is the beginning, death is the ending.

How many rebirths have you gone through today. mentally? What is born, dies; what arises, ceases. Rebirth in this sense is actually provable.

In the paticcasamuppada, through desire (tanha) comes attachment (upadana), and then attachment leads to becoming (bhava), becoming leads to rebirth, and rebirth leads to suffering. Jati (birth) is the result of grasping desire. I quite like the idea of reincarnation and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it , but it is speculative and it's conceptual."

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Subhashini
20 May 10, 13:34
Hi,

First I don't think to practice the path you need to believe in re-birth. Buddhism is not based on belief or faith, it is based on realisation. Buddhism is not about intellectual, logical debating, it is about realisation, that is different between debating

When you ardently practice the path, you realise, you know. That is why Buddha when someone asked him who he is said 'the one who knows'. He asked all his disciples to practiced and see for themselves, not to believe, becasue he says so.

As a layperson, who has not realised, but have been hearing of rebirth from childhood, and seeing everyone around me accepting it without question, it is difficult to shrug it away from myself.

stuka
20 May 10, 14:55
You take your pick. Buddhism is considered a major world religion, so logic dictates it must offer the latter choice (otherwise what's the point of it?).

The point of religion is to establish moral codes by which folks can measure how to behave ethically toward each other.

Primitive religions established these moral codes through speculative cosmologies, metaphysics, and stories, that is to say, superstitions.

Modeern religion, that is to say, the liberative teachings of the Buddha, established these moral code through discernment and an ethics of reciprocity. No superstition is required to bolster such an ethical system.

This approach was radical in the Buddha's time, and is still radical today, which is why it has not gained much acceptance or even attention in the short time since the Buddha lived.

FBM
20 May 10, 15:19
from post #153

I like that a lot. Seems that language too often gets in the way of communication. We say things like 'How many rebirths have you gone through today' as if there was a discrete, consistent entity that endured through each of those 'rebirths', but that 'you' is only conventional, as far as I can tell. There is, in ultimate terms, no discrete entity to be a 'you' that might persist from one moment to the next.

There is a passage in some sutta (can't remember the title) in which the Buddha says something like, 'I see action and I see volition, but I don't see an entity (or maybe it was 'being') that passes from one moment to the next'. That's just a paraphrase, as I haven't been able to track down the sutta.

stuka
20 May 10, 15:38
He was talking about the kind of rebirth you can actually witness in daily life; birth is the beginning, death is the ending.

The problem with using the term "rebirth" for that sort of "birth" is that when we are talking about the Dhamma, all this equivocation starts to happen and we start to talk about two different things, many times without even knowing it. In a discussion such as this. we could be talking about Jati (birth) but calling it "rebirth", someone come in and start talking about reincarnation and calling it "rebirth", and then we can't communicate because we are talking about entirely different things in entirely different realms. One is here-and-now, and the other is imaginary.

Even worse, someone can come in and deliberately obfuscate the discussion by using the term "rebirth" equivocally in order to derail the discussion.

It would seem prudent to resolve this fundamental definitions problem before we can even begin to communicate about any of this.

Sobeh
20 May 10, 16:42
The problem with using the term "rebirth" for that sort of "birth" is that when we are talking about the Dhamma, all this equivocation starts to happen and we start to talk about two different things, many times without even knowing it. In a discussion such as this. we could be talking about Jati (birth) but calling it "rebirth", someone come in and start talking about reincarnation and calling it "rebirth", and then we can't communicate because we are talking about entirely different things in entirely different realms. One is here-and-now, and the other is imaginary.

This.

Aloka
20 May 10, 17:33
from post #157

Yes I agree its confusing, especially as the Pali Canon suttas I've read so far seem not to mention 're-birth' at all (or 're-incarnation'), only 'birth'.

Perhaps if we add "post-mortem" to rebirth/birth when we're discussing that ...and try to leave the expression 're-incarnation' out of it altogether ?

Pink_trike
20 May 10, 18:10
The point of religion is to establish moral codes by which folks can measure how to behave ethically toward each other.

Primitive religions established these moral codes through speculative cosmologies, metaphysics, and stories, that is to say, superstitions.

Modeern religion, that is to say, the liberative teachings of the Buddha, established these moral code through discernment and an ethics of reciprocity. No superstition is required to bolster such an ethical system.

This approach was radical in the Buddha's time, and is still radical today, which is why it has not gained much acceptance or even attention in the short time since the Buddha lived.

Having studied premodern records and cosmology from all over the world for decades, I disagree with your suggestion that discernment and the ethics of reciprocity were something new and radical that emerged fairly recently with Buddhism.

I also disagree that cosmologies/moral codes that existed before Buddhism were "primitive religions". They were neither "primitive" nor "religions"....it's modern people who project the concept of "religion" onto these cosmologies and ways of perceiving and understanding existence. And the term "superstition" is a word that modern people use to dismiss concepts that it doesn't understand the meaning and function of within older cosmologies.

By strict anthropological criteria, the accepted date for the origins of civilization currently stands at 85,000 BCE...and this date will soon give way to even earlier dating as more data is analyzed in coming decades...already there's talk of extending it further back. The idea of humans having a "primitive" understanding of existence, discernment, and the ethics of reciprocity prior to a scant 2,500-ish years ago isn't consistent with what is now known about our ancestors, and is radically inconsistent with what is reflected by significantly older cosmologies.

Much of Buddhism (if not most, or even all) is found contained in significantly older cosmologies and moral/social codes, if one understands the logic and intended functionality of the terms and symbols used to architect these mythic narratives. Under the cultural accretions of "Buddhism" exists, unnoticed by most "Buddhists", what was once a highly sophisticated global cosmology and moral code, of which Buddhism is only a very recent manifestation...a manifestation that has forgotten and lost the context and knowledge base out of which it emerged. This global cosmology, which is vastly more complex and sophisticated than the remnants of it contained in Buddhism, was known as "The Law", "The Dharma" (prior to Buddhism), "The Way", "The Truth", etc...for millennia prior to "Buddhism".

So, while Buddhism is perhaps the clearest living surviving remnant of this sophisticated and far reaching body of knowledge and perception, it doesn't offer much that is "radical" or new - and as it is currently understood by the majority of it's practitioners and believers...it would be considered to be an amnesiatic, contextless shell by much older civilizations.

Aloka
20 May 10, 18:42
Under the cultural accretions of "Buddhism" exists, unnoticed by most "Buddhists", what was once a highly sophisticated global cosmology and moral code, of which Buddhism is only a very recent manifestation...a manifestation that has forgotten and lost the context and knowledge base out of which it emerged. This global cosmology, which is vastly more complex and sophisticated than the remnants of it contained in Buddhism.....etc

Interesting. Can you provide any reliable study ]http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/img/smilies/hands.gif[/img]

Pink_trike
20 May 10, 19:01
Hi Dazzle,

If I have time this weekend, I'll compile a reading list.

Maybe stuka could offer some sources that support his idea that older cosmologies were actually "primitive" and "religions", and that Buddhism innovated discernment and an ethics of reciprocity. I'd be interested to see them.

Aloka
20 May 10, 19:03
Could I also suggest that if interest in a sub-topic continues developing further, that participants take it to a new topic title, so as not to derail the rebirth one.

Thankshttp://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
20 May 10, 19:05
Hi Dazzle,

If I have time this weekend, I'll compile a reading list.

Maybe stuka could offer some sources that support his idea that older cosmologies were actually "primitive" and "religions", and that Buddhism innovated discernment and an ethics of reciprocity. I'd be interested to see them.

Oops, we must have posted #162 and #163 at the same time!

Okey dokey Pink. Perhaps when you've got the info together you could start a different topic to this one, please?

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Snowmelt
20 May 10, 20:38
I got to page 3 of this thread and then stopped reading, so I hope I will be forgiven if I am repeating what others have already said.

I don't believe in rebirth (or kamma). I don't disbelieve them either. I practice without belief in either of those things. I don't think me trying to puzzle out whether they are true or not is going to help me towards enlightenment. I think it is more likely to lead away from enlightenment, like wondering whether the universe is finite, infinite, both, or neither http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif. Wanting to believe them caused me conflict in the early days of my contact with the Dhamma. Now I have let go of all that. Maybe I will come to some conclusion in the future. For now, I just cuddle up to Buddhism and enjoy the resulting sunshine, which is to say, I read, I practise, I meditate, I listen ... and my life improves.

plogsties
20 May 10, 20:49
I read, I practise, I meditate, I listen ... and my life improves

Good post.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif I find the whole issue to be somewhat of a distraction. It is, as far as i can see, an undecidable question unless one reverts to "faith" which sounds too Christian to me.

Snowmelt
20 May 10, 21:07
@plogsties: Thanks for your comment. When I first started to get seriously interested in Buddhism, I was told, "you don't have to believe, just to practise". I did that, and in time I started to feel better. I was taking out some of my garbage, so to speak. So, I had something I could believe: Buddhism makes you feel better. Then I thought it likely that I would feel even better if I kept going. This also proved true. Extrapolating, I thought, if I keep on going deeper and deeper and deeper, what might I eventually feel like? Maybe I would reach a place where not just some, but all of the rubbish in my mind was either eliminated or become irrelevant and ignorable. I thought this possible, even likely. So, I began to believe in what I thought was a kind of enlightenment. For me, this is quite enough. This simple approach is why I am not hugely interested in long debates or analysis, particularly of fine points of doctrine that sometimes take years (at least, for me http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif ) just to understand. Love you guys http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Aloka
20 May 10, 21:10
Love you guys

Great to see you again Snowmelt http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wave.gif

Snowmelt
20 May 10, 21:13
Thanks, Dazz. You really are a true friend. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

stuka
20 May 10, 22:26
Perhaps if we add "post-mortem" to rebirth/birth when we're discussing that ...and try to leave the expression 're-incarnation' out of it altogether ?

But that also falls into the abhidhammic/commentarial assumption that the Buddha's liberative teachings are talking about reincarnation. The designation of "re-birth" as a sort of "reincarnation-without-an-atta" is itself an equivocation. In practice the two (reincarnation/"re-birth") are identical. Thus we see, for example, tibetan claims that the Dalai Lama is the reincarnation of this-and-such person.

Aloka
20 May 10, 22:34
from post #170

So how shall we proceed ? http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/bunny.gif

stuka
20 May 10, 22:41
....or we could derail the discussion with endless tangential equivocation about the meaning of "primitive".


Primitive (from Merriam Webster's):

little evolved <primitive mammals>

belonging to or characteristic of an early stage of development





Having studied premodern records and cosmology from all over the world for decades, I disagree with your suggestion that discernment and the ethics of reciprocity were something new and radical that emerged fairly recently with Buddhism.



I am pointing out that the Buddha's liberative teachings, i.e., "Noble Right View that is free of the asavas, liberative, a Factor of the Path" is based entirely in discernment and the ethics of reciprocity and entirely without superstition.




I also disagree that cosmologies/moral codes that existed before Buddhism were "primitive religions".



I am drawing the line between primitive and modern at the point where superstition (including cosmologies, metaphysical speculative views, miraculous stories, etc.) is separate from discernment and teh ethics of reciprocity.




They were neither "primitive" nor "religions"....it's modern people who project the concept of "religion" onto these cosmologies and ways of perceiving and understanding existence. And the term "superstition" is a word that modern people use to dismiss concepts that it doesn't understand the meaning and function of within older cosmologies.

superstition: 1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation





The idea of humans having a "primitive" understanding of existence, discernment, and the ethics of reciprocity prior to a scant 2,500-ish years ago isn't consistent with what is now known about our ancestors, and is radically inconsistent with what is reflected by significantly older cosmologies....cosmologies...global cosmologies....

Cosmologies with respect to religion are superstition. See above definition of "primitive".

Esho
20 May 10, 22:50
from post #160

I feel you have got a good point here Pink dear,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

stuka
20 May 10, 22:50
Maybe stuka could offer some sources that support his idea that older cosmologies were actually "primitive" and "religions", and that Buddhism innovated discernment and an ethics of reciprocity. I'd be interested to see them.

I am calling *all* cosmologies with respect to religion "primitive", including those that survive today, such as those we see in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and what passes for "Buddhism" today. I have no interest in quibbling over the definition of "religion".

I am calling the Buddha's liberative teachings, his "sammaditthi ariyo anasava lokuttara maggaphala" (MN 117), "modern" religion in that it based entirely in discernment, rational empiricism, and the ethics of reciprocity, and is entirely devoid of superstition, i.e., cosmologies, metaphysics, speculative views, magical stories, and speculative view.

stuka
20 May 10, 22:56
So how shall we proceed ?

I would suggest using language at all times that makes it clear when we are referring to pre- and post- Buddha reincarnation theories, Abhidhammic/commentarial "re-birth" reincarnation-workaround theories, or the here-and-now Jati that the Buddha talks about in his liberative teachings.

I do not make distinctions between the two former, as they are essentially the same thing in different wrappers. I would suggest not calling the Buddha's Jati "re-birth". It simply opens the door to way too much equivocation.

Esho
20 May 10, 22:56
As far as rebirth is concerned, whilst I respect the views of others, my own personal thoughts are that it's pointless me speculating about what happens or doesn't happen after death, what's most important is my study and practice in the here and now.



I quite like the idea of reincarnation and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it , but it is speculative and it's conceptual."

As far this thread has gone I still can not hold an extreme psture and just say No! I can just say I don't know for shure, living it like that doing the "here and now" Zen practice as much as I can.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Aloka
20 May 10, 23:02
from post #175

Fine with me - but other posters joining in might not see these posts or understand this approach so we have to be patient with them (and with me too because I might make slip-ups in my terminology sometimes http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/bag.gif )

Anyway, lets get back to the main topic now and other issues not relating to Jati can be dealt with on separate threads which can be started as offshoots, rather than derailing this one.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
20 May 10, 23:38
I do not make distinctions between the two former, as they are essentially the same thing in different wrappers. I would suggest not calling the Buddha's Jati "re-birth". It simply opens the door to way too much equivocation.

I might add that this non-distinction between "re-birth" and reincarnation is not unique to me, in fact, such noble friends as the admin and staff members of the now-thankfully-defunkt E-Sangha, most notably Namdrol, admit that they do not distinguish between the two at all, that they mean precisely the same thing.

Aloka
20 May 10, 23:54
from post #178

Oh yes, people often do think of them as the same thing, I agree.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 02:27
I would suggest not calling the Buddha's Jati "re-birth".

I understand your reason for this, but I'm not so sure that the word should be abandoned. Perhaps it just needs reclamation and rehabilitation.

We discover in our practice that the fundamental experience, mechanics, and perception of the river of appearances / sensations / conceptualizations that make up the mind stream mirrors that of birth. The mind stream continuously gives birth to itself...rising, rising, rising only to inevitably age, deteriorate, and dissolve. The benefit of the teachings is that they point out a way that leads to the cessation of this continuous rising and inevitable dissolve of waves in the mind stream. This cessation is what is meant by the state of "deathlessness". Imo, this constant rising and dissolving of the mind stream, and the potential for it to cease is what the teachings point at.

The term "rebirth" has been appropriated by the postmortem rebirthers and used to mean something very narrow and specific, but the term and the experience is fundamentally universal. I can't think of a better term for the moment to moment experience of the mind...a complete reformatting in every momentary explosion of elements that age, deteriorate, decline, and die...than "rebirth".

So, I would suggest not narrowing the term "rebirth" to exclusively mean literal post-mortem rebirth. I couldn't care less if someone wants to hold a belief in post-mortem rebirth, but there's no reason or justification to define rebirth in a way that erases it's universality using this particularly narrow, unverifiable belief.

FBM
21 May 10, 03:19
from post #160

Theosophy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy)

stuka
21 May 10, 04:29
That is an interesting way to look at it, pink, but the Buddha didn't teach "the mind-stream". The Buddha's description of the arising *and cessation* of the various forms of consciousness does not postulate a "mind steam" taking it all in. The paticcasamuppada describes the various types of sense experience that arise and cease as a result or our senses coming into contact with objects within their abilities to detect data, and how we attach to these experiences in unskillful ways, ultimately causing misery. Paticcanirodha suggest a course of action that cuts off this attachment and prevents any resultant misery. Nowhere in this formula is a "mind-stream" expressed or implied, and we can see in MN 38 how the Buddha viewed suggestions that such a thing was expressed or implied.

Had the Buddha meant to speak of "re-birth" (or reincarnation, if we make this distinction for the moment), he would have done so explicitly and at great length, just like everything else he explained.



Beyond the fact that it wasn't ever there in the first place, the problem with "reclaiming" the word is that doing so is patchwork on top of patchwork, none of which was ever necessary in the first place, and you are never going to get "rebirthers" to buy into the "reclamation".

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 04:59
from post #182

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindstream

Aloka
21 May 10, 05:28
How about if we look at the Theravada position and the Pali Canon in this thread and then compare Theravada and Mahayana interpretations in another thread ?.....or not. Just a thought http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

stuka
21 May 10, 05:34
I see the WIKI you reference, PT, but all the same, the Buddha did not teach this "continuum" of awareness.

Then the Blessed One said: "Sati, is it true, that such an pernicious view has arisen to you. 'As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'?"

"Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else."

"Sati, what is that consciousness?"

"Venerable sir, it is that which feels and experiences, that which reaps the results of good and evil actions done here and there."

"Foolish man, to whom do you know me having taught the Dhamma like this. Haven't I taught, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."

Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, what do you think, has this this bhikkhu Sati, son of a fisherman, learned anything from this dispensation?" "No, venerable sir."

stuka
21 May 10, 05:47
How about if we look at the Theravada position and the Pali Canon in this thread and then compare Theravada and Mahayana interpretations in another thread ?

Would much rather talk about what the Buddha actually taught, rather than Mahayana or even Theravada corruptions.

Aloka
21 May 10, 06:04
How about if we continue here with what the Buddha taught and I make another thread "Comparison of Theravada and Mahayana interpretations of rebirth" then .....or the other way round ?

Any ideas from you guys welcomed please.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 06:22
If we're down to stating what we don't want to talk about based on sectarian preference, perhaps the thread has run it's course.

stuka
21 May 10, 06:24
"What the Buddha taught" is not by any means "sectarian preference".

Aloka
21 May 10, 06:30
C'mon guys lighten up, this is a discussion group , lets figure out how we can accomodate each other, huh ?

stuka
21 May 10, 06:36
It's not light or heavy, Dazz, hun. We are Buddhists here, and what the Buddha actually taught is what's most relevant http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 06:41
rather than Mahayana or even Theravada corruptions.

*yawn* http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 06:43
from post #191

Yes, I agree, Stukes. Just trying to find a way that we can take a look at what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon....and also perhaps look at the other approaches in a different discussion too. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

stuka
21 May 10, 07:22
*yawn*

So the discussion suddenly becomes "boring" when the subject of what the Buddha actually taught comes up. And straw-man accusations of "sectarianism" come out.



Just trying to find a way that we can take a look at what the Buddha taught in the Pali Canon.

That is what I have been pointing to as well. There doesn't seem to be much interest in what the Buddha taught here at the moment.

Aloka
21 May 10, 07:28
There doesn't seem to be much interest in what the Buddha taught here at the moment

I don't think that's true....and I'm certainly interested myself.

We also have quite a few members here who are Theravadins....

srivijaya
21 May 10, 07:30
When discussing the Tibetan 'take' on this issue it is easy to dismiss it as conjecture, rather than something based on experience.

On the other hand the states "experienced" by yogis at and beyond the time of death are clearly outlined. These states are first mastered whilst alive by practicing Tantra, so that they can be utilized at the time of death.

Something very similar to Powah was mentioned in the Pali suttas and was taught by Buddha. How the teachings came to subsequently vanish within the Theravadan tradition is not known.


DN 11
Kevatta (Kevaddha) Sutta
To Kevatta
Translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
The Mind-made Body
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.

"This, too, is called the miracle of instruction.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

Re-birth and re-incarnation are different, as the latter requires mastery of the Bardo state. The former is a mundane process. The Tibetan teachings on emptiness utterly refute a self. Candrakirti's sevenfold reasoning is 100% clear on that.

A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar.
– Chandrakirti, Supplement to (Nagarjuna's)
"Treatise on the Middle Way"
http://luthar.com/another-kind-of-self-inquiry-chandrakirti's-sevenfol d-reasoning-on-selflessness/ (http://luthar.com/another-kind-of-self-inquiry-chandrakirti's-sevenfold-reasoning-on-selflessness/)

So to understand the process of re-birth or re-incarnation from a Tibetan POV requires more than the adoption of a philosophical idea, or a mistaken belief in a transmigrating spirit.

Namaste

Aloka
21 May 10, 07:34
Something very similar to Powah was mentioned in the Pali suttas and was taught by Buddha. How the teachings came to subsequently vanish within the Theravadan tradition is not known.

I disagree. I've done Phowa offline - and that quote isn't anything like it, Kris.

I've also done the entire Bardo teachings, empowerments and practices offline.

The Bardo is all about one<u>self</u> negotiating an afterdeath state.

Regarding Nagarjuna, he based a lot of stuff on the Pali Canon.

stuka
21 May 10, 07:56
stuka #194:
There doesn't seem to be much interest in what the Buddha taught here at the moment

I don't think that's true....and I'm certainly interested myself.

We also have quite a few members here who are Theravadins....

And I'm saying its not a Thera/Maha thing, either. Both traditions recognize the Buddha's teachings in the Nikayas, and both traditions are guilty of "contributing" their own eisegeses. That's no big secret to anyone, and blowing an ad hominem smoke screen and making a hasty exit at the suggestion of examining the Buddha's actual teachings isn't going to change that one iota.

Aloka
21 May 10, 08:09
I'd like to focus on the Buddha's actual teachings that we know about now, if that's ok with everyone else. People are welcome to start other threads about Tantra and so on.

stuka
21 May 10, 08:19
When discussing the Tibetan 'take' on this issue it is easy to dismiss it as conjecture....

That is true, because that is what it is.



"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body.

This is an exercise in discovering the power of imagination. All of this occurs while sitting in meditation, and entirely within the mind -- thus "mind-made" -- and the Buddha is quite clear about that. All of the things that the Buddha talks about in this mental exercise -- flying through walls, leaping tall buildings -- are imagined while sitting in meditation. Nothing special happening here, it simply is a self-demonstration of the power of our imagination. Our dreams can seem so real as to fool us into wondering if they were real. And delusions can make us believe things that have nothing to do with the reality of a given situation or experience.




Re-birth and re-incarnation are different, as the latter requires mastery of the Bardo state.

The Buddha did not teach a "Bardo state" or anything like it.





The Tibetan teachings on emptiness utterly refute a self.

Tibetan ideas of emptiness are entirely unrelated to the Buddha's teaching of emptiness. The Buddha does not bother to refute a self, he demonstrates the irrelevance of whether a self exists or not. Tibetan teachings,however, are a doctrine of self, especially with respect to "re-birth"/reincarnation, no matter what logical convolutions they proffer to cloak that fact.




So to understand the process of re-birth or re-incarnation from a Tibetan POV requires more than the adoption of a philosophical idea, or a mistaken belief in a transmigrating spirit.

It requires a suspension of reason.

.

Aloka
21 May 10, 08:32
The Bardo teachings were composed and introduced to Tibet by the Indian teacher Padmasambhava.

As I mentioned #197, the Bardo is about a self, an actual disembodied mind projecting illusory appearances and negotiating an afterdeath state.

I'm looking at my own written notes at the moment.

Anyway, lets get back to the Buddha's teachings now.

srivijaya
21 May 10, 08:42
I'm not making it up. So lets leave that aside for now.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 08:44
from post #202

Sorry Kris, I must have been removing that part when you were posting - but its still relevent http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

frank
21 May 10, 09:44
Maybe I would reach a place where not just some, but all of the rubbish in my mind was either eliminated or become irrelevant and ignorable. I thought this possible, even likely.

I'm sure this is so,it is after all the point behind Buddhism.
I would suggest that it's helpful to develop one's own practise first.
The other stuff,well it can wait.

srivijaya
21 May 10, 10:01
Well, to look exclusively at the Pali, perhaps we could resolve a slight contradiction - if indeed it is a contradiction?


Similarly we read in the Milindapañha:

"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#c h2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#ch2)

Here we see a process occurring without the transmigration of anything, which is in line with that which we agree on (I think).

But in Buddha's admonishment of Sati, son of the fisherman he says:

Yet you, foolish man, on account of your wrong view, you misrepresent me, as well as destroy yourself and accumulate much demerit, for which you will suffer for a long time."
Seems to contradict what we know already. How does Sati's assertion "destroy himself"? How can this be? Yes he may suffer a bit more in the here and now but Sati and the arahants are both subject to aging & death.

So I assume the admonishment must refer to the fact that in the case of Sati a 'rebirth' will occur after his death and in the case of an arahant, it will not.

But as nothing of Sati passes over during the process, it is inaccurate to claim that 'he' will "suffer for a long time". He clearly won't.

How can a being accumulate 'merit', when there is no medium to transmit such a thing? One can, to some extent, create causes and conditions within this life which are experienced within this life, but any influence this may or may not have on a subsequent "rebirth" is no longer a matter for the deceased.

Or do you think Buddha was just trying to scare him?

Dunno

Namaste
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 10:21
'A long time' can clearly be in one lifetime...for example an old friend might say " I haven't seen you for a long time. "

'Merit' or 'benefit' can obviously refer to one lifetime too. If we don't properly understand the teachings then we dont get any benefit from them in <u>this</u> lifetime

Also, in the same way we can easily 'destroy' our progress in one lifetime.

What does any of that have to do with postmortem 'rebirth' in another body?

Aloka
21 May 10, 10:31
The quote from the Milindapañha is interesting because I've not seen the term 'rebirth' in my Pali Canon readings so far, only 'birth'.

I looked it up and found this comment:

"It is generally accepted by scholars that the work is composite, with additions made over some time."

URL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milinda_Panha)

srivijaya
21 May 10, 13:14
What does any of that have to do with postmortem 'rebirth' in another body?

My point exactly Dazzle. It must only refer to his present life.

So Sati doesn't have much to worry about. If he (theoretically) left the sangha and started earning money in his father's trade, he could forget the religious life, get married and enjoy life until sickness and old age overtook him.

Might have a bit more mental stress than a bikkhu now and again but in the grand scheme of things, it makes no difference to him.

Element
21 May 10, 13:16
Upapannā = found in MN 4
'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.

Opapātikā = found in MN 117 = actually is 'spontaneous birth'
And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other worlds. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit & results in acquisitions.

Upapajjati = reappears + Paccājāyati = reborn = found in MN 135
"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn.

Upatti = found in MN 120
Those intentions and that abiding, developed and made much, conduces to reappearing there. This is the path and method to be born there.

Upapajjati = found in MN 57
"Here, Punna, he develops the dog duty fully & unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully & unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully & unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully & unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs.

Sopapajjati = found in Dhammapada
137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed, and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states:

138-140 Sharp pain, or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness, or derangement of mind, trouble from the government, or grave charges, loss of relatives, or loss of wealth, or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

srivijaya
21 May 10, 13:18
have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.

Thanks element but I think we all pretty much agree that various destinations refer to mental states in the 'here and now' and not any kind of other realms.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Deshy
21 May 10, 13:24
Just wondering who here practices Buddhism with a belief in re-birth and who does not. Either way, could you also give the reasons behind your belief.1

I personally do not believe it or disbelieve it. I really don't know. In fact, it's not relevant. You can practice Dhamma and reap the fruits of Buddhist teachings without believing it.

stuka
21 May 10, 14:44
Well, to look exclusively at the Pali, perhaps we could resolve a slight contradiction - if indeed it is a contradiction?

Milindapañha is not a teaching of the Buddha. This comes from Nagasena.

Seems to contradict what we know already. How does Sati's assertion "destroy himself"? How can this be? Yes he may suffer a bit more in the here and now but Sati and the arahants are both subject to aging & death.

The Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta has been passed on for two-and-a-half thousand years, including the entirety of Sati's lifetime, bearing his name and marking him for his heresy.

stuka
21 May 10, 14:46
I personally do not believe it or disbelieve it. I really don't know. In fact, it's not relevant. You can practice Dhamma and reap the fruits of Buddhist teachings without believing it.

Hear, Hear http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

srivijaya
21 May 10, 14:56
"It is generally accepted by scholars that the work is composite, with additions made over some time."

So, the quote I gave is wrong Buddhism? It's tough to know what to trust isn't it?http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/sad.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 15:28
Completely off topic and unrelated to the previous post, I can honestly say that whilst I'm extremely grateful for what I've learned, taking a personal decision to step away from Tibetan Buddhism now has been like a big breath of fresh air......but different strokes for different folks of course.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/flower.gif

Anyway, apologies and back to topic.

srivijaya
21 May 10, 15:38
So not withstanding that the Milindapañha is not a teaching of the Buddha, does my original premise from 205 & 208 still stand?

stuka
21 May 10, 15:40
So, the quote I gave is wrong Buddhism? It's tough to know what to trust isn't it?

What you gave comes from Nagasena and not the Buddha, and does not fall in line with the teachings of the Buddha. It might be part of a large body of work that passes for "Buddhism", but the Buddha nonetheless did not teach it.

stuka
21 May 10, 18:08
So not withstanding that the Milindapañha is not a teaching of the Buddha, does my original premise from 205 & 208 still stand?

What is your premise now?




Well, to look exclusively at the Pali, perhaps we could resolve a slight contradiction - if indeed it is a contradiction?

Similarly we read in the Milindapañha:

"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#c (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatiloka/wheel394.html#c) h2

Here we see a process occurring without the transmigration of anything, which is in line with that which we agree on (I think).

If we examine this ]candle flame[/b]" analogy is *always* used in -- that is, in order to sneak reincarnation into the Buddha's liberative teachings through the back door -- and we can see what Nyanatiloka is really trying to push on us here:



According to Buddhism, there are three factors necessary for the rebirth of a human being, that is, for the formation of the embryo in the mother's womb. They are: the female ovum, the male sperm, and the karma-energy (kamma-vega), which in the Suttas is metaphorically called "gandhabba," i.e. "******ghost*****," or "******soul******."


So here we see Nyanatiloka contradicting the Buddha's teachings and declaring a doctrine of SELF.

If you look closely with Right Wisdom at his forehead in the pictures, you can almost see the red dot.

stuka
21 May 10, 18:21
According to Buddhism, there are three factors necessary for the rebirth of a human being, that is, for the formation of the embryo in the mother's womb. They are: the female ovum, the male sperm, and the karma-energy (kamma-vega), which in the Suttas is metaphorically called "gandhabba," i.e. "******ghost*****," or "******soul******."

This description of a "gandhabba" being present with respect to physical conception and birth of a child appears only twice in the Nikayas, and where it appears in context, we see the Buddha compelling a Brahmin to confirm that this is a Brahmin belief.

"According to Buddhism" is highly misleading.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 19:26
making a hasty exit at the suggestion of examining the Buddha's actual teachings

...or, perhaps some folks aren't interested in engaging with the teachings at an exclusively fundamentalist theravada level, as seems to be your strong preference.

FBM
21 May 10, 19:30
IIRC, in the Milindapañha there is an analogy of rebirth as when a teacher teaches a poem to a student.

Aloka
21 May 10, 19:39
...or, perhaps some folks aren't interested in engaging with the teachings at an exclusively fundamentalist theravada level, as seems to be your strong preference.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/shout_computer.jpg


Lets try to keep things friendly, please. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 20:05
Lets try to keep things friendly, please.

Dazzle, are you seeing something unfriendly in my post? I'm not, and no unfriendliness was intended. I'm always direct, and always friendly.

stuka
21 May 10, 20:06
...or, perhaps some folks aren't interested in engaging with the teachings at an exclusively fundamentalist theravada level, as seems to be your strong preference.

This isn't a matter of "fundamentalist theravada". The Buddha himself recommended that any question about the authenticity an accuracy of a statement about the Dhamma should be verified against his word:


....carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it.


All traditions that call themselves "Buddhist" defer to the Buddha's word in the Nikayas. Play the ball, not the man.

stuka
21 May 10, 20:08
Dazzle, are you seeing something unfriendly in my post? I'm not, and no unfriendliness was intended.

The wildly inaccurate ad homniem, "exclusively fundamentalist theravada", is loud and clear in your post, yes.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 20:09
making a hasty exit at the suggestion of examining the Buddha's actual teachings

Is this what you mean by "playing the ball, not the man?" http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 20:11
from post #225

You're seeing "ad hominem" but it doesn't seem to be clear at what end of the stick it originated from. Your imagination seems to be working overtime...

Snowmelt
21 May 10, 20:14
Off-topic, but the following thought occurred to me: since, when the river has been crossed, the raft is to be abandoned, perhaps it does not matter what form of raft you use ... as long as it gets you over the river. More than one road leads to Rome?

Further, and to speak bluntly, I am of the opinion that excessive focussing on scriptures to the exclusion of the goal they are supposed to guide you to leads away from enlightenment.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 20:16
This isn't a matter of "fundamentalist theravada".

I don't think you're the final decision maker on this point. I find your position to be very fundie thera. That's not unfriendly, it's just an observation.

Pink_trike
21 May 10, 20:19
from post #228

I agree. An exclusive focus on the minutia of scripture concretizes conceptual beliefs and hardens the mind. The proof is in the pudding of practice and experience, and many teachers/traditions have developed practices and experiences that achieve the same end that the scriptures point at. There are many kinds of effective rafts in Buddhism...we ultimately set them all down.

Esho
21 May 10, 20:28
minutia of scripture concretizes conceptual beliefs and hardens the mind.

The fingers pointing to the moon... the map v.s. the territory,

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



we ultimately set them all down.

Fortunatly...

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 20:45
I don't think you're the final decision maker on this point. I find your position to be very fundie thera. That's not unfriendly, it's just an observation.

Actually I'm the final decision maker at this point and I'm suggesting that we discuss the post and not the poster. Calling people 'fundamentalist' and picking on each other is not appropriate.

Thanks for your cooperation everyone.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

stuka
21 May 10, 21:07
Stuka #235: making a hasty exit at the suggestion of examining the Buddha's actual teachings

Is this what you mean by "playing the ball, not the man?"

I see that you have cut out that the hasty exit was accompanied by ad-hom accusations of sectarianism.



You're seeing "ad hominem" but it doesn't seem to be clear at what end of the stick it originated from. Your imagination seems to be working overtime...

Comes from the stick of false accusations of sectarianism.



I am of the opinion that excessive focussing on scriptures to the exclusion of the goal

The goal is not being excluded here, thanks. See #224 for the Buddha's recommendation wrt "focussing on scripture".



An exclusive focus on the minutia of scripture

What we are discussing is hardly "minutiae of scripture". What we are discussing cuts to the very heart of the Dhamma and what it means.

jack
21 May 10, 21:11
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/zzz.gif

stuka
21 May 10, 21:33
from post #234

At the upper left of your browser you will find a "Back" button. It is your friend.

Aloka
21 May 10, 21:37
At the upper left of your browser you will find a "Back" button. It is your friend

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/biglol.gif

Its at times like this that I have a nice cuppa tea and a bikkie !http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/read.gif

jack
21 May 10, 21:46
Its at times like this that I have a nice cuppa tea and a bikkie !

What's a bikkie? O_O

jack
21 May 10, 21:47
1. bikkie

Short for a biscuit, meaning:
1. A mutha-fucking gun.
2. An ecstacy pill.
1. My bikkie is bigger than yours.
2. Let's dump sum bikkies at the rave.

Aloka
21 May 10, 21:47
a biscuit !

jack
21 May 10, 21:49
a biscuit !

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 21:50
from post #238

Er, no, none of those ... just an ordinary biscuit in a packet from Sainsbury's supermarket.http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Byee.

jack
21 May 10, 21:52
Er, no, none of those ... just an ordinary biscuit in a packet from Sainsbury's supermarket.

It would be very disturbing if it was.

Snowmelt
21 May 10, 22:05
from post #239

When I read your post, Dazz, the image of a bikkie appeared in my mind along with a surge of peace and contentment. I found myself suddenly convinced that I could become enlightened simply by contemplating a bikkie http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

Snowmelt
21 May 10, 22:06
It's 8 am; time to catch some shuteye. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif Goodnight, all.

Aloka
21 May 10, 22:09
When I read your post, Dazz, the image of a bikkie appeared in my mind along with a surge of peace and contentment. I found myself suddenly convinced that I could become enlightened simply by contemplating a bikkie

Excellent ! You could then be refered to as HH Bikkiman http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/lol.gif



Goodnight, all.

Sweet dreams, Snowmelt. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/hands.gif

Aloka
21 May 10, 22:11
Back to topic.....anyone ?http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/green.gif

Element
21 May 10, 22:16
"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."

How does the above statement rationalise the matter?

The flame of one lamp makes contact with another lamp. Each lamp has body, oil & wick.

The body, oil, flame, wick & light of each lamp are dependently originated.

There is no light or flame without the other conditions.

The same cannot be said for rebirth.

The similie used by Nagasena does not hold.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif

stuka
21 May 10, 22:27
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/topic.gif



So not withstanding that the Milindapañha is not a teaching of the Buddha, does my original premise from 205 & 208 still stand?

Um I believe I answered this a bit ago:



: Seems to contradict what we know already. How does Sati's assertion "destroy himself"? How can this be? Yes he may suffer a bit more in the here and now but Sati and the arahants are both subject to aging & death.

The Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta has been passed on for two-and-a-half thousand years, including the entirety of Sati's lifetime, bearing his name and marking him for his heresy.




The Tibetan teachings on emptiness utterly refute a self. Candrakirti's sevenfold reasoning is 100% clear on that.

Back to the tibetan religions' "refutation of self":

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism. "

--MN 72








The similie used by Nagasena does not hold.

Agreed. Nor is Nagasena's assertion in accordance with the Buddha's teachings that every instance of each type of consciousness arises and ceases dependent upon the conditions that give it nutriment: the eye seeing a form, or the eye not seeing any forms at all, etc.

frank
22 May 10, 02:57
Further, and to speak bluntly, I am of the opinion that excessive focussing on scriptures to the exclusion of the goal they are supposed to guide you to leads away from enlightenment.

I also would agree.

Aloka
22 May 10, 03:29
I also would agree.

... speculation which is, however, irrelevent to the thread being back on topic, Frank. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/images/smilies/grin.gif