Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Rebirth: can we simply say "we don't know"?
shadowleaver
Veteran
I am reading the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche. I find it to be useful reading but when I hit the chapter on Rebirth I felt some disappointment.
The author is trying to convince the reader that Rebirth is for real. The ways in which he's doing so are fairly typical of religious apologetics: ask the reader to be "open-minded" and allow for the possibility of Rebirth, bring up some extraordinary stories of people who said they remembered past lives, put together a purely philosophical "argument" for Rebirth that reads well but lacks any concrete evidence and then summarize by saying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless.
Ironically, when I was deeply interested in Christianity, I got exposed to a large share of that kind of reasoning. In fact, the name of C.S. Lewis, the famous English Christian apologetics writer came to my mind immediately. It's just that with Christians, what you're being convinced of is slightly different: that Jesus was indeed God, that Christianity is the only true religion, that we live exactly once and then go to either hell or heaven or that sex outside of marriage is always wrong. The quality and nature of the "arguments" are, however, always the same-- regardless of what they argue for. The bottom line is that what I find in some Buddhist literature and other religious literature is apologetics-- a way of putting words neatly together that, to an uncritical reader, can "prove" absolutely anything. Hard evidence is always lacking.
Insistence on blind faith is one of the main reasons I became discouraged with Christianity and organized religion in general. I still haven't quite learned to cope with that same insistence on blind faith in many Buddhist circles: how is Rebirth different from resurrection, virgin birth, walking on water, heaven, hell, an angel talking to Prophet Mohammad in a cave or alien abductions? To me, it isn't different-- it's pure dogma just like all the others. Basing your life on something that cannot be possibly proven or experienced is something I have a lot of trouble with. Why can't we just leave these "big questions" (Rebirth for Buddhists, God for Christians etc) alone and just honestly say: we don't and probably can't know but let's just make the best out what we do know? Saying "I don't know" and moving on seems like a very Buddhist thing to do to me.
Luckily for a sceptic like me, there appear to be plenty of Buddhists in the West who seem to take that agnostic attitude. But are they really Buddhists or did they just realize that Buddhism has a lot of practical wisdom that makes life better and borrowed some of it? I suppose I belong to that category.
What do you think about Rebirth?
The author is trying to convince the reader that Rebirth is for real. The ways in which he's doing so are fairly typical of religious apologetics: ask the reader to be "open-minded" and allow for the possibility of Rebirth, bring up some extraordinary stories of people who said they remembered past lives, put together a purely philosophical "argument" for Rebirth that reads well but lacks any concrete evidence and then summarize by saying that a life without an afterlife is meaningless.
Ironically, when I was deeply interested in Christianity, I got exposed to a large share of that kind of reasoning. In fact, the name of C.S. Lewis, the famous English Christian apologetics writer came to my mind immediately. It's just that with Christians, what you're being convinced of is slightly different: that Jesus was indeed God, that Christianity is the only true religion, that we live exactly once and then go to either hell or heaven or that sex outside of marriage is always wrong. The quality and nature of the "arguments" are, however, always the same-- regardless of what they argue for. The bottom line is that what I find in some Buddhist literature and other religious literature is apologetics-- a way of putting words neatly together that, to an uncritical reader, can "prove" absolutely anything. Hard evidence is always lacking.
Insistence on blind faith is one of the main reasons I became discouraged with Christianity and organized religion in general. I still haven't quite learned to cope with that same insistence on blind faith in many Buddhist circles: how is Rebirth different from resurrection, virgin birth, walking on water, heaven, hell, an angel talking to Prophet Mohammad in a cave or alien abductions? To me, it isn't different-- it's pure dogma just like all the others. Basing your life on something that cannot be possibly proven or experienced is something I have a lot of trouble with. Why can't we just leave these "big questions" (Rebirth for Buddhists, God for Christians etc) alone and just honestly say: we don't and probably can't know but let's just make the best out what we do know? Saying "I don't know" and moving on seems like a very Buddhist thing to do to me.
Luckily for a sceptic like me, there appear to be plenty of Buddhists in the West who seem to take that agnostic attitude. But are they really Buddhists or did they just realize that Buddhism has a lot of practical wisdom that makes life better and borrowed some of it? I suppose I belong to that category.
What do you think about Rebirth?
0
Comments
I think the one problem I uncovered with not believing in rebirth is that it makes suicide a viable means to become without suffering. Which obviously is wrong but if you took the two propisitions that death is the end of everything and second that the end of suffering is the goal. Well the obvious answer is to commit suicide.
If rebirth is real I remember nothing from my previous lives despite being open minded. However, once when I was 4 years old I opened the front door of my grandmother's house when I felt like there was someone there. To my surprise stood 3 grown men. They were dressed in native like apparel, skull like make up, earrings, jewelry and feathers. They looked fierce, enough for me to slam the door on them after getting a look.
Before this age I had never seen anything like them, but what I saw was very distinct and still remembered very clearly even today. So I later realized the men I saw were how some Aztec warriors/witchdoctors are portrayed. So that made me wonder if I knew those ghosts from a previous life, as it did almost seem like they came to visit me at a young age.
The fact is that the core of Buddhism itself is not in any way proven by the words. The words do not prove the simple experience of awakening/liberation that one undergoes for each successive level of Nibbana (stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner and Arahant).
Only those individuals who have attained these states have found actual proof of Buddhism's truth for themselves. Likewise, the idea of rebirth, while alien to most in the West or thought somehow to be an issue of blind faith, may not be knowable to other than the fully enlightened.
The issue of whether rebirth is true or not, indeed whether it was even taught by the Buddha, rages on between those who are of either opinion and have formed an attachment to these views. I believe either belief or dis-belief without personal realization to be Wrong View.
To conclude, it is my opinion that you should accept that many Buddhists believe rebirth to be something that the Buddha taught, understand how it fits in conceptually, and simply "wait and see" what your own realization shows it to be in the future. No arguments or attachments on the subject have ever led to a consensus, and as such only lead to further dukkha and a hindrance to obtaining liberation.
I do think that many people desire to have some sort of belief about an afterlife. The earliest indication we have that early humans developed religious beliefs came from burials and artifacts showing that people were considering what happened after death. It seems to me that, in a way, Buddhism uses rebirth to address this concern for the after life for people who still need it.
It would probably also help to understand that the culture that Buddhism arose within didn't really question the process of reincarnation. It was simply how people understood the world to be. Naturally then, the concept of reincarnation came to occupy a pretty central role in Buddhism.
I have to wonder too if those chapters are more meant for Western peoples who still hold strict beliefs that there is heaven and hell after death, or even those who militantly believe that there can not possibly be anything after death.
As an interesting side note though, Dr. Ian Stevenson (formerly a respected Department head at the University of Virginia) dedicated his life's work to researching case studies of reincarnation around the world. His most interesting work documented the birthmarks of children supposedly remembering a specific person's past life, and then comparing those birthmarks with the autopsy reports of the supposed former incarnations. It's not enough to prove the existence of reincarnation, but you have to admit, it is enough to prove the possibility of it.
I believe the very nature of life is to crave for itself. Not wanting to die is the strongest desire out there. No belief whatsoever is necessary to keep living things from killing themselves.
But you're making a good point-- if you're accepting Buddhism partially, in particular that ridding oneself from suffering is the goal and also that all desire (and desire for life is also desire) is lamentable, the temptation of suicide may arise...yet I think one must have other issues to really follow through.
The Buddha taught there are six kinds of consciousness which are depend on sense organs; that without a sense organ, there is no origin of consciousness.
There is one teaching in the suttas (DN) that appears to assert consciousness is somehow related to the origin of life. As this one sutta stands in contradiction to the scores of other suttas, naturally, it is dismissed.
The Buddha taught whatever consciousness, subtle or gross, it is impermanent, its arising & passing has been discerned.
Theories about a continuum of consciousness arose after the Buddha.
That's really trippy
When one studies the actual words of the Buddha, he defined two levels of teaching, namely, mundane & supramundane.
Rebirth forms part of mundane teachings, which where taught to the ordinary man in the street and sometimes to the lazy monks.
If one actually reads the original Buddhist scriptures, one will find teachings that appear to infer rebirth are mentioned in the minority of teachings.
:smilec:
I have no trouble with this approach. I can very much imagine that if you practice a lot and practice right you're going to have a super-vision or something that cannot possibly be conveyed to someone who hasn't had the experience.
But then why teach ribirth to everyone? Why not just say that if you practice you're going to have a huge transformation of consciousness that will make you see your life in a revolutionary new light that you cannot possibly imagine in your present state?
One can simply read the Susima Sutta, which reports multitudes of fully enlightened beings who stated they had no insight into the commonly held belief of "past lives".
If one studies the suttas that infer rebirth, most of these were taught to Brahmins & laypeople and sometimes lazy monks.
For example, in the Buddha's first three sermons, which resulted in many enlightened beings, rebirth was not even mentioned.
:smilec:
Most of the time, the Buddha did not even use the word "rebirth" at all.
:smilec:
Try this site: http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/ and the authors Buddhadasa, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Sumedho, Prayudh Payutto , Thich Nhat Hanh, Chandako, Viradhammo.
For simpler teachings, one can try Ajahn Sumedho or Thich Nhat Hanh.
For deeper teachings, one can try Buddhadasa, esp:
Buddha Dhamma for University Students
Two Kinds of Language
Help! The Kalama Sutta, Help!
The ABCs of Buddhism
Handbook for Mankind
Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease
Nibbana for Everyone
No Religion
Patticasamupada - Practical Dependent Origination
Good luck
I don't think it is in any significant sense:)
I dont know about the abduction part but alien's themselves have evidence for their existence, ie, we should expect they exist based on obvious principles of reason, the same isn't true for the supernatural things you mention.
we need to be careful when calling something dogmatic:) If I belive in rebirth that belive isnt dogma, its when I try to tell you are wrong etc that it becomes dogmatic.
Me too:) Equally us "mebirthers" cant be sure there is no rebirth.
How do you know that the Buddha didn't explicitly teach nonrebirth?:)
There were no real buddhists in the time of the Buddha:)
Mat
I think that people often confuse what they personally believe with what they think the Buddha taught.
Anyway IMO a "don't know" position is fine and better than getting all attached to a particular view.
P
There is no consensus, ever, on this subject. There are only people fighting over it.
We need to tread a middle path between the "Believe only what you can confirm with your own reason" nonsense that gets attributed to the Buddha, and the "You have to believe it because the Buddha taught it" attitude of some "true believers". The first is an invitation to believe only your own opinions, and the second is a form of self-inflicted mental violence that isn't likely to lead to wisdom or liberation.
In regard to rebirth, DD has helpfully pointed out that this is an ethical teaching. The Buddha clearly believed in rebirth, but he also did not view it as a view that leads to liberation. He thought it was important because he thought it would promote ethical behavior. Ethical behavior doesn't lead toward liberation, but it does avoid things that lead away from liberation. So belief in rebirth is not a goal in itself, but avoiding unethical behavior is an intermediate goal; something that helps us reach the final goal.
I understand this stance. I can see some benefit in encouraging people to believe something just so they don't go astray. Accepting afterlife (whether heaven/hell, rebirth or reincarnation is irrelevant) certainly can demotivate one from doing mischief.
And yet ultimately I'm not sure whether that solves more problems than it introduces. Well-intentioned or not, we're still talking Blind Faith. And if you're in the mindset to accept just one thing on faith, you are at risk of accepting other things as well. For instance, you may start with believing rebirth and end up believing that your master can possibly do no wrong-- at that point, vary bad things happen.
I don't know about humanity as a whole, but I know that I'd better stick with scepticism and using my own head before any englightened people or books.
happens all the time
While remaining open?
What are you responding to?
I agree, in this sense. But does not something change at death that makes the above differnt from the below:
Where does the perfect sense come from? When I look at the death of a tree it seems very similar to the death of a man.
You may retort, "Ahh but trees are not subject to clinging!"
To which I have a one word reply: vines.
Ohm Shanti
mat
You just exalted certain teachers but none of those teachers teach what you have stated above.
I posted those teachers as examples of non-teachers of rebirth
Any moment to moment rebirth is simply delusion.
The Buddha taught each birth (jati) is a new birth.
For example, if the tendency to anger and delusion takes birth in the mind, it is a new birth in that moment. It is not rebirth.
The conditions for its birth are a whole new set of conditions.
On the supramundane level, the Buddha taught birth (jati) rather than rebirth.
Moment to moment births are arising then passing.
There is constant birth & death of different things but no rebirth.
DD i am confused, do you believe in post mortem rebirth?
I said each birth is a new birth.
Birth of a physical body, birth of the functioning of a sense organ, birth of a feeling, defilement or thought, birth of the idea of 'self'.
When your eye looked at the computer yesterday, is it the same birth (arising) of eye contact as today?
And which sutta was that in?
P
I agree there is no re birth in the sense of the carrying over of an essence or substance, but coloquially that isnt a faux pas. Incidentlally you should read Thich Nhat Hahn's beautiful writings on the Heart and Diamond Sutras.
What is just is.
When you eat just eat.
I totally agree! If there's one thing Buddhism teaches, it's that experience--not "faith"--is the touchstone. The Buddha said not to take his word for anything, but to test everything out for ourselves.
The words "I don't know" seem to me among the wisest and most honest words we can speak. But because those words entail uncertainty--and uncertainty can be a scary thing--many of us find it difficult to abide there: we feel compelled to put a definition on something, to make it less scary by at least pretending we know what it is. The illusion of knowing is more comforting than the reality of not-knowing.
Just follow the parts of the path that speak to you, and don't let yourself be distracted or discouraged by the side-issues. There are many such stumbling-blocks alongside the path, but the path itself is clear and simple.
Another reason I chose to follow Zen.....just be as you are
Their response could be something on these lines: "If we can understand that in this life we can continue without a permanent, unchanging substance like the Self; why can't we understand that, after the non-functioning of the body, those same forces can continue to take some other shape or form without a permanent, unchanging Self behind them?"
I can think of one 'possible' answer here: The five aggregates are all inter-dependent. If one aggregate ceases to be, say the material form (rupa), then the other four aggregates also cease to be. Does this make sense? Or is there a better explanation to this?
One might reply to such a response:
What forces? There is no force to Mind? There is just the body and its form and all other aspects of mind are determined by that form. When the body dies the form goes, so everything goes:)
Or one may say:
But in the body we can see the continuity or reborn self between moments, each moment's origination dependent on previous moments in connected and contiguous sequence yet when the body does the continuity does, there is simply no mechanisms that can transfer anything from a corpse to a newborn, which, if you think about it, is what is needed:)
Food for thought!:)
Mat
Q:why can't we understand that, after the non-functioning of the body, those same forces can continue to take some other shape or form without a permanent, unchanging Self behind them?"
A: Because there are
I can think of one 'possible' answer here: The five aggregates are all inter-dependent. If one aggregate ceases to be, say the material form (rupa), then the other four aggregates also cease to be. Does this make sense? Or is there a better explanation to this?
For me, there is no explanation because one will not find one discourse of the Buddha where rebirth & not-self are taught together.
My view is those who try to teach in such a way, including Archariya Buddhaghosa, are merely convoluting the Buddha-Dhamma.
I have listened to scores of audio talks by Ajahn Sumedho and I have never heard him teach the post-mortem rebirth you referred to originally. Let me quote for you from Cittaviveka:
It is best to refer to published works.
I once was staying in the monastery of a fierce non-rebirth monk.
A young woman came to me crying about her mother who died. I tried without success to explain impermanence to her.
I recommended to the young woman she speak to the abbot of the monastery.
The abbot spoke to her for merely a few minutes and she left with happiness.
She returned to me with scorn and I asked the abbot what he said to her.
He said to me: "I told her her mother did good in her life and she is in heaven".
The abbot has great wisdom.
and
.
Buddha said in MN 131:
.
What are the four kinds of clinging?
They are:
kamaupadana: clinging to sense pleasure;
ditthaupadana: clinging to views and opinions;
silabbatupadana: clinging to conventions, to gurus,
to meditation techniques, to an ethic, to specific
religious forms; and
attavadupadana: clinging to the idea of self.
"But if you watch the way things operate independently of yourself, you begin to understand that rebirth is nothing more than desire seeking some object to absorb into, which will allow it to arise again."
Fact is, we don't like to deny rebirth because we are attached to "being"...
The truth is I don't even know what is the color of the car I will see parked on my street when I leave in 15 minutes. That shows you how far human perception goes.
In the end, in this thread, Ren really gets to the point when he says
"When I'm paying attention, the idea of rebirth never occurs to me."
That shuts this down for me.
I dont question your understanding and practice for you DD.
But the suttas are full of references to birth and death and the realms - how do you account for those?
P
Yes he did. Look at the teachings on dependent origination.
P
Classically, or at least for many people, the goal of Buddhism is liberation from the cycle of rebirth. "Nirvana", even if attained in this life, isn't seen as something that ends with the inevitable death of the one who attained it. The teaching on Karma says that Karma will always catch up with you, even if you shoot a sweet little child from your deathbed (meaning that there's no possibility of "paying" your karma in this life). Texts are filled with references to "realms", "precious human birth" and so on.
So without Rebirth (or at least some kind of continuation of *my* consciousness after death) an awful lot of classical Buddhist worldview simply falls apart. What we're left with isn't much more than a methodology for enhancing one's psychological well-being and a set of ethical guidelines, the latter mostly corresponding to those of any civilized society.
That's why I don't call myself a "Buddhist"-- I just think that "Buddhism" has an awful lot of good ideas about living one's life and of all religions is the least dogmatic.