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.
Ajahn Brahm wasn't expelled because of his teachings contradicting Ajahn Chah's, he was expelled because he was ordaining nuns, and advocating for that in the Theravada tradition. Honestly, learn it before you say things so matter of factly... anything that came up on the matter was later hindsight reasoning rather than the initial reasonings.
But my question is why is this even being argued over? As, and I think it was CW who said, that it is all mundane to even question. It is not part of the eightfold path, believing in rebirth one way or another will not qualify you for enlightenment or anything of that nature, nor will it free you from samsara and dukka.
Also what qualifies someone to disregard someone else's teachings or thoughts as wrong? Or off? What is wrong exactly? Like the word... I think that the buddha laid the foundation for a path in which your ideas and the things that you can understand personally and justify is just that, something that is a part of your path. And while I will grant that the Buddha's teachings are obviously the basis of Buddhism, the personal interpretations are what drives it, as even he himself said "The mind is everything, what you think you become." And you can see this in emptiness and even in dependent arising. Interpretation and ideas and thought are something that arise from what you believe and thus if you think "this is true" and you hear someone contradict what you think you know to be true then you have an issue with it.
May I kindly point out that by defending a teaching one way or another you are only creating more suffering fom yourself. Here you see people talking in circles around each others and bashing other people's views to solidify there own. Now what is so special about your opinion, granted you create the world with your thoughts, and you create yourself with these thoughts. By arguing on something so personal you're clinging to what you believe. There is a mindful way to have opinion and to share it, and there is an unmindful way in which you argue and argue and argue and run in circles to prove yourself right. Be sure to ask yourself why you're so attached to your beliefs, and why you must, of course, be right.
Yes, here you see people talking in circles. But we also must recognize that there are "off track" monks out there who are espousing their personal opinions, as well. Ultimately, each of us has the responsibility of listening/reading, and then making up our own minds. After all, it's our personal path.
I have to agree vinyln, personal opinions of other people are just as they sound to be, personal opinions. But to debate others into agreeing with us or not is another story, as you keenly noted, it IS a personal path.
However, the offhand monks you speak of voicing personal opinions is interesting. A jewish man may say to a christian "Well that is just your personal opinion of what Jesus meant," similarly there is for that reason a multitude of opinions on what the Buddha meant, and therefore whether or not someone regards someone else's words as opinion or fact is entirely subjective... hence the circles that come about when trying to determine such.
Yikes, anyway I completely agree vinlyn, very accurately stated.
He doesn't ever say? How about all the other suttas with the 4 noble truths and all that? This is the sutta about what the teaching is NOT. Not what it is. Of course it isn't in here.
I meant this sutra doesn't ever say what the correct metaphysics is.
So our goal is to not get caught in these 62 views, which include annihilationism / materialism.
It's broader than that. The key idea is that these views are "conditioned on contact." That is, they are samsaric. Their truth or falsity doesn't really enter into it.
...it is wrong type of post-mortem survival view, like everlasting or merge with god or whatever. Note that the Buddhas finding was rebirth is impersonal (no-self) and therefore can be ended into non-existence (nibbana).
Well, I still haven't heard a clear description of post-mortem rebirth, so I might be missing something, and like I said, I don't think this is talking about "wrong" in the sense of "ontologically incorrect," but if you think that's what it means, it's not clear to me where the wriggle room is in
Wrong view numbers 19 - 34: "They declare that the self after death is healthy and conscious and (1) material, (2) immaterial, (3) both material and immaterial, (4) neither material nor immaterial, (5) finite, (6) infinite, (7) both, (8) neither, (9) of uniform perception, (10) of varied perception, (l1) of limited perception, (12) of unlimited perception, (13) wholly happy, (14) wholly miserable, (15) both, (16) neither."
you guys are hilarious when you get so worked up over something pretty trivial. Some of you have even said it doesn't matter to the pah to liberation, so why defend your opinion so much and tell people they are wrong, you are just feeding your ego. Live and let live, jeez
Ajahn Brahm wasn't expelled because of his teachings contradicting Ajahn Chah's, he was expelled because he was ordaining nuns, and advocating for that in the Theravada tradition. Honestly, learn it before you say things so matter of factly.../blockquote> What are you talking about?
The female ordination contraversy has a very long history in Thailand.
Ajahn Chah taught the conditions for female practise need be "good enough" because the goal of practise is to realise emptiness, that is, there is "no man", "no woman", "no monk", "no layperson", etc.
Also, if you run the ruler over the exchange of words between WPP and AB in relation to the bhikkhuni matter, it was raised that AB was a "Mahayana"; that he would visit Thailand solely for the purpose of teaching [rebirth] to laypeople in Bangkok and not visit WPP to pay his respects.
Unlike AB's supporters, the Thai are slow to action & words. Trust me, the AB matter has probably been brewing for years and the ordination was the last straw.
I can only suggest you take your own advice and learn.
Obviously, you have either have no awareness of or empathy for the teachings of Ajahn Chah.
Well, I still haven't heard a clear description of post-mortem rebirth, so I might be missing something, and like I said, I don't think this is talking about "wrong" in the sense of "ontologically incorrect," but if you think that's what it means, it's not clear to me where the wriggle room is in
Wrong view numbers 19 - 34: "They declare that the self after death is healthy and conscious and (1) material, (2) immaterial, (3) both material and immaterial, (4) neither material nor immaterial, (5) finite, (6) infinite, (7) both, (8) neither, (9) of uniform perception, (10) of varied perception, (l1) of limited perception, (12) of unlimited perception, (13) wholly happy, (14) wholly miserable, (15) both, (16) neither."
The section before that says:
there are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of percipient immortality[10] and who on sixteen grounds proclaim the self to survive percipient after death. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?
They think the self survives, that's the essential thing to see here. They think consciousness is immortal, is like a soul. Buddhism is about no-self and so also rebirth is impersonal, it's just a process without a self, without a soul. And because it is without a self, it can nibbana, extinguish. This view, the middle way between anihilationism and eternalism, can not be found among the 62 types of wrong view.
It's just like dominos. If I topple over the first domino, it will trigger another to fall, and another and another. People who believe in a soul will think the domino that falls last is the same as the one I toppled first. In Buddhism this is not the view. It's not a soul that keeps rebirth going, but it's the attachment that keeps samsara going. (2nd truth)
I hope this explains rebirth a bit more clearly for you.
Conditioned upon contact I think means 'seen' with the senses (including the 'thinking' mind or incomplete meditation), so not real insight.
Conditioned upon contact I think means 'seen' with the senses (including the 'thinking' mind or incomplete meditation), so not real insight.
I can't rule that interpretation out, but "conditioned upon contact" sounds like the standard language for describing dependent origination. I.e., a samsaric construal (and all construals are samsaric.) Maybe we're saying the same thing? The thing is, I can't see how a doctrine of post-mortem rebirth could be other than a samsaric construal. Even the description of moment-to-moment rebirth that I give below is a construal. (But has the redeeming feature that you can actually use it to inform day-to-day practice.)
Regarding the post-mortem survival section, you're using the Bhikku Bodhi translation on Access to Insight, which looks wonky to me. The section you quote is translated in the version I linked to as
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who proclaim a doctrine of Conscious Post-Mortem Survival, and do so in sixteen different ways. On what basis? [Goes on to list wrong views 19-34.]
Like I said, I don't know Pali. It would be good to have someone impartial who knows Pali break it down for us.
Regarding your explanation of post-mortem rebirth, I've heard explanations like that before, but they make no sense to me. What exactly do you mean by self, and how is it different from what survives the death? Clearly post-mortem rebirth adherents believe that some identifying feature survives from life to life, presumably some kind of karma. How is that identification not a self? In moment-to-moment rebirth, the fundamental identification is through the perceived continuity of physical and mental sense impressions. This preserves a sense of identity despite the annihilation of a projected world-view and the construction of another one. E.g., one moment you're searching for your keys in the usual places (animal realm) and the next you're angry at a friend for borrowing them for not giving them back (hell realm.) The sense of identity constructed from the apparent continuity of physical and mental sense impressions is of course a fabrication which the practice induces us to disidentify from. In an absolute sense, the identification is not "real," but we call it a self as a kind of gloss, because it's easier than always referring to it as a construal. This all makes sense to me, but when we move to post-mortem rebirth it breaks down. What is the corresponding identity, how is it not a self in the sense I've outlined in the moment-to-moment case, and how is it neither material, nor immaterial, nor both material and immaterial, etc.?
The thing is, I can't see how a doctrine of post-mortem rebirth could be other than a samsaric construal. Even the description of moment-to-moment rebirth that I give below is a construal. (But has the redeeming feature that you can actually use it to inform day-to-day practice.)
I'm not saying this description of moment-to-moment is all bad, but for some people the literal interpretation of rebirth is just as much a use for day-to-day practice. Either because they think it is reasonable or because they have really seen it for themselves, it encourages practice even more.
Also the Buddha was not just interested in day-to-day life. Remember it was the sickness and death he saw that made him look for the end of suffering. Having that in mind it is illogical to think he came up with teachings that say nothing about death and just use the word as a figurative way of speaking. This can be quite clear from the suttas if one is open to it.
Regarding the post-mortem survival section, you're using the Bhikku Bodhi translation on Access to Insight, which looks wonky to me. The section you quote is translated in the version I linked to as
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who proclaim a doctrine of Conscious Post-Mortem Survival, and do so in sixteen different ways. On what basis? [Goes on to list wrong views 19-34.]
Like I said, I don't know Pali. It would be good to have someone impartial who knows Pali break it down for us.
That's even a better translation to show what I mean. At those times many people thought (and nowadays still think) it is consciousness that survives after death. This is what is meant with "Conscious Post-Mortem Survival". They see it as a kind of soul. But as you know, the Buddha said in the discourse on no-self that consciousness is just one of the five aggregates. Those five aggregates form an orchestra what we call a person, but no one of them is the soloist, is the leader, is the self, is everlasting. And therefore it is all impermanent.
It's not consciousness itself that survives death according to Buddhism, but it is mainly the clinging coming from delusion in a self that creates consciousness that can survive. This is what is told to us in dependent origination. And as you can see, this kind of post mortem survival is not mentioned in the Brahmajala sutta because the Buddha didn't see that as one of the 62 incorrect views.
In moment-to-moment rebirth, the fundamental identification is through the perceived continuity of physical and mental sense impressions. This preserves a sense of identity despite the annihilation of a projected world-view and the construction of another one. E.g., one moment you're searching for your keys in the usual places (animal realm) and the next you're angry at a friend for borrowing them for not giving them back (hell realm.) The sense of identity constructed from the apparent continuity of physical and mental sense impressions is of course a fabrication which the practice induces us to disidentify from. In an absolute sense, the identification is not "real," but we call it a self as a kind of gloss, because it's easier than always referring to it as a construal. This all makes sense to me, but when we move to post-mortem rebirth it breaks down. What is the corresponding identity, how is it not a self in the sense I've outlined in the moment-to-moment case, and how is it neither material, nor immaterial, nor both material and immaterial, etc.?
I know of this interpretation and it is quite logical of course. I don't say it is wrong, but I say it is incomplete. Now we are talking about consciousness, that is exactly one of the things what I think is missing in moment-to-moment interpretation of rebirth. This interpretation may say correct things about most of the aggregates like volitions or perception, but doesn't really say anything about consciousness being impermanent, not self. Because that can be best understood in the bigger picture.
Regarding your explanation of post-mortem rebirth, I've heard explanations like that before, but they make no sense to me. What exactly do you mean by self, and how is it different from what survives the death? Clearly post-mortem rebirth adherents believe that some identifying feature survives from life to life, presumably some kind of karma. How is that identification not a self?
I agree it is hard to understand, but things we can't grasp through thinking aren't necessarily untrue. It took me a lot of meditation and reflection to even get a small grasp on it. Karma is not a self, it is not part of the five aggregates. The process of karma is just an impersonal natural thingy, like gravity. Of course you can't identify with gravity and in the same way you can't really identify with the law of karma.
All those teachings of the 62 incorrect views, no-self, the four noble truths and dependent origination are not to be seen separate. They are all pieces of a puzzle and when put together form a beautiful single picture.
It may seem like I'm trying to convince you of this, but that is not the case. Because as the Buddha said everybody has to find out the teachings for themselves and can not be found through mere reasoning. But I think it is important to keep an open mind about this because I personally once discarded rebirth as superficial nonsense. However I didn't deny the Buddha did actually teach it and it was a cornerstone of the teachings without which you can't really understand them. When time passed this gradually became clearer to me. If anything it makes the suttas far easier to interpret because you don't need to discard pieces or suttas, take words figurative etc.
I can go on talking about this, but it takes time off my meditation so I'll leave it at this for now If you are interested I advice you to read the study "Survival and Kamma in Buddhist Perspective" I posted on page 1, as far as I've read it, it's really quite good. If you want more explanation on the view on how dependent origination leads to rebirth, it can be found for example here: http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud12.htm
I hope I've made some things clear and if not, I hope I stirred up your mind a bit
Buddhism is about no-self and so also rebirth is impersonal, it's just a process without a self, without a soul.
No.
Rebirth is a mundane (lokiya) teaching. It is personal.
Not-self is a supramundane (lokuttara) teaching. It is impersonal.
The excerpts below demonstrate without ambiguity rebirth is personal.
The mundane right view states there are "beings" & there is existence.
Your views are simply your personal opinions and have no foundation in the words of the Buddha.
Best wishes
"Now, householders, of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold this doctrine, hold this view — '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 world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the others after having directly known & realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three unskillful activities — bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct.
...this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence. If there really is a other world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the wise here-&-now; and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the good destination, the heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
Then Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then, not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven.
Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he addressed the Blessed One in verse.
When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."
"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else."
The mundane right view states there are "beings"...
To demonstrate & to contrast.
The 1st quote is mundane right view and the 2nd quote is supramundane right view
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 world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously born beings....
"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.
In Buddhism this is not the view. It's not a soul that keeps rebirth going, but it's the attachment that keeps samsara going. (2nd truth)
I hope this explains rebirth a bit more clearly for you.
Sabre
Again, you are merely posting your opinions. You are not posting the actual Buddhist teachings.
The 2nd Noble Truth does not mention the words "attachment", "samsara" or "rebirth".
The 2nd Noble Truth is as follows:
"The origin of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is the craving that produces renewal of being [lit: leads to new becoming] accompanied by enjoyment and lust, and enjoying this and that; in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being.
"He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent (asava) of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.'
Because as the Buddha said everybody has to find out the teachings for themselves and can not be found through mere reasoning.
The Buddha said the following about Dependent Origination
“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you run back to the past thus: ‘Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what did we become in the past?'?”
“No venerable sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future thus: ‘Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall become in the future?'?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?'?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Bhikkhus, do you speak only of what you have known, seen and understood for yourselves?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.
Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
"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?'
Because as the Buddha said everybody has to find out the teachings for themselves and can not be found through mere reasoning.
The Buddha said the following about disobedient & rebellious listeners of his words:
"Therefore, Ananda, engage with me friends and not as opponents. That will be for your long-term well-being & happiness.
"I won't hover over you like a potter over damp, unbaked clay goods. Scolding again & again, I will speak. Urging you on again & again, I will speak. Whatever is of essential worth will remain."
Because as the Buddha said everybody has to find out the teachings for themselves and can not be found through mere reasoning.
The Buddha said the following about those who slander & misconstrue his words:
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."
...I personally once discarded rebirth as superficial nonsense.
What experience changed this for you?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
My head is spinning :eek2: I honestly don't really care what the suttas say all that much. To me the teachings on liberation and enlightenment seem pointless without the idea of rebirth.
If its just this life it seems the Buddha would have taught us to work to improve the world for people and use the dharma to make us better people and help even out lifes vicissitudes. This is kind of what he did teach to lay people, isn't it?
But he also taught people that left the life of a householder to realize no-self. If its just this life why didn't he tell those who renounced worldly life to just kill themselves and get it over with already. :sawed: Are all those thousands of monks who have led a life of study and meditation deluded?
I haven't seen for myself what comes after death and I don't feel like I can sit around waiting until I thoroughly understand all the suttas and sort through the debates on which are legitimate and which aren't, so I intend to move forward on the notion that maybe some people besides myself may actually know something I don't. If it can be shown to me definitavely that mind doesn't continue on after death I will probably change my view, but until then "the sutta wars" hold little sway here.
To me the teachings on liberation and enlightenment seem pointless without the idea of rebirth.
Not pointless at all. The capacity to transform Mara's encroachments is very valuable in this very life. Do you think the Buddha got nothing from his experience under the Bodhi tree? That it was all just walking in place until he reached parinirvana?
...I personally once discarded rebirth as superficial nonsense.
What experience changed this for you?
Let's just say it didn't come from reading a sutta.
With metta, Sabre
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
To me the teachings on liberation and enlightenment seem pointless without the idea of rebirth.
Not pointless at all. The capacity to transform Mara's encroachments is very valuable in this very life. Do you think the Buddha got nothing from his experience under the Bodhi tree? That it was all just walking in place until he reached parinirvana?
I tried to elaborate in the following paragraphs. What the Buddha taught for this life is very relevant and helpful. However whats the point of spending your whole life meditating to achieve liberation from suffering if it all ends when you die anyway.
Whatever one thinks is useful for his/her own practice is based on their own insight/views and that doesn't hold any solid arguments, so I won't go there. Some obviously hold a wider view, some don't. That's all fine.
Let me conclude with these words that show this discussion has been there in the time of the Buddha already. These words show you don't need to believe in rebirth, but if you take it as an option and are skillful in this life, at the very least you do a safe bet because good actions also have results in this life.
Aren't you attempting to cut the knot of one of those imponderable dilemmas, here? One which the Buddha refused to address? Where are you getting this claim from?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
And what's the point of ending it, compared to ending it in this life with day to day practice?
Now we're just going in circles, the point of ending it is that Buddha taught the four noble truths. Again, why teach liberation if your exsistence just ends at death. Certainly I agree that the Dharma is very useful in making our day to day lives better, my arguement is about why he taught liberation specifically if our conciousness doesn't continue on after death.
Comments
But my question is why is this even being argued over? As, and I think it was CW who said, that it is all mundane to even question. It is not part of the eightfold path, believing in rebirth one way or another will not qualify you for enlightenment or anything of that nature, nor will it free you from samsara and dukka.
Also what qualifies someone to disregard someone else's teachings or thoughts as wrong? Or off? What is wrong exactly? Like the word... I think that the buddha laid the foundation for a path in which your ideas and the things that you can understand personally and justify is just that, something that is a part of your path. And while I will grant that the Buddha's teachings are obviously the basis of Buddhism, the personal interpretations are what drives it, as even he himself said "The mind is everything, what you think you become." And you can see this in emptiness and even in dependent arising. Interpretation and ideas and thought are something that arise from what you believe and thus if you think "this is true" and you hear someone contradict what you think you know to be true then you have an issue with it.
May I kindly point out that by defending a teaching one way or another you are only creating more suffering fom yourself. Here you see people talking in circles around each others and bashing other people's views to solidify there own. Now what is so special about your opinion, granted you create the world with your thoughts, and you create yourself with these thoughts. By arguing on something so personal you're clinging to what you believe. There is a mindful way to have opinion and to share it, and there is an unmindful way in which you argue and argue and argue and run in circles to prove yourself right.
Be sure to ask yourself why you're so attached to your beliefs, and why you must, of course, be right.
With much love,
Ash
However, the offhand monks you speak of voicing personal opinions is interesting. A jewish man may say to a christian "Well that is just your personal opinion of what Jesus meant," similarly there is for that reason a multitude of opinions on what the Buddha meant, and therefore whether or not someone regards someone else's words as opinion or fact is entirely subjective... hence the circles that come about when trying to determine such.
Yikes, anyway I completely agree vinlyn, very accurately stated.
Ash
Ajahn Chah taught the conditions for female practise need be "good enough" because the goal of practise is to realise emptiness, that is, there is "no man", "no woman", "no monk", "no layperson", etc.
Also, if you run the ruler over the exchange of words between WPP and AB in relation to the bhikkhuni matter, it was raised that AB was a "Mahayana"; that he would visit Thailand solely for the purpose of teaching [rebirth] to laypeople in Bangkok and not visit WPP to pay his respects.
Unlike AB's supporters, the Thai are slow to action & words. Trust me, the AB matter has probably been brewing for years and the ordination was the last straw.
I can only suggest you take your own advice and learn.
Obviously, you have either have no awareness of or empathy for the teachings of Ajahn Chah.
I can, again, only suggest you concern yourself with your own mind.
There is a discussion here about the video.
But you join in with your self-righteous.
We are aware of our actions & their effects.
We are not in need of someone without equinimity, acting from some kind of emotional uncontrolled sexual tendency to mother/father others.
You naughty party crasher, you.
:dunce:
Good question.
The section before that says: They think the self survives, that's the essential thing to see here. They think consciousness is immortal, is like a soul. Buddhism is about no-self and so also rebirth is impersonal, it's just a process without a self, without a soul. And because it is without a self, it can nibbana, extinguish. This view, the middle way between anihilationism and eternalism, can not be found among the 62 types of wrong view.
It's just like dominos. If I topple over the first domino, it will trigger another to fall, and another and another. People who believe in a soul will think the domino that falls last is the same as the one I toppled first. In Buddhism this is not the view. It's not a soul that keeps rebirth going, but it's the attachment that keeps samsara going. (2nd truth)
I hope this explains rebirth a bit more clearly for you.
Conditioned upon contact I think means 'seen' with the senses (including the 'thinking' mind or incomplete meditation), so not real insight.
With metta,
Sabre
Regarding the post-mortem survival section, you're using the Bhikku Bodhi translation on Access to Insight, which looks wonky to me. The section you quote is translated in the version I linked to as Like I said, I don't know Pali. It would be good to have someone impartial who knows Pali break it down for us.
Regarding your explanation of post-mortem rebirth, I've heard explanations like that before, but they make no sense to me. What exactly do you mean by self, and how is it different from what survives the death? Clearly post-mortem rebirth adherents believe that some identifying feature survives from life to life, presumably some kind of karma. How is that identification not a self? In moment-to-moment rebirth, the fundamental identification is through the perceived continuity of physical and mental sense impressions. This preserves a sense of identity despite the annihilation of a projected world-view and the construction of another one. E.g., one moment you're searching for your keys in the usual places (animal realm) and the next you're angry at a friend for borrowing them for not giving them back (hell realm.) The sense of identity constructed from the apparent continuity of physical and mental sense impressions is of course a fabrication which the practice induces us to disidentify from. In an absolute sense, the identification is not "real," but we call it a self as a kind of gloss, because it's easier than always referring to it as a construal. This all makes sense to me, but when we move to post-mortem rebirth it breaks down. What is the corresponding identity, how is it not a self in the sense I've outlined in the moment-to-moment case, and how is it neither material, nor immaterial, nor both material and immaterial, etc.?
Hi fivebells,
Good arguments.
I'm not saying this description of moment-to-moment is all bad, but for some people the literal interpretation of rebirth is just as much a use for day-to-day practice. Either because they think it is reasonable or because they have really seen it for themselves, it encourages practice even more.
Also the Buddha was not just interested in day-to-day life. Remember it was the sickness and death he saw that made him look for the end of suffering. Having that in mind it is illogical to think he came up with teachings that say nothing about death and just use the word as a figurative way of speaking. This can be quite clear from the suttas if one is open to it. That's even a better translation to show what I mean. At those times many people thought (and nowadays still think) it is consciousness that survives after death. This is what is meant with "Conscious Post-Mortem Survival". They see it as a kind of soul. But as you know, the Buddha said in the discourse on no-self that consciousness is just one of the five aggregates. Those five aggregates form an orchestra what we call a person, but no one of them is the soloist, is the leader, is the self, is everlasting. And therefore it is all impermanent.
It's not consciousness itself that survives death according to Buddhism, but it is mainly the clinging coming from delusion in a self that creates consciousness that can survive. This is what is told to us in dependent origination. And as you can see, this kind of post mortem survival is not mentioned in the Brahmajala sutta because the Buddha didn't see that as one of the 62 incorrect views. I know of this interpretation and it is quite logical of course. I don't say it is wrong, but I say it is incomplete. Now we are talking about consciousness, that is exactly one of the things what I think is missing in moment-to-moment interpretation of rebirth. This interpretation may say correct things about most of the aggregates like volitions or perception, but doesn't really say anything about consciousness being impermanent, not self. Because that can be best understood in the bigger picture. I agree it is hard to understand, but things we can't grasp through thinking aren't necessarily untrue. It took me a lot of meditation and reflection to even get a small grasp on it. Karma is not a self, it is not part of the five aggregates. The process of karma is just an impersonal natural thingy, like gravity. Of course you can't identify with gravity
All those teachings of the 62 incorrect views, no-self, the four noble truths and dependent origination are not to be seen separate. They are all pieces of a puzzle and when put together form a beautiful single picture.
It may seem like I'm trying to convince you of this, but that is not the case. Because as the Buddha said everybody has to find out the teachings for themselves and can not be found through mere reasoning. But I think it is important to keep an open mind about this because I personally once discarded rebirth as superficial nonsense. However I didn't deny the Buddha did actually teach it and it was a cornerstone of the teachings without which you can't really understand them. When time passed this gradually became clearer to me. If anything it makes the suttas far easier to interpret because you don't need to discard pieces or suttas, take words figurative etc.
I can go on talking about this, but it takes time off my meditation so I'll leave it at this for now
I hope I've made some things clear and if not, I hope I stirred up your mind a bit
With metta,
Sabre
Rebirth is a mundane (lokiya) teaching. It is personal.
Not-self is a supramundane (lokuttara) teaching. It is impersonal.
The excerpts below demonstrate without ambiguity rebirth is personal.
The mundane right view states there are "beings" & there is existence.
Your views are simply your personal opinions and have no foundation in the words of the Buddha.
Best wishes
The 1st quote is mundane right view and the 2nd quote is supramundane right view
Again, you are merely posting your opinions. You are not posting the actual Buddhist teachings.
The 2nd Noble Truth does not mention the words "attachment", "samsara" or "rebirth".
The 2nd Noble Truth is as follows: "Becoming" or "being" is a mental phenomena.
"Becoming" or "being" is an asava (effluent), an anusaya (tendency), a defilement (kilesa).
If its just this life it seems the Buddha would have taught us to work to improve the world for people and use the dharma to make us better people and help even
out lifes vicissitudes. This is kind of what he did teach to lay people, isn't it?
But he also taught people that left the life of a householder to realize no-self. If its just this life why didn't he tell those who renounced worldly life to just kill themselves and get it over with already. :sawed: Are all those thousands of monks who have led a life of study and meditation deluded?
I haven't seen for myself what comes after death and I don't feel like I can sit around waiting until I thoroughly understand all the suttas and sort through the debates on which are legitimate and which aren't, so I intend to move forward on the notion that maybe some people besides myself may actually know something I don't. If it can be shown to me definitavely that mind doesn't continue on after death I will probably change my view, but until then "the sutta wars" hold little sway here.
With metta,
Sabre
I thought we had a pretty decent discussion..
Let me conclude with these words that show this discussion has been there in the time of the Buddha already. These words show you don't need to believe in rebirth, but if you take it as an option and are skillful in this life, at the very least you do a safe bet because good actions also have results in this life.
We can't describe things we haven't exprienced for ourselves.
Hence why the Dharma cannot be spoken of.