Share on Facebook
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5

Thread: A Buddhist Ethic Without Karmic Rebirth?

  1. #41
    Previous Member
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    In light of the above, that statement makes no sense at all. Sati was claiming that the Buddha taught karma and reincarnation, with a "consciousness" entity as a vehicle for that process. The Buddha refuted him and explained that his use of the word "consciousness" was entirely perceptual. Another example of him co-opting extant terms and changing them to suit his own teachings.
    Yes, but my point was that saying the Buddha had no difficulty conveying his teaching is belied by Sati's confusion. The Buddha's answer to Sati's query is to AGAIN explain dependent origination. So he has explained this *process* and Sati did not understand. Buddha speaks to him sharply and tries again... The Buddha *did* have difficulty conveying his point.

  2. #42
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    In light of the above, that statement makes no sense at all. Sati was claiming that the Buddha taught karma and reincarnation, with a "consciousness" entity as a vehicle for that process. The Buddha refuted him and explained that his use of the word "consciousness" was entirely perceptual. Another example of him co-opting extant terms and changing them to suit his own teachings.
    Yes, but my point was that saying the Buddha had no difficulty conveying his teaching is belied by Sati's confusion. The Buddha's answer to Sati's query is to AGAIN explain dependent origination. So he has explained this *process* and Sati did not understand. Buddha speaks to him sharply and tries again... The Buddha *did* have difficulty conveying his point.
    The sutta is silent as to any training on paticcasamuppada that Sati might have had or not. But clearly all of the other monks present are on the same page with the Buddha.

    The difficulty in conveying the point is the same that challenges us today: it requires a huge paradigm shift.

    You might find the discussion of this very paradigm shift in Nanavira's preface to his work "Clearing the Path" helpful in understanding this:

    http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ct...en-view_v1.pdf


    And also Mettiko Bhikkhu's criticism of Bhikkhu Bodhi's critique of nanavira's work:

    http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index...sk=view&id=244

  3. #43
    Previous Member
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    The sutta is silent as to any training on paticcasamuppada that Sati might have had or not. But clearly all of the other monks present are on the same page with the Buddha.
    So then is your take on this is that the Buddha dressed Sati down -- he very rarely calls people names "Misguided man!" -- although Sati had not had a chance to hear the Buddha's teaching?

    Thanks for the Clearing the Path link.... paid good money for Notes on the Dhamma and have been working my way through it these last days. I will be grateful to have the letters section.

    I'm sure I'll also find Mettiko Bhikkhu's notes helpful. Thanks.

  4. #44
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    I can read the quote thus: Once you understand the Buddha's teaching, you will have no need to ask questions about your past, how it led to the present, or who you'll be in the future, because you have opened your Eye and know the answers, you have now seen it for yourself.
    The Buddha does not maintain that there are answers to such questions: in fact, he maintains that there are not answers for such questions. He referred to them as "a wilderness of views, a thicket of views, a canker, an arrow".

    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    He is not saying "Dependent Origination describes just this life"...

    Again, he is going even further: he is saying that it happens entirely in the here-and-now.

    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    nor can I find where he's said "There is no rebirth after the breakup of the body"

    That is because such speculation is rendered moot by his teachings. And this is precisely the point that he is making here.


    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    I understand what you think it says -- I think it says that too --
    If you think it says what I say it says, then why are you taking a position that you don't ascribe to? I find such things to be a waste of both of our time. I would rather talk about the Dhamma than about pointless speculations and/or irrelevant positions others who do not see or understand the Dhamma have taken. I don't do "Devil's Advocate". Kindly do not ask me to play that game.

    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    but it is just as easily read the other way.
    Only if you ignore the the rest of what is being said in this sutta and lift it entirely out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    It's not the Buddha stating *clearly* that dependent origination shows us that there is no rebirth.
    The Buddha *never* takes the position "there is no 'rebirth'," Nor does he address "rebirth" at all, in the sense that it is understood by most Buddhists now. When the Buddha discusses karma and reincarnation, he is discussnig reincarnation of a "soul" as was speculated by others before him. "Re-birth" as "reincarnation-that-is-not-reincarnation of a soul-that-is-not-a-soul" is a much later eisegesis.

    But the Buddha refuted "there is no reincarnation" on the level of speculative view/superstition-based ethics because he saw it as leading one toward nihilism and away from morality -- he explains that in MN 60. But he also points out that such speculations are based on and dependent upon the asavas.




    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    -- can you give me a page number for the MN?
    This one?:

    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    "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?'"
    It's also MN 38: http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm

    Buddhadasa's Two Kinds of Language:

    http://www.buddhadasa.com/naturaltru...language1.html

    Thanissaro's Wings to Awakening:

    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...ngs/index.html

    I don't have my MN with me at the moment. My reference to that was Bodhi's admission that the Buddha co-opted extant terms and gave them a different meaning in his own teachings. He does not mention Buddhadasa. Of course Bodhi is going to claim that paticcasamuppada is an explanation of reincarnation/"re-birth", because that is what he (wrongly) believes. But that was not what i was referring to when i mentioned Bodhi's introduction.


  5. #45
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat
    So then is your take on this is that the Buddha dressed Sati down -- he very rarely calls people names "Misguided man!" -- although Sati had not had a chance to hear the Buddha's teaching?
    I am saying that the discourse is silent on this. But I am also saying that the monks Sati suggested this to attempted to dissuade Sati from this view, and reported his insistent misrepresentation of the Buddha's teaching as a reincarnation strategy to the Buddha, who called him on the carpet in front of a large group of monks.

    But apparently he had at least some exposure to the Buddha's teaching, as we can see in the following:



    Then those bhikkhus thinking to dissuade the bhikkhu Sati from that pernicious view, cross examined him, asked for reasons and discussed with him: "Friend, Sati do not say that, do not misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say that. The Blessed One has shown in various ways, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness."

    Quote Originally Posted by nowheat


    I'm sure I'll also find Mettiko Bhikkhu's notes helpful. Thanks.
    Bodhi's polemic against Nanavira's writings is also posted in full in the Theravada forum.

  6. #46
    Previous Member
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    -- can you give me a page number for the MN?
    This one?:
    Ah, no, this one: " Bhikkhi Bodhi mentions it in the introduction of his re-work of Nanamoli's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya"

  7. #47
    Forums Member inji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    another bozo on the bus
    Posts
    69
    i admire this man's pluck in the face of death. he appears to have an intuitive understanding of anicca, mindfulness and acceptance. it doesn't always have to be in a buddhist context. skillfulness with a sense of humor. i wonder how many of us will do as well when our time comes.

    http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/fe...itchens-201009

  8. #48
    Forums Member inji's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    another bozo on the bus
    Posts
    69
    sorry, wrong thread,

  9. #49
    He is an extraordinary person.

    Writing can be cathartic ... and a powerful force in self-development.

    Elizabeth K├╝bler-Ross's work on the human reaction to terminal illness is not necessarily the last word on the subject.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by inji
    sorry, wrong thread,
    Admin Note

    Hi Inji,

    Which thread was your post #46 meant to be in so that it can be moved? We don't necessarily read every thread on the website in great detail.

    By the way, you can delete your own posts(Remove)probably for 12 hours afterwards - and there's a 12 hr edit (Modify) function too.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5
Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Fri, 1:41 PM Fri, 3:41 PM Fri, 9:41 PM Sat, 2:11 AM Sat, 4:41 AM Sat, 6:41 AM