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
I don’t really understand it either. What’s real and true does not depend on the exact meaning of a Pali word.
1. The real question here is whether rebirth is a fact. What the Budhha did or did not say on the subject is not deciding the issue. It is even hardly relevant because we have to investigate anyway. We have to see for ourselves.
2. When the Buddha did not teach rebirth (in a cycle of life and death as most people understand it) or when the texts of the sutta’s leave space to such an interpretation, there’s another big question to be answered. Where did the misunderstanding come from? It’s not just Bikkhu Bodhi. The entire community of Buddhists in many Asian countries has been saying the same thing for many centuries now. Where did that come from? When DD is right, how did it happen that everyone else got it all wrong?
Just for the record. I’m not against DD’s interpretation, in fact I like it; I just see this problem to it. Plus I think the sutta’s are historical texts and not infallible Revelations of the Truth.
Where did the misunderstanding come from? It’s not just Bikkhu Bodhi. The entire community of Buddhists in many Asian countries has been saying the same thing for many centuries now. Where did that come from? When DD is right, how did it happen that everyone else got it all wrong?
Just for the record. I’m not against DD’s interpretation, in fact I like it; I just see this problem to it. Plus I think the sutta’s are historical texts and not infallible Revelations of the Truth.
Your arguement fall down when you say: "The entire community of Buddhists in many Asian countries has been saying the same thing for many centuries now..."
This is not true
And even if it was true, in former times, religion doctrine often followed politics
Government sponsored religious persecution, inquisition, etc, it not something unique to Christianity
Similarly, although alternately, in countries such as Thailand, there were govt efforts to return some authenticity to Buddhism due to the moral & doctrinal corruption of the monks
Where did the misunderstanding come from? It’s not just Bikkhu Bodhi. The entire community of Buddhists in many Asian countries has been saying the same thing for many centuries now. Where did that come from?
Where did that come from?
Ignorance
Most Christians and most Christian churches teach 'eternal life' and 'heaven' are realms experienced after death
Are they right?
If not, what makes Asians different, as though Asians Buddhists are enlightened but Western Christians are superstitious?
It looks like the belief in reincarnation/rebirth in India is linked to the shramana movement; a spiritual revival which opposed Vedic ritualism. Gautama apparently was part of that movement - was a child of his time - which suggests his thoughts were going along the same lines. Gautama – the tale about his life- has a character a lot like Mahavir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavir). It just shows that it was the trend in those days for princes to go off into the woods and find liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth. Jain and Hindu faith embraced similar notions about rebirth around the same time.
My guess (not more than that!) is that he taught rebirth in line with the spirit of the age and in the way most Buddhists always have understood it. It is a bit unlikely that so many people have been wrong all the time and that prominent monks of all times (even the arahants and all) never bothered to set things right.
Next question: What if he did not teach rebirth?
It would be difficult to prove but it could be the case. Possibly the historic Gautama was misunderstood and what we see is the product of time. But if that’s the case it means the end of all authority of “the Buddha” because we have no way to filter what he really taught from the historic adaptations.
So DD: Make your pick. There’s a Buddha whose teaching we can know through the tradition. If so, this tradition says he teaches rebirth. Or there’s no way to know the real Buddha. All we know is the distortions that became the tradition.
I choose the latter. Buddhism can inspire us on our path of liberation, but it is no fixed dogmatic system of thought. It gives us pointers and stepping stones; not certainties.
The Buddha was deliberately vague and ambiguous on a vital matter? Unlikely!
Besides you only respond to the issue of rebirth in terms of interpreting Pali. There’s more. You seem to close your eyes for context.
I suppose you stick to the (dogmatic) idea that the suttas are literal representations of the infallible teachings of the Buddha. And yes, than it’s all about the interpretation of the sacred text.
"Atheists can't be moral, because they have nothing to base their morals on"?? Ex-CUSE me?!!! Do we need some church, deity, commandments or doctrine to tell us what most of us inherently know? Are all the crimes in the world being committed by atheists run amok? Are all those errant Catholic priests and Buddhist monks, Hindu bride-burners (the dowry-related killings), and Muslim terrorists secretly atheists, carrying out a global plot to give religion a bad name?
Maybe Thurman was born and raised without a moral compass, so he needs a formula to tell him the difference between right and wrong. If that's the case, he should speak for himself, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Actually, that wasn't Thurman I was quoting, it was every fundamentalist out there who believes atheism is actually its own religion. This is, quite seriously, the accepted truth of a huge segment of the religious population.
Didn't mean to put words in THurman's mouth he didn't say.
Comments
1. The real question here is whether rebirth is a fact. What the Budhha did or did not say on the subject is not deciding the issue. It is even hardly relevant because we have to investigate anyway. We have to see for ourselves.
2. When the Buddha did not teach rebirth (in a cycle of life and death as most people understand it) or when the texts of the sutta’s leave space to such an interpretation, there’s another big question to be answered.
Where did the misunderstanding come from? It’s not just Bikkhu Bodhi. The entire community of Buddhists in many Asian countries has been saying the same thing for many centuries now. Where did that come from? When DD is right, how did it happen that everyone else got it all wrong?
Just for the record. I’m not against DD’s interpretation, in fact I like it; I just see this problem to it. Plus I think the sutta’s are historical texts and not infallible Revelations of the Truth.
This is not true
And even if it was true, in former times, religion doctrine often followed politics
Government sponsored religious persecution, inquisition, etc, it not something unique to Christianity
Similarly, although alternately, in countries such as Thailand, there were govt efforts to return some authenticity to Buddhism due to the moral & doctrinal corruption of the monks
Ignorance
Most Christians and most Christian churches teach 'eternal life' and 'heaven' are realms experienced after death
Are they right?
If not, what makes Asians different, as though Asians Buddhists are enlightened but Western Christians are superstitious?
:skeptic:
Question:
Did Gautama teach rebirth?
It looks like the belief in reincarnation/rebirth in India is linked to the shramana movement; a spiritual revival which opposed Vedic ritualism.
Gautama apparently was part of that movement - was a child of his time - which suggests his thoughts were going along the same lines.
Gautama – the tale about his life- has a character a lot like Mahavir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahavir). It just shows that it was the trend in those days for princes to go off into the woods and find liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth.
Jain and Hindu faith embraced similar notions about rebirth around the same time.
My guess (not more than that!) is that he taught rebirth in line with the spirit of the age and in the way most Buddhists always have understood it.
It is a bit unlikely that so many people have been wrong all the time and that prominent monks of all times (even the arahants and all) never bothered to set things right.
Next question:
What if he did not teach rebirth?
It would be difficult to prove but it could be the case.
Possibly the historic Gautama was misunderstood and what we see is the product of time.
But if that’s the case it means the end of all authority of “the Buddha” because we have no way to filter what he really taught from the historic adaptations.
So DD:
Make your pick.
There’s a Buddha whose teaching we can know through the tradition. If so, this tradition says he teaches rebirth.
Or there’s no way to know the real Buddha. All we know is the distortions that became the tradition.
I choose the latter.
Buddhism can inspire us on our path of liberation, but it is no fixed dogmatic system of thought. It gives us pointers and stepping stones; not certainties.
(IMHO)
the Buddha taught multiple notions about "rebirth" or "born again"; "reappearance" or "appear again"; "sponteous arising", etc, due to karma
however, that this is interpreted as a literal post-mortem "rebirth", similar to reincarnation, is based on interpretation
that this is subject to interpretation, imo, was the intention
but it was not intended all Buddhists interpret in the same way
if one understands the "birth" (jati) of Dependent Origination, this is something mental
regards
Unlikely!
Besides you only respond to the issue of rebirth in terms of interpreting Pali.
There’s more.
You seem to close your eyes for context.
I suppose you stick to the (dogmatic) idea that the suttas are literal representations of the infallible teachings of the Buddha.
And yes, than it’s all about the interpretation of the sacred text.
It makes me sad.
Maybe Thurman was born and raised without a moral compass, so he needs a formula to tell him the difference between right and wrong. If that's the case, he should speak for himself, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Didn't mean to put words in THurman's mouth he didn't say.
"Vital matter". Why?
The vital matter for the Buddha was suffering & freedom from suffering.
The Buddha said (mundane) rebirth view sides with morality & non-harming.
Morality & non-harming, which reduce suffering, are the vital matter.
If a person must believe in rebirth to refain from harming, so be it.
But the vital matter is non-harming.
For example, in the Baghavad Gita, it is taught the soul cannot be cut and will simply find a new body at death, therefore to kill in war is OK
For Buddha, non-killing rather than rebirth is the vital matter (unlike in the Baghavad Gita)
:-/