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.
Reincarnation: A Debate - Debate between Robert Thurman and Stephen Batchelor
It's a long topic. I can only point to the book I've read by Alan Wallace that examines where the scientific attitudes prevalent today originated: Embracing Mind: The Common Ground of Science and Spirituality. It's quite fascinating, and I think Wallace is quite thorough. There's also some materials on this topic on his website.
because consciousness without material form, flying from one body to another, is against all observed phenomenon.
This is not what the Buddha taught in Buddhism either when it comes to rebirth. I believe you are confusing it with transmigration of Hinduism where consciousness is a permanent entity that goes from one life or another . There is no permanent self in Buddhism. Because many people have a difficult time understanding rebirth without a permanent self taught by the Buddha, they often understand it in terms of transmigration of Hinduism and thought that both are the same. But this is a mistake. You are rejecting transmigration, that is also what the Buddha is rejecting, not rebirth.
Culatanhasankhaya Sutta:
" At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anaathapindika in Jeta’s grove in Saavatthi. At that time to a bhikkhu named Saati the son of a fisherman this view had arisen: As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Many bhikkhus, heard that this evil view had arisen to a bhikkhu, named Saati the son of a fisherman: ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’. Then those bhikkhus approached, bhikkhu Saati the son of a fisherman and asked: Friend, Saati, is it true, that such an evil view has arisen to you: ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’Yes, friends, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Then those bhikkhus, desirous of dissuading the bhikkhu Saati from that evil view, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied with him: Saati, do not say that, do not blame the Blessed One. It is not good to blame the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this. The Blessed One has said in various ways, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness. Even when those bhikkhus, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied together with him, he held on to his evil view tenaciously and would not give it up and said. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’
As those bhikkhus could not dissuade the bhikkhu Saati from that evil view, they approached the Blessed One"
For we normal people, the suffering we see in front of us is motivation enough to live by a moral code. Compassion does not require a belief in God or reincarnation, and quite often such beliefs get in the way of acting with compassion.
Thank you-- that bears repeating.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed". Albert Einstein
This debate is based on continuity, but continuity implies time. Past and Future lives imply time. Nobody here has questioned time. I am not a quantum mechanic, but from what I have read and understood, quantum mechanics allows for cause and effect to be separated by space, including vast expanses of space. As far as we know, space and time are interwoven in our reality. The light potential from the past (distance space) actually appears to collapse into reality based on what we do now (in the future). So, doesn't it stand to reason that cause and effect can be separated by time in any direction? Have I misinterpreted this? If not, where does this leave Karma and rebirth?
It is not certain that all realities share the same time frame. Many near death experience cases reported by doctors around the world say that many patients had the experience of re-experiencing their entire life simultaneously , but experiencing the feelings of other people that they interacted with in life. There is no sense of time while re-experiencing it.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no proof is possible."
Which means, of course, to center yourself in the middle (neither belief nor disbelief).
I'm sorry, that quote irritates me. If those who believe have no proof for what they believe, then... well, they have no proof for what they believe. Disbelief, then, seems obligatory, and not dogmatic, as the quote suggests.
It is not unreasonable to ask for proof from both sides for their claims, and that includes the ones claiming that rebirth doesn't exist. Sure , one can refuse to believe but there is not enough evidence to refute rebirth. Various evidence that show up haven't been properly refuted by anyone .
Some may say that it is impossible or very difficult to prove that rebirth doesn't exist so you can't ask for it. But then they are demanding others to carry out this task. Nevertheless, there are some evidence indicating the existence of rebirth.
Now we just need to see some evidence from the other party. Also , they need to refute the evidence provided.
The burden of proof is on those making claims that contradict all observed phenomena. If the believer does not have evidence, then there is no reason to believe. If the believer does claim to have evidence, only then does the burden of proof fall on the disbeliever. You may claim to be able to point to such evidence, and that's fine, but I just want to say that if that evidence is disproven, then the burden of proof once again falls on the believer, not the disbeliever.
To say that rebirth is impossible to disprove is not to 'demand that others carry out the task of disproof'. There is a reason why, in science and philosophy, saying that a theory is 'undisprovable' is an insult, not a compliment. To say that your theory is undisprovable is to say that there's nothing that can change your mind, which is to say that it is nothing more than a closed-minded dogma. If there is no possible state of the world that could ever disprove a given theory, then that theory cannot be based in any real state of the world in the first place. A theory that is consistent with all possible worlds, consistent with all possible evidence and with none – a theory that is held to be true no matter what is actually observed – might as well have been merely invented. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. And this is exactly what the theory of rebirth is if it is believed without evidence FOR it.
Thurman: "And if our lives are just within the parameters of being a coarse body and a coarse mind, whose final destiny is nothing, than the restraint from doing negative things is not that great really—which is the problem with ethics in materialist societies".
I must have a very different understanding of Buddhism to Thurman. To me, Buddhism is about how cultivating selflessness is the key to happiness. Isn't that enough motivation to not behave selfishly? What does the fact that Thurman doesn't get this say about Thurman's Buddhism?
Your understanding is correct, and it's why I believe Batchelor was going easy on his friend when he didn't jump all over that, and it make me wonder what sort of strange teaching Thurman's school of Buddhism hands out.
The Noble Truths did not say that the problem was people need to accumulate good karma for the next reincarnation. Buddha said the problem was, people are suffering. Today. Right now. And the remedy to that is to eliminate selfish desires. Not for some future reward in a next life, but because people are suffering in this life.
"Without a God that judges, there's no reason for me not to go out and murder people."
"Without a next life where you're going to be punished for bad karma, there's no reason for me not to go out and murder people."
"Atheists can't be moral, because they have nothing to base their morals on."
If the only thing keeping you from going out and murdering, raping, and stealing is the fear of either God or a bad reincarnation, then please never, never stop believing in God or reincarnation.
For we normal people, the suffering we see in front of us is motivation enough to live by a moral code. Compassion does not require a belief in God or reincarnation, and quite often such beliefs get in the way of acting with compassion. I can't believe any Buddhist, including Thurman, doesn't agree with that, so he must have been unclear in what he was trying to say.
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no proof is possible."
Which means, of course, to center yourself in the middle (neither belief nor disbelief).
I'm sorry, that quote irritates me. If those who believe have no proof for what they believe, then... well, they have no proof for what they believe. Disbelief, then, seems obligatory, and not dogmatic, as the quote suggests.
It is not unreasonable to ask for proof from both sides for their claims, and that includes the ones claiming that rebirth doesn't exist. Sure , one can refuse to believe but there is not enough evidence to refute rebirth. Various evidence that show up haven't been properly refuted by anyone .
Some may say that it is impossible or very difficult to prove that rebirth doesn't exist so you can't ask for it. But then they are demanding others to carry out this task. Nevertheless, there are some evidence indicating the existence of rebirth.
Now we just need to see some evidence from the other party. Also , they need to refute the evidence provided.
The burden of proof is on those making claims that contradict all observed phenomena. If the believer does not have evidence, then there is no reason to believe. If the believer does claim to have evidence, only then does the burden of proof fall on the disbeliever. You may claim to be able to point to such evidence, and that's fine, but I just want to say that if that evidence is disproven, then the burden of proof once again falls on the believer, not the disbeliever.
To say that rebirth is impossible to disprove is not to 'demand that others carry out the task of disproof'. There is a reason why, in science and philosophy, saying that a theory is 'undisprovable' is an insult, not a compliment. To say that your theory is undisprovable is to say that there's nothing that can change your mind, which is to say that it is nothing more than a closed-minded dogma. If there is no possible state of the world that could ever disprove a given theory, then that theory cannot be based in any real state of the world in the first place. A theory that is consistent with all possible worlds, consistent with all possible evidence and with none – a theory that is held to be true no matter what is actually observed – might as well have been merely invented. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. And this is exactly what the theory of rebirth is if it is believed without evidence FOR it.
Now are you speaking about the Buddhist rebirth or the Hindu transmigration ? Let's make this clear before moving on.
My comment applies to any claim about anything, so I don't think it makes a difference. But for what it's worth, yes, I was applying it specifically to Buddhist rebirth.
You are rejecting transmigration, that is also what the Buddha is rejecting, not rebirth.
Take care not to slander the Tathagata
MN 38 clearly states without a sense base, there is no origination of consciousness (just as other suttas state with body-mind, there is no origination of consciousness)
The term "rebirth" means to take "birth again".
It is a karmic principle that when the mind of a human being is "born" into a state of self-identification with its karma, the mind will be "born again" into another emotional/ego state that it must resolve dependent on its previous karma
eg. I get angry at my wife. That is being born as an angry 'being'. Then later the mind is born again into a state of fear & regret and later born into a state where it must apologise to one's wife
Take care not to slander the Tathagata, as though the Buddha taught "rebirth" is the "rebirth" of another life time, like being born again out of a mother's womb
That is your interpretation
To study suttas in order to slander the Tathagata the Buddha called a "life wasted"
All the best
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
Abhasita Sutta: What Was Not Said
"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."
The sutta goes on to say those that comprehend the teaching:
1. believe & speak only what they have personally experienced, independent of the Buddha
2. do not believe 'they' ever existed in the past, present or future
3. see the present dhammas of the here & now
4. when the eye sees a form, birth, aging-death, suffering end
in other words, as 'birth' ends when the sense bases see, hear, taste, touch, smell, cognise, etc, this 'birth' is something mental rather than physical birth from a womb
Dhamma Dhatu ,I think you should follow your own advice about not slander the Tathagatha. When I wrote that the view that " consciousness transmigrates through existences " is what the Buddha rejected because that is a common mistake that many Buddhist made as can be seen in the following passage:
"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." - MN 38
You really think that the Buddha meant only the effects in this life ? Here the Buddha clear pointed out "at the dissolution of the body, after death" . The effects can be experienced in this life and after death as well. It is both.
MN 120: Sankharupapatti Sutta: Reappearance By Sankhara
“ Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Jeta’s Grove monastery offered by Anathapindika in Savatthi . From there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “ Bhikkhus!” Those Bhikkhus replied: “Venerable sir!” And the Blessed One said thus: “Bhikkhus, I shall teach you reappearance in accordance with sankhara. “Then Bhikkhus, listen and attend closely I will speak.” -“Yes, venerable sir!” the bhikkhus replied. And the Blessed One said thus: “Here, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the well-to-do nobles!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the well-to-do priests!…in the company of well-to-do householders!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the gods of the heaven of the Four Great Kings have long life, beauty, and enjoy much happiness ( sukhabahula: abundant happiness, comfort) . He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the gods of the heaven of the Four Great Kings!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the gods of the heaven of the Thirty-three...the Yāma gods...the gods of the Tusita heaven...the gods who delight in creating...the gods who wield power over others’ creations have long life, beauty, and enjoy much happiness ( sukhabahula: abundant happiness, comfort) . He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the gods who wield power over others’ creations!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there.
“Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the Brahmā of a Thousand (Sahasa Brahma )…….. The bhikkhu thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the Brahmā of a Thousand!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the Brahmā of Two Thousand ( Dvi Sahasa Brahma) …the Brahmā of Three Thousand ( Ti Sahasa Brahma)…the Brahmā of Four Thousand ( Catu Sahasa Brahma) …the Brahmā of Five Thousand ( Panca Sahasa Brahma) , Ten Thousand ( Dasa Sahasa Brahma), Hundred Thousand ( Sata Sahasa Brahma)….. The bhikkhu thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the Brahmā of a Hundred Thousand!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the gods of Radiance...the gods of Limited Radiance...the gods of Immeasurable Radiance...the gods of Streaming Radiance...the gods of Glory...the gods of Limited Glory...the gods of Immeasurable Glory...the gods of Refulgent Glory...the gods of Great Fruit...the Aviha gods...the Atappa gods...the Sudassa gods...the Sudassi gods...the Akaniṭṭha gods have long life, beauty, and enjoy much happiness . He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the Akaniṭṭha gods!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. He hears that the gods of the base of infinite space...the gods of the base of infinite consciousness...the gods of the base of nothingness...the gods of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception have long life , beauty, and enjoy much happiness ( sukhabahula: abundant happiness, comfort) . He thinks: ‘Oh, at the dissolution of the body, after death, I should reappear among the gods of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception!’ He bears that in mind ( cittam dahati), resolves upon it ( cittam adhitthati ), cultivates that in mind ( cittam bhaveti) . These sankhara and this abiding ( vihara: mode of life, passing the time) of his, thus developed and frequently cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus, is the path, the line of conduct that leads to reappearance there. “Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. ‘Oh, by realizing for myself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , I might here and now enter and abide in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realizing for himself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , he here and now enters and abides in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason. “
Again in the Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal , the Buddha spoke about effects that can be experienced here and now as well as after :
"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable.[1] A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in the body, [2] undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body,[3] developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the unlimited. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment."
Dhamma Dhatu ,I think you should follow your own advice about not slander the Tathagatha. When I wrote that the view that " consciousness transmigrates through existences " is what the Buddha rejected because that is a common mistake that many Buddhist made as can be seen in the following passage:
the Buddha did not use the word "transmigrates"....
the word "transmigrates" does not appear in the Pali
even the reincarnation lover Bhikkhu Bodhi does not use the translation "transmigrates"
secondly, the matter of "transmigrates" was not raised by the Buddha
it was raised by Sati
now, please do not avoid, as i posted, the main themes in MN 38, as follows:
1. believe & speak only what one has personally experienced, independent of the Buddha
2. do not believe 'one' ever existed in the past, present or future
3. see the present dhammas of the here & now
4. when the eye sees a form, birth, aging-death, suffering end
in other words, as 'birth' ends when the sense bases see, hear, taste, touch, smell, cognise, etc, this 'birth' is something mental rather than physical birth from a womb
MN 120: Sankharupapatti Sutta: Reappearance By Sankhara
This sutta is ridiculous
Why would a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity and endowed with wisdom, seek reappearance in the company of well-to-do noble? :screwy:
Siddhartha was a well-to-do noble and abandoned that to be a bhikkhu (monk)
Only the end of the sutta is connected to the essence of Buddhism
Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. ‘Oh, by realizing for myself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , I might here and now enter and abide in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realizing for himself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , he here and now enters and abides in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason. “
Again in the Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal , the Buddha spoke about effects that can be experienced here and now as well as after :
this is what the buddha taught about karma; that the results of karma are threefold:
(1) here & now (2) later (3) later again
example: get drunk
(1) the here & now result is pleasure (2) the later result is hangover/headache/sickness (3) the later again result is craving for alcohol; a habit; a conditioned tendency
...the Buddha spoke about effects that can be experienced here and now as well as after :
are you asserting the effects in the following passage occur in another life after death?
136. When the fool commits evil deeds, he does not realize (their evil nature). The witless man is tormented by his own deeds, like one burnt by fire.
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.
Getting back to the debate, one part that bothered me was Thurman saying the Bodhisatttva vows cannot be taken seriously without literal reincarnation, because to "vow to free numberless beings" would be nothing but an empty, impossible promise without infinite lives to do it in.
Now, the Bodhisattva vows are important and I recite them with extreme seriousness and they're not just empty promises. Neither do I subscribe to literal reincarnation. So, this is another point in the discussion where I was simply astonished at what Thurman was saying.
First of all, even if literal transmigration was true, for the sake of argument, no vows you take in this life are valid in your next. Your karma might present the future you with some conditions to handle, but "you" certainly don't determine his or her motivation or choices. To put it another way, suppose your past life vowed in blood and everything that's holy to track down the SOB that poisoned him. What does that mean to you? Not a thing. It's his vow, not yours.
So the Bodhisattva vow is for the here and now, and has nothing whatsoever to do with future life decisions that are out of your control, no matter what you believe. According to this definiton of Buddhism, only the small handful of Tibetan Tulkus who are supposed to be enlightened enough to ensure their destiny as future Dharma warriors are capable of being Bodhisattvas. That's a troubling version of Buddhism.
Am I reading this guy right? Is that what Tibetan Buddhism teaches, that Bodhisattvas are only found in the rarified elite and regular Buddhists need not aspire to join?
First of all, even if literal transmigration was true, for the sake of argument, no vows you take in this life are valid in your next. Your karma might present the future you with some conditions to handle, but "you" certainly don't determine his or her motivation or choices. To put it another way, suppose your past life vowed in blood and everything that's holy to track down the SOB that poisoned him. What does that mean to you? Not a thing. It's his vow, not yours.
The teachings I'm familiar with say that the vow carries over, and it's one of the reasons the vows are made. And this comes not from Tibetan Buddhism, but from Chan.
Sandhāvati [saŋ+dhāvati] to run through, to transmigrate D i.14; A ii.1; S iii.149; J i.503; aor. sandhāvissaŋ Dh 153=J i.76 (=apar' âparaŋ anuvicariŋ DhA iii.128).
secondly, the matter of "transmigrates" was not raised by the Buddha it was raised by Sati "
When did I say that the Buddha said that, the quote I posted was to show the Buddha rejecting transmigration after Sati thought the Buddha taught transmigration .
"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."- MN 38
do not believe 'one' ever existed in the past, present or future
This is your words, what it meant to me is that there is no self so being obsessed with past, future , and present are irrelevant. If the above meant that there is no past , present, or future lives as you understood it then which life are you living right now ? "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."
see the present dhammas of the here & now
Of course , in Theraveda you practice to become enlightened / realize the dhamma in this very life.
This sutta is ridiculous ( MN 120)
Why would a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity and endowed with wisdom, seek reappearance in the company of well-to-do noble?
Siddhartha was a well-to-do noble and abandoned that to be a bhikkhu (monk)
Only the end of the sutta is connected to the essence of Buddhism
Here he speaks about the way to reappear in various planes according to sankhara in a gradual order from lowest to highest, and the ultimate one is the last one. He did not suggest that the Bhikkus seek reappearance in any realm but strive for the last one. For many lay people with lesser commitment to practice , then maybe they can settle for the other ones.
This is the one suggested for monastics throughout the texts, but that doesn't mean that the other ones doesn't exist:
"Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. ‘Oh, by realizing for myself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , I might here and now enter and abide in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realizing for himself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , he here and now enters and abides in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason. “
"are you asserting the effects in the following passage occur in another life after death? "
Yes, we can see that it says " upon dissolution of the body" :
" upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
But for what it's worth, yes, I was applying it specifically to Buddhist rebirth.
What do you mean by Buddhist rebirth? The reason I am asking this is because sometimes people are referring to Buddhist rebirth when they are actually thinking about the Hindu idea of a persisting consciousness transmigrating from one existence to another instead.
The idea of a permanent self was rejected by the Buddha as being faulty. He explained a different mechanism of rebirth based on what he realized after enlightenment whereby there is no self at any point, be it past life, present life, or future life.
Everything is marked by impermanence: why would our consciousness be any different? It arises with our bodies; it will dissipate with our bodies.
There is no permanent "us", just a temporary aggregation of form sculpted by causes and conditions.
Namaste
You are right that consciousness is also impermanent, but when the causes and conditions for it still exist then that give rise to consciousness. But when there is no craving or sankhara let's say , to support it then nothing arise.
This is your words, what it meant to me is that there is no self so being obsessed with past, future , and present are irrelevant. If the above meant that there is no past , present, or future lives as you understood it then which life are you living right now ?
it means there is no "I" in the past, present or future
as i said, there is no "one" that ever existed in the past present & future
all that exists are elements or paticcasummupada dhammas
now please point to where the Buddha ever taught the rebirth of anatta elements?
he never did
this would be contrary to his purpose
in suttas such as MN 60, for puthujjanas, the Buddha taught it is right view for the purpose of morality that the puthujjana adhere to the view of continued existence; that there are "beings" the continue to exist (eternalism)
this is mundane right view contrary to supramundane right view such as found in SN 12.15
as i recommended, take care not to slander the tathagata
Here he speaks about the way to reappear in various planes according to sankhara in a gradual order from lowest to highest, and the ultimate one is the last one. He did not suggest that the Bhikkus seek reappearance in any realm but strive for the last one. For many lay people with lesser commitment to practice , then maybe they can settle for the other ones.
the sutta explicity states the bhikkhu aspires to reappear in the company of nobles, householders, brahmins, gods, etc
as i said, the sutta is ridiculous
it sounds like it is about bhikkhus who seek social & godly praise & recognition
many suttas mention this, such as MN 29 & 30, which state a bhikkhu is pleased with gain, honor & renown and believes his intention for becoming a monk is fulfilled
in the current world, there are many monks like this, who seek fame & influence from their ordination
i can only suggest you read the ridiculous MN 120 again rather than coping & pasting this worldly Pali dribble with miscomprehension
Yes, we can see that it says " upon dissolution of the body" :" upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
OMG!
your view is mere blind faith; mere materialistic worldly interpretation
with every round of Dependent Origination, there is a new arising & death of a 'body' or 'kaya'
for example, in MN 118, the Buddha refered to the in & out breathing as a 'kaya' amongst 'kaya'
for example, in the 2nd link of Dependent Origination, the in & out breathing is the kaya sankhara
so, for example, if a sexual urge/thought arises from ignorance, this gives rise to a certain kind of kaya sankhara and nama-rupa (body). in short, the kaya is sexual aroused; the physical body is sexually aroused
the sexually aroused nama-rupa then seeks sexual behaviour (becoming & birth) but if it does not fulfil its search, there is the aging&death of that kaya resulting in sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair
in other words, at the end of that kaya (body), after death, the ignorant mind is born in hell (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair)
whilst your intepretation is valid, it is the interpretation intended for puthujjanas (worldlings) rather than enlightened beings
The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.
tattha: saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ lokasammutikāraṇaṃ paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa lokanāthassa satthuno sammutiṃ voharantassa musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to conventions.
You are right that consciousness is also impermanent, but when the causes and conditions for it still exist then that give rise to consciousness. But when there is no craving or sankhara let's say , to support it then nothing arise.
I already quoted MN 121 and the Upaya Sutta from the SN that state when craving ends consciousness still exists
Plus add MN 37, MN 38 and countless other suttas
You seem to not understand Dependent Origination.
D.O. is about consciousness being tainted (asava) by ignorance
It is not about the meta-physical coming into existence of consciousness
The Buddha extinguished craving when he was 35 years old but remained conscious for the next 45 years of his life
Best to give up studying suttas and begin to meditate with earnestness
As I said, take care to not slander the Tathagata and pursue the suttas is an unprofitable manner
Again, read the quote below carefully, with appropriate attention
:om:
Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was.
In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart [mind; consciousness] possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the profit of both.
Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
What do you mean by Buddhist rebirth? The reason I am asking this is because sometimes people are referring to Buddhist rebirth when they are actually thinking about the Hindu idea of a persisting consciousness transmigrating from one existence to another instead.
The idea of a permanent self was rejected by the Buddha as being faulty. He explained a different mechanism of rebirth based on what he realized after enlightenment whereby there is no self at any point, be it past life, present life, or future life.
Now, the above post is really confusing & not correct
Although the Buddha did not do so, the later Buddhists have asserted consciousness is reborn.
Instead of the Hindu atman (soul) being reborn, the later Buddhists (such as Buddhaghosa, Ajahn Brahm, etc) have asserted a re-linking consciousness is reborn
Whereas Buddha only taught karma is "born again"
As I tried to explain before, when a karmic act of self-identification occurs (such as getting angry at one's wife), the mind will take birth again in an ego state it needs to resolve (such as apologising to one's wife due to fear, shame & regret)
If we wish to interpret this to other lifetimes, we can
But the point is the Buddha only taught the results of karma are "born again" or "appear again"
The Buddha never ever taught a meta-physical mechanism of rebirth (despite attempts by Ajahn Brahm & others of using the dodgy DN 15 to assert as much)
to end & repeat:
1. Later-Day-Buddhists assert consciousness is reborn
similar words are found in the MN to refer to a horse that "gallops"
'transmigration' is an embellishment
'transmigration' has a specific meaning and it does not mean sandhāvati
Sati false claim :
" it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirths, not another. "- Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (MN 38)
Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnotes on the above translation: According to MA, through faulty reasoning based on the fact of rebirth, Sati came to the conclusion that a persisting consciousness transmigrating from one existence to another is necessary to explain rebirth.
Dictionary definition : Sandhāvati [saŋ+dhāvati] to run through, to transmigrate
I already quoted MN 121 and the Upaya Sutta from the SN that state when craving ends consciousness still exists
Of course consciousness still exist, but it doesn't but there is no cause for future arising .
now please point to where the Buddha ever taught the rebirth ..
"What one intend, what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: [1] There is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established, has come to growth, there is inclination. When there is inclination, there is coming and going. When there is coming and going, there is passing away and being reborn. When there is passing away and being reborn, future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair comes to be. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering ." "If one does not intend and does not plan, but one still obsesses about something, this becomes the basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is the basis, there is the support, there is the establishing of consciousness. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering." "But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything no basis exist for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished, does not come to growth there is no inclination. When there is no inclination, there is no coming and going. When there is no coming and going, there is no passing away and being reborn. Future birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." - SN 12.40: Cetana Sutta (3) — Volition
the sutta explicity states the bhikkhu aspires to reappear in the company of nobles, householders, brahmins, gods, etc
Here the Buddha explains how having a certain sankhara would lead to reappearance in a certain plain. The last one is the goal of the holy life. Here is another discourse on this topic:
“ Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation , consciousness fares on to the meritorious ( punnupagam hoti vinnanam) ; if he generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious (apunnupagam hoti vinnanam) ; if he generates an imperturbable volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable ( anenjupagam hoti vinnanam) . “But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and arouse true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious volitional formation ( punnabhi-sankharam) , or a demeritorious volitional formation ( apunnabhi-sankharam) , or an imperturbable volitional formation (anenjabhi-sankharam) . Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘ Destroyed is the possibility of rebirth, the holy life has been fulfilled, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to this state. ‘ “ If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. ‘ If he feels an unpleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. ‘ If he feels a neither-painful-nor -pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. “ When he feels a feeling bounded by the body, he understands: ‘ I am feel a feeling bounded by the body. ‘ When he feels a feeling bounded by life, he understands: ‘ I feel a feeling bounded by life. ‘ He knows clearly: ‘ With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of the life span, all that is felt, not being delighted in , will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left. ‘ In the same manner knowing he will feel feelings, limited to the body and knowing he will feel feelings limited to life. He will know, when the body breaks up, before the end of life, all disagreeable feelings will be cooled and only the body will remain. “ Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would remove a hot clay pot from the furnace and set it on smooth ground: its heat would be dissipated right there and and the pieces of the pot would remain. In the same manner, when he feels a feeling bounded by the body, he understands: ‘ I am feel a feeling bounded by the body. ‘ When he feels a feeling bounded by life, he understands: ‘ I feel a feeling bounded by life. ‘ He knows clearly: ‘ With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of the life span, all that is felt, not being delighted in , will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left. ‘ “ What do you think, bhikkhus, can a bhikkhu whose mind is free from mental obsessions ( khinasava) generate a meritorious volitional formation, or a demeritorious volitional formation, or an imperturbable volitional formation? ‘ “ No venerable sir. “ “ When there are utterly no volitional formations, with the cessation of volitional formations, would consciousness be discerned ( vinnanam pannayetha , Pannayati: appears)?” “ No, venerable sir.” “ When there are utterly no consciousness ( vinnana), with the cessation of consciousness ( vinnana) , would name-and- matter ( nama-rupa) be discerned ?” “ No, venerable sir.” - Parivamansana sutta- Thorough Examination (12. 6. 1)
Of course , in Theraveda you practice to become enlightened / realize the dhamma in this very life.
no
it is in the here & now;
Surely some people are enlightened now, but there are also people that are not at this very moment but will realize the dhamma a little bit later in this life .
Here we are discussing the Buddha's teaching rather than establishing our own teaching, so it makes sense to actually look at the discourse . If he just says it , I will think that he made that up or slander the Buddha, and vice versa.
This is far from"sutta slinging". This type of debate is the reason for a Buddhist forum and I hope that I might be learned enough to take part one day. (Not holding my breath)
" it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirths, not another. "- Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (MN 38)
Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnotes on the above translation: According to MA, through faulty reasoning based on the fact of rebirth, Sati came to the conclusion that a persisting consciousness transmigrating from one existence to another is necessary to explain rebirth.
oh dear :wow:
how many time must we repeat
MN 38 is a supramundane sutta about supramundane dhamma. it is not about rebirth
it is Bhikkhu Sati (and Bhikkhu Bodhi) that raise the issue of rebirth
did the Buddha mention rebirth in the sutta?
further, can the word "rebirth" actually be found in the Pali, per Bhikkhu Bodhi's dodgy translation???
oh dear :-/
This is how I heard it. Once the Blessed One was living at Sàvatthã in Jeta’s Grove, Anàthapindika’s Park. At that time a pernicious view had arisen in a bhikkhu named Sàti, the fisherman’s son, in this way: “As I understand the dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness (vinnàna) that runs (sandhàvati) and wanders (saüsarati), not another.”
Of course consciousness still exist, but it doesn't but there is no cause for future arising
MN 38 states when the eye sees the form, the links of dependent origination end
MN 37 states Nibbana is experienced by observing impermanence in feelings so craving ends
the word nirodha does not mean "cessation"
it means "quenching" "extinguishing"
when the "cessation" of consciousness occurs due to the cessation of ignorance, this means the cessation of ignorance (and other asava) tainting consciousness
this means the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred & delusion burning consciousness
consciousness is liberated. this is the meaning of vinnana nirodha, per the suttas
the Buddha never ever said the cessation of suffering is the cessation of consciousness
the Buddha advised the cessation of sufffering is the cessation of craving
Cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is remainderless fading and ceasing, giving up, relinquishing, letting go and rejecting, of that same craving.
SN 56.11
~~~~
Bhikkhus, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning? "The eye is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.
SN 35.28
~~~
That is, from the cessation [extinguishing] of ignorance, formations cease; from the cessation of formations, consciousness ceases [extinguishes]; from the cessation of consciousness, name-&-form ceases; from the cessation of name-&-form, six sense fields cease; from the cessation of six sense fields, contact ceases; from the cessation of contact, feeling ceases; from the cessation of feeling, craving ceases; from the cessation of craving, clinging ceases; from the cessation of clinging, becoming ceases; from the cessation of becoming, birth ceases; from the cessation of birth, ageing-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.
On seeing a form with the eye, he is not passionate for it if it is pleasing; he is not angry at it if it is displeasing. He lives with attention to body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands realistically the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels - whether pleasant or painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful - he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. From the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; from the cessation of clinging, the cessation of becoming; from the cessation of becoming, the cessation of birth; from the cessation of birth, ageing-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering.
MN 38
~~~
If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocted, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
Here we are discussing the Buddha's teaching rather than establishing our own teaching, so it makes sense to actually look at the discourse . If he just says it , I will think that he made that up or slander the Buddha, and vice versa.
Here, Dhamma Dhatu is discussing the Buddha's teaching where as Dharma is establishing their own teaching, so it makes sense to actually look at the discourse :coffee:
"What one intend, what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: There is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established, has come to growth, there is inclination. When there is inclination, there is coming and going. When there is coming and going, there is passing away and being reborn. When there is passing away and being reborn, future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair comes to be. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering ."
"If one does not intend and does not plan, but one still obsesses about something, this becomes the basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is the basis, there is the support, there is the establishing of consciousness. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering."
oh dear
it getting worse...the same old suttas the reincarnationists cite again & again :facepalm:
are you aware how many Pali words Bhikkhu Bodhi & his kind translate as "rebirth"?
upapati, upapapati, upajati, punabhava, opapatika...the list is endless
the pali from the above is below and, on this occassion, Bhikkhu Bodhi or Thanissaro's chosen word for "passing away and being reborn" is...wait for it...cutūpapāto :clap:
cuti (f.) shifting; passing away; vanishing.
papāto = ??? - to arise
this sutta simply means what one plans & intends, consciousness becomes absorbed in & fixated upon
like staring at a beautiful woman - the eyes buldge & come to growth
thus when the mind has a habit, due to impermanence, consciousness continually engages, disengages and re-engages with that object of habit, intent, etc
you sure have an imaginative manner of interpreting suttas
i can only recommend again to observe your own mind rather than reading words
Here the Buddha explains how having a certain sankhara would lead to reappearance in a certain plain. The last one is the goal of the holy life. Here is another discourse on this topic:
“ Bhikkhus, if a person immersed in ignorance generates a meritorious volitional formation , consciousness fares on to the meritorious ( punnupagam hoti vinnanam) ; if he generates a demeritorious volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the demeritorious (apunnupagam hoti vinnanam) ; if he generates an imperturbable volitional formation, consciousness fares on to the imperturbable ( anenjupagam hoti vinnanam) . “But when a bhikkhu has abandoned ignorance and arouse true knowledge, then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not generate a meritorious volitional formation ( punnabhi-sankharam) , or a demeritorious volitional formation ( apunnabhi-sankharam) , or an imperturbable volitional formation (anenjabhi-sankharam) . Since he does not generate or fashion volitional formations, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains Nibbana. He understands: ‘ Destroyed is the possibility of rebirth, the holy life has been fulfilled, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to this state. ‘ “ If he feels a pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. ‘ If he feels an unpleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. ‘ If he feels a neither-painful-nor -pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘ It is impermanent’; he understands : ‘ It is not held to ‘ ; he understands: ‘ It is not delighted in. “ When he feels a feeling bounded by the body, he understands: ‘ I am feel a feeling bounded by the body. ‘ When he feels a feeling bounded by life, he understands: ‘ I feel a feeling bounded by life. ‘ He knows clearly: ‘ With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of the life span, all that is felt, not being delighted in , will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left. ‘ In the same manner knowing he will feel feelings, limited to the body and knowing he will feel feelings limited to life. He will know, when the body breaks up, before the end of life, all disagreeable feelings will be cooled and only the body will remain. “ Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would remove a hot clay pot from the furnace and set it on smooth ground: its heat would be dissipated right there and and the pieces of the pot would remain. In the same manner, when he feels a feeling bounded by the body, he understands: ‘ I am feel a feeling bounded by the body. ‘ When he feels a feeling bounded by life, he understands: ‘ I feel a feeling bounded by life. ‘ He knows clearly: ‘ With the breakup of the body, following the exhaustion of the life span, all that is felt, not being delighted in , will become cool right here; mere bodily remains will be left. ‘
the sutta above is quite clear
it simply states generating a meritorious formation (such as "I will be good"), then one's consciousness will become engaged & pre-occupied in doing good (rather than inclined towards emptiness)
examples of this are such as when old Buddhist grandmothers give to charity or give to monks so they personally can believe they as a person will be reborn in heaven
then the sutta states when their is mindfulness of feelings at death, all becomes cool
when the mind is empty at death, it has no thoughts "I am this consciousness", "I am dying", "I am this body & mind", etc
contrary to your interpretation, the sutta does not mention "reappearance in a certain plain"
it simply states when one indeeds to [egotistically] make merit or demerit, one is born as a do gooder, born as a bad guy, etc, etc
Surely some people are enlightened now, but there are also people that are not at this very moment but will realize the dhamma a little bit later in this life .
definitely not
maintaining the views you are nurturing will not lead to enlightenment :-/
Surely some people are enlightened now, but there are also people that are not at this very moment but will realize the dhamma a little bit later in this life .
definitely not. maintaining the views you are nurturing will not lead to enlightenment
in fact, the very views you are nurturing, connected with rebirth, merit & demerit are the exact kind the Buddha was discouraging in the Parivamansana Sutta
Thurman: "And if our lives are just within the parameters of being a coarse body and a coarse mind, whose final destiny is nothing, than the restraint from doing negative things is not that great really—which is the problem with ethics in materialist societies".
I must have a very different understanding of Buddhism to Thurman. To me, Buddhism is about how cultivating selflessness is the key to happiness. Isn't that enough motivation to not behave selfishly? What does the fact that Thurman doesn't get this say about Thurman's Buddhism?
Your understanding is correct, and it's why I believe Batchelor was going easy on his friend when he didn't jump all over that, and it make me wonder what sort of strange teaching Thurman's school of Buddhism hands out.
The Noble Truths did not say that the problem was people need to accumulate good karma for the next reincarnation. Buddha said the problem was, people are suffering. Today. Right now. And the remedy to that is to eliminate selfish desires. Not for some future reward in a next life, but because people are suffering in this life.
"Without a God that judges, there's no reason for me not to go out and murder people."
"Without a next life where you're going to be punished for bad karma, there's no reason for me not to go out and murder people."
"Atheists can't be moral, because they have nothing to base their morals on."
If the only thing keeping you from going out and murdering, raping, and stealing is the fear of either God or a bad reincarnation, then please never, never stop believing in God or reincarnation.
For we normal people, the suffering we see in front of us is motivation enough to live by a moral code. Compassion does not require a belief in God or reincarnation, and quite often such beliefs get in the way of acting with compassion. I can't believe any Buddhist, including Thurman, doesn't agree with that, so he must have been unclear in what he was trying to say.
I don't see a problem with Thurman's quote. I think his meaning is a little different than you're interpretation would have it. He's not speaking of actions within the context of engaging in a Buddhist practice or even within the context of the existing tenets of Buddhism. He was speaking generally, about how all people, who currently believe in some kind of consequences in their next life or afterlife would behave were they to stop believing in the continuity of experience after death. He specifically stated that "this is the problem with ethics in materialist societies", indicated that he was speaking generally about humanity and human behavior.
In the first place he stated: the restraint against committing negative deeds would be "not that great". So, assuming that "not that great" means "moderate"then there is always some restraint irrespective of whether people believe in life after death; however, it's less than it would be otherwise. This is a reasonable assertion. See below.
For those who espouse a deep belief in morality along the lines of Buddhist morality, for example, the "divine" (or, at least, the closest thing to it) IS the establishment of a just society and the elimination of reduction of suffering in this life; if there's no heaven or any other continuity which survives death why not create the next best thing---heaven on earth, or the kind of mind which which has eliminated all negativity and rejoices in all virture. I would assert that this makes up a small percentage of humans in this realm. I'd further assert that, if Thurman were asked to comment on this subset of all humanity he'd agree with you.
However, since his comments were directed outward to a larger swath of humanity, it's correct to assert that many people tend to think of morality as a relative thing; relative to not-so-enlightened (or, more properly put---naked...self interest; that is to say--- be good to others and you get a reward down the road or, at least, you avoid some kind of suffering. Look, there are people who, in spite of having strong belief in God and Heaven and Hell, still have little compunction about killing, stealing, raping, abusing, not to mention just acting like complete assholes. They're not interested in establishing a just society, alleviating the suffering of others, if there's nothing in it for them, is not a goal either. They just want take care of themselves and, perhaps, those they believe to be close to them, family, friends, etc. Their view is insular; the little restraint they do show is based on fear of punishment, either by other people, the state, or karma or God. Removing ANY belief in God or an afterlife would seem to warrant that these people would show even less restraint.
So I don't think, for a moment, that Thurman is arguing how morality would be affected in an idealized society made up of committed and engaged Buddhists, who uniformly accepted the tenet that the end of life was some kind of great anesthesia that Thurman likes to talk about. He was projecting this kind of change of mind (which accepted the finality of death, where it had previously not done so) onto the public at large, and felt that, for many, especially those for whom their little modicum of restraint IS based on potential negative consequences, there would be less restraint in their behaviors. There are other factors that restrain behavior, of course, including fear of punishment by society or other persons (as set forth above); additionally there is a reluctance to engage in negative actions based on a sense of shame or embarrassment either towards self or others.
Having said all that is the an argument that I personally would make? No. I don't think Thurman had to go there. It doesn't influence my own inquiry or struggle to develop a view, which is completely authentic and heartfelt, and based on listening, study, contemplation, and meditation, on this topic. That, in the end is what can make practice strong; when you have deep conviction about these issues and are able to use that conviction to develop firm aspiration to achieve that goal, and, having become determined to achieve it, you generate the joyful effort, vigilance, and all the other virtuous qualities and and levels of meditations and analysis necessary to achieve the goal.
Comments
It's a long topic. I can only point to the book I've read by Alan Wallace that examines where the scientific attitudes prevalent today originated: Embracing Mind: The Common Ground of Science and Spirituality. It's quite fascinating, and I think Wallace is quite thorough. There's also some materials on this topic on his website.
Culatanhasankhaya Sutta:
" At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anaathapindika in Jeta’s grove in Saavatthi. At that time to a bhikkhu named Saati the son of a fisherman this view had arisen: As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Many bhikkhus, heard that this evil view had arisen to a bhikkhu, named Saati the son of a fisherman: ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’. Then those bhikkhus approached, bhikkhu Saati the son of a fisherman and asked: Friend, Saati, is it true, that such an evil view has arisen to you: ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’Yes, friends, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Then those bhikkhus, desirous of dissuading the bhikkhu Saati from that evil view, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied with him: Saati, do not say that, do not blame the Blessed One. It is not good to blame the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this. The Blessed One has said in various ways, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness. Even when those bhikkhus, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied together with him, he held on to his evil view tenaciously and would not give it up and said. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else’
As those bhikkhus could not dissuade the bhikkhu Saati from that evil view, they approached the Blessed One"
http://www.leighb.com/mn38.htm
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed". Albert Einstein
Great thread btw.
To say that rebirth is impossible to disprove is not to 'demand that others carry out the task of disproof'. There is a reason why, in science and philosophy, saying that a theory is 'undisprovable' is an insult, not a compliment. To say that your theory is undisprovable is to say that there's nothing that can change your mind, which is to say that it is nothing more than a closed-minded dogma. If there is no possible state of the world that could ever disprove a given theory, then that theory cannot be based in any real state of the world in the first place. A theory that is consistent with all possible worlds, consistent with all possible evidence and with none – a theory that is held to be true no matter what is actually observed – might as well have been merely invented. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. And this is exactly what the theory of rebirth is if it is believed without evidence FOR it.
MN 38 clearly states without a sense base, there is no origination of consciousness (just as other suttas state with body-mind, there is no origination of consciousness)
The term "rebirth" means to take "birth again".
It is a karmic principle that when the mind of a human being is "born" into a state of self-identification with its karma, the mind will be "born again" into another emotional/ego state that it must resolve dependent on its previous karma
eg. I get angry at my wife. That is being born as an angry 'being'. Then later the mind is born again into a state of fear & regret and later born into a state where it must apologise to one's wife
Take care not to slander the Tathagata, as though the Buddha taught "rebirth" is the "rebirth" of another life time, like being born again out of a mother's womb
That is your interpretation
To study suttas in order to slander the Tathagata the Buddha called a "life wasted"
All the best
1. believe & speak only what they have personally experienced, independent of the Buddha
2. do not believe 'they' ever existed in the past, present or future
3. see the present dhammas of the here & now
4. when the eye sees a form, birth, aging-death, suffering end
in other words, as 'birth' ends when the sense bases see, hear, taste, touch, smell, cognise, etc, this 'birth' is something mental rather than physical birth from a womb
:coffee:
Here the Buddha clear pointed out "at the dissolution of the body, after death" . The effects can be experienced in this life and after death as well. It is both.
"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable.[1] A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in the body, [2] undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in the body,[3] developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e., painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the unlimited. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment."
the word "transmigrates" does not appear in the Pali
even the reincarnation lover Bhikkhu Bodhi does not use the translation "transmigrates"
secondly, the matter of "transmigrates" was not raised by the Buddha
it was raised by Sati
now, please do not avoid, as i posted, the main themes in MN 38, as follows:
1. believe & speak only what one has personally experienced, independent of the Buddha
2. do not believe 'one' ever existed in the past, present or future
3. see the present dhammas of the here & now
4. when the eye sees a form, birth, aging-death, suffering end
in other words, as 'birth' ends when the sense bases see, hear, taste, touch, smell, cognise, etc, this 'birth' is something mental rather than physical birth from a womb
Why would a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity and endowed with wisdom, seek reappearance in the company of well-to-do noble? :screwy:
Siddhartha was a well-to-do noble and abandoned that to be a bhikkhu (monk)
Only the end of the sutta is connected to the essence of Buddhism
Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. ‘Oh, by realizing for myself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , I might here and now enter and abide in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realizing for himself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , he here and now enters and abides in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason. “
(1) here & now
(2) later
(3) later again
example: get drunk
(1) the here & now result is pleasure
(2) the later result is hangover/headache/sickness
(3) the later again result is craving for alcohol; a habit; a conditioned tendency
:crazy:
There is no permanent "us", just a temporary aggregation of form sculpted by causes and conditions.
Namaste
Now, the Bodhisattva vows are important and I recite them with extreme seriousness and they're not just empty promises. Neither do I subscribe to literal reincarnation. So, this is another point in the discussion where I was simply astonished at what Thurman was saying.
First of all, even if literal transmigration was true, for the sake of argument, no vows you take in this life are valid in your next. Your karma might present the future you with some conditions to handle, but "you" certainly don't determine his or her motivation or choices. To put it another way, suppose your past life vowed in blood and everything that's holy to track down the SOB that poisoned him. What does that mean to you? Not a thing. It's his vow, not yours.
So the Bodhisattva vow is for the here and now, and has nothing whatsoever to do with future life decisions that are out of your control, no matter what you believe. According to this definiton of Buddhism, only the small handful of Tibetan Tulkus who are supposed to be enlightened enough to ensure their destiny as future Dharma warriors are capable of being Bodhisattvas. That's a troubling version of Buddhism.
Am I reading this guy right? Is that what Tibetan Buddhism teaches, that Bodhisattvas are only found in the rarified elite and regular Buddhists need not aspire to join?
When it comes to the sentence said by sati ( which the Buddha rejected ) :
“tathāhaṃ bhagavatā dhammaṃ desitaṃ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati anaññan”
Sandhāvati [saŋ+dhāvati] to run through, to transmigrate D i.14; A ii.1; S iii.149; J i.503; aor. sandhāvissaŋ Dh 153=J i.76 (=apar' âparaŋ anuvicariŋ DhA iii.128).
When did I say that the Buddha said that, the quote I posted was to show the Buddha rejecting transmigration after Sati thought the Buddha taught transmigration .
"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."- MN 38
This is your words, what it meant to me is that there is no self so being obsessed with past, future , and present are irrelevant. If the above meant that there is no past , present, or future lives as you understood it then which life are you living right now ?
"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." Of course , in Theraveda you practice to become enlightened / realize the dhamma in this very life.
Here he speaks about the way to reappear in various planes according to sankhara in a gradual order from lowest to highest, and the ultimate one is the last one. He did not suggest that the Bhikkus seek reappearance in any realm but strive for the last one. For many lay people with lesser commitment to practice , then maybe they can settle for the other ones.
This is the one suggested for monastics throughout the texts, but that doesn't mean that the other ones doesn't exist:
"Again, a bhikkhu is endowed with faith, endowed with moral practice , endowed with learning, endowed with generosity, and endowed with wisdom. ‘Oh, by realizing for myself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , I might here and now enter and abide in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints!’ And by realizing for himself with direct knowledge ( abhinna) , he here and now enters and abides in the liberation of mind (cetovimutti) , liberation of wisdom (pannavimutti) that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Bhikkhus, this bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason. “
Yes, we can see that it says " upon dissolution of the body" :
" upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.
The idea of a permanent self was rejected by the Buddha as being faulty. He explained a different mechanism of rebirth based on what he realized after enlightenment whereby there is no self at any point, be it past life, present life, or future life.
similar words are found in the MN to refer to a horse that "gallops"
'transmigration' is an embellishment
'transmigration' has a specific meaning and it does not mean sandhāvati
:wtf:
as i said, there is no "one" that ever existed in the past present & future
all that exists are elements or paticcasummupada dhammas
now please point to where the Buddha ever taught the rebirth of anatta elements?
he never did
this would be contrary to his purpose
in suttas such as MN 60, for puthujjanas, the Buddha taught it is right view for the purpose of morality that the puthujjana adhere to the view of continued existence; that there are "beings" the continue to exist (eternalism)
this is mundane right view contrary to supramundane right view such as found in SN 12.15
as i recommended, take care not to slander the tathagata
it is in the here & now; it is akaliko, which means "immediate"
the mind sees Dependent Origination now
its sees the birth & cessation of "self-view" now
its sees the end of becoming or sense of existence now
as i said, the sutta is ridiculous
it sounds like it is about bhikkhus who seek social & godly praise & recognition
many suttas mention this, such as MN 29 & 30, which state a bhikkhu is pleased with gain, honor & renown and believes his intention for becoming a monk is fulfilled
in the current world, there are many monks like this, who seek fame & influence from their ordination
i can only suggest you read the ridiculous MN 120 again rather than coping & pasting this worldly Pali dribble with miscomprehension
:coffee:
Namaste
your view is mere blind faith; mere materialistic worldly interpretation
with every round of Dependent Origination, there is a new arising & death of a 'body' or 'kaya'
for example, in MN 118, the Buddha refered to the in & out breathing as a 'kaya' amongst 'kaya'
for example, in the 2nd link of Dependent Origination, the in & out breathing is the kaya sankhara
so, for example, if a sexual urge/thought arises from ignorance, this gives rise to a certain kind of kaya sankhara and nama-rupa (body). in short, the kaya is sexual aroused; the physical body is sexually aroused
the sexually aroused nama-rupa then seeks sexual behaviour (becoming & birth) but if it does not fulfil its search, there is the aging&death of that kaya resulting in sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair
in other words, at the end of that kaya (body), after death, the ignorant mind is born in hell (sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair)
whilst your intepretation is valid, it is the interpretation intended for puthujjanas (worldlings) rather than enlightened beings
please read the following very carefully :coffee:
elements (dhatu) exist
nama-rupa (body-mind) exists
but "I" does not exist (except for the unenlightened)
Plus add MN 37, MN 38 and countless other suttas
You seem to not understand Dependent Origination.
D.O. is about consciousness being tainted (asava) by ignorance
It is not about the meta-physical coming into existence of consciousness
The Buddha extinguished craving when he was 35 years old but remained conscious for the next 45 years of his life
Best to give up studying suttas and begin to meditate with earnestness
As I said, take care to not slander the Tathagata and pursue the suttas is an unprofitable manner
Again, read the quote below carefully, with appropriate attention
:om:
Although the Buddha did not do so, the later Buddhists have asserted consciousness is reborn.
Instead of the Hindu atman (soul) being reborn, the later Buddhists (such as Buddhaghosa, Ajahn Brahm, etc) have asserted a re-linking consciousness is reborn
Whereas Buddha only taught karma is "born again"
As I tried to explain before, when a karmic act of self-identification occurs (such as getting angry at one's wife), the mind will take birth again in an ego state it needs to resolve (such as apologising to one's wife due to fear, shame & regret)
If we wish to interpret this to other lifetimes, we can
But the point is the Buddha only taught the results of karma are "born again" or "appear again"
The Buddha never ever taught a meta-physical mechanism of rebirth (despite attempts by Ajahn Brahm & others of using the dodgy DN 15 to assert as much)
to end & repeat:
1. Later-Day-Buddhists assert consciousness is reborn
2. Hindus assert atman (soul) is reborn
3. Buddha taught karma is born again
Sati false claim :
" it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the rounds of rebirths, not another. "- Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (MN 38)
Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnotes on the above translation:
According to MA, through faulty reasoning based on the fact of rebirth, Sati came to the conclusion that a persisting consciousness transmigrating from one existence to another is necessary to explain rebirth.
Dictionary definition :
Sandhāvati [saŋ+dhāvati] to run through, to transmigrate
Of course consciousness still exist, but it doesn't but there is no cause for future arising .
"What one intend, what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: [1] There is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established, has come to growth, there is inclination. When there is inclination, there is coming and going. When there is coming and going, there is passing away and being reborn. When there is passing away and being reborn, future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair comes to be. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering ."
"If one does not intend and does not plan, but one still obsesses about something, this becomes the basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is the basis, there is the support, there is the establishing of consciousness. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering."
"But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything no basis exist for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis, there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished, does not come to growth there is no inclination. When there is no inclination, there is no coming and going. When there is no coming and going, there is no passing away and being reborn. Future birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." - SN 12.40: Cetana Sutta (3) — Volition
how many time must we repeat
MN 38 is a supramundane sutta about supramundane dhamma. it is not about rebirth
it is Bhikkhu Sati (and Bhikkhu Bodhi) that raise the issue of rebirth
did the Buddha mention rebirth in the sutta?
further, can the word "rebirth" actually be found in the Pali, per Bhikkhu Bodhi's dodgy translation???
oh dear :-/
MN 37 states Nibbana is experienced by observing impermanence in feelings so craving ends
the word nirodha does not mean "cessation"
it means "quenching" "extinguishing"
when the "cessation" of consciousness occurs due to the cessation of ignorance, this means the cessation of ignorance (and other asava) tainting consciousness
this means the extinguishing of the fires of greed, hatred & delusion burning consciousness
consciousness is liberated. this is the meaning of vinnana nirodha, per the suttas
the Buddha never ever said the cessation of suffering is the cessation of consciousness
the Buddha advised the cessation of sufffering is the cessation of craving
it getting worse...the same old suttas the reincarnationists cite again & again :facepalm:
are you aware how many Pali words Bhikkhu Bodhi & his kind translate as "rebirth"?
upapati, upapapati, upajati, punabhava, opapatika...the list is endless
the pali from the above is below and, on this occassion, Bhikkhu Bodhi or Thanissaro's chosen word for "passing away and being reborn" is...wait for it...cutūpapāto :clap:
cuti (f.) shifting; passing away; vanishing.
papāto = ??? - to arise
this sutta simply means what one plans & intends, consciousness becomes absorbed in & fixated upon
like staring at a beautiful woman - the eyes buldge & come to growth
thus when the mind has a habit, due to impermanence, consciousness continually engages, disengages and re-engages with that object of habit, intent, etc
you sure have an imaginative manner of interpreting suttas
i can only recommend again to observe your own mind rather than reading words
is anything you seek to impart that is related to actual experience???
:skeptic: :wtf: :scratch:
it simply states generating a meritorious formation (such as "I will be good"), then one's consciousness will become engaged & pre-occupied in doing good (rather than inclined towards emptiness)
examples of this are such as when old Buddhist grandmothers give to charity or give to monks so they personally can believe they as a person will be reborn in heaven
then the sutta states when their is mindfulness of feelings at death, all becomes cool
when the mind is empty at death, it has no thoughts "I am this consciousness", "I am dying", "I am this body & mind", etc
contrary to your interpretation, the sutta does not mention "reappearance in a certain plain"
it simply states when one indeeds to [egotistically] make merit or demerit, one is born as a do gooder, born as a bad guy, etc, etc
definitely not
maintaining the views you are nurturing will not lead to enlightenment :-/
in fact, the very views you are nurturing, connected with rebirth, merit & demerit are the exact kind the Buddha was discouraging in the Parivamansana Sutta
In the first place he stated: the restraint against committing negative deeds would be "not that great". So, assuming that "not that great" means "moderate"then there is always some restraint irrespective of whether people believe in life after death; however, it's less than it would be otherwise. This is a reasonable assertion. See below.
For those who espouse a deep belief in morality along the lines of Buddhist morality, for example, the "divine" (or, at least, the closest thing to it) IS the establishment of a just society and the elimination of reduction of suffering in this life; if there's no heaven or any other continuity which survives death why not create the next best thing---heaven on earth, or the kind of mind which which has eliminated all negativity and rejoices in all virture. I would assert that this makes up a small percentage of humans in this realm. I'd further assert that, if Thurman were asked to comment on this subset of all humanity he'd agree with you.
However, since his comments were directed outward to a larger swath of humanity, it's correct to assert that many people tend to think of morality as a relative thing; relative to not-so-enlightened (or, more properly put---naked...self interest; that is to say--- be good to others and you get a reward down the road or, at least, you avoid some kind of suffering. Look, there are people who, in spite of having strong belief in God and Heaven and Hell, still have little compunction about killing, stealing, raping, abusing, not to mention just acting like complete assholes. They're not interested in establishing a just society, alleviating the suffering of others, if there's nothing in it for them, is not a goal either. They just want take care of themselves and, perhaps, those they believe to be close to them, family, friends, etc. Their view is insular; the little restraint they do show is based on fear of punishment, either by other people, the state, or karma or God. Removing ANY belief in God or an afterlife would seem to warrant that these people would show even less restraint.
So I don't think, for a moment, that Thurman is arguing how morality would be affected in an idealized society made up of committed and engaged Buddhists, who uniformly accepted the tenet that the end of life was some kind of great anesthesia that Thurman likes to talk about. He was projecting this kind of change of mind (which accepted the finality of death, where it had previously not done so) onto the public at large, and felt that, for many, especially those for whom their little modicum of restraint IS based on potential negative consequences, there would be less restraint in their behaviors. There are other factors that restrain behavior, of course, including fear of punishment by society or other persons (as set forth above); additionally there is a reluctance to engage in negative actions based on a sense of shame or embarrassment either towards self or others.
Having said all that is the an argument that I personally would make? No. I don't think Thurman had to go there. It doesn't influence my own inquiry or struggle to develop a view, which is completely authentic and heartfelt, and based on listening, study, contemplation, and meditation, on this topic. That, in the end is what can make practice strong; when you have deep conviction about these issues and are able to use that conviction to develop firm aspiration to achieve that goal, and, having become determined to achieve it, you generate the joyful effort, vigilance, and all the other virtuous qualities and and levels of meditations and analysis necessary to achieve the goal.