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.
Buddha called dependent origination "the wrong way". Buddha called dependent cessation "the right way". Dependent origination actually explains how the "doer" or "self" originates. But yes, no "self" enters into Nirvana given Nirvana is the absence of "self"
WHOA! I want a separate thread elaborating on this! Wally, if I start it, will you post?
Right view (not your idea of right view, but the right view taught by Buddha) requires some faith at first, since the view that there is rebirth and afterlife is one of the right views taught by Buddha.
the "right view" you are referring to is what Buddha called right view with asava & attachment
please refer to the link to straightened out your "understanding", dear young scholar :coffee:
WHOA! I want a separate thread elaborating on this! Wally, if I start it, will you post?
it is simply a sutta citation for Xabir's sake. scholars become very stuck in intellectual concepts & theories but sutta is the transmission of actual meditation experience. when dependent origination is realised, it is the origination of dukkha (suffering; torment). thus to say "the path" is "dependent origination" makes no sense at all. to assert such is just more blind faith, just perpetuating wrong transmission, like blind teacher to blind student that becomes a blind teacher for more blind [unreflective] students :mullet:
SN:12:3 3 (3) The Two Ways At Savatthi “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wrong way and the right way. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the wrong way? With ignorance as condition, formations [come to be]; with formations as condition, consciousness.... Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the wrong way.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the right way? With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of consciousness.... Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering. This, bhikkhus, is called the right way.”
"Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance.
the Kalama Sutta does not support the compulsoriness of rebirth belief. instead, it merely considers rebirth belief as an option & the benefits of rebirth belief. it states:
'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
Some have even interpreted the Kalama Sutra's "Four Solaces" passage as saying belief in rebirth isn't necessary, pointing out the 2nd passage Wally quoted above. "If there is no life after death, ... then here in the present I look after myself with ease". Rebirth? Who needs it? Not the Buddha, apparently.
But the one thing all these teachings share is a common thread of rebirth, karma, and dependent origination which are the cause of samsara, and the breaking of rebirth and karma through understanding dependent origination, which gauranteed freedom from rebirth in this or at most seven rebirths.
All those people who think they will attain awakening withotu understanding Buddha's actual teachings on this subject are deluded."
Namdrol is just giving their opinion, which has no real authority. It is just their opinion
Dependent origination explains the origination of "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair" therefore Namdrol is definitely incorrect and, instead of calling others "deluded", it seems Namdrol themself is deluded
To say Dependent origination explains "rebirth" is not correct. There is no need to quote any suttas about this because the scores, possibly hundreds, of suttas about Dependent Origination all basically say dependent origination explains the origination of "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair".
The suttas also say Dependent Origination ceases while the body & mind are alive & functioning. Dependent Origination ceases when the eye sees the form; the ear hears the sound, etc. Therefore, the ending of Dependent Origination does not result in the ending of literal rebirth.
Therefore, Namdrol may have their own individual ideas but these ideas do not conform with original Buddhism
On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering
Because you consider science to be a belief system that we trust, if follows that we must have faith in other belief systems? Where's the logic?
The point being that the opinion that scientific materialistic worldview is devoid of faith, or that faith does not place an important role in such a worldview, is false.
You missed the point. You didn't address the fact that you base one conclusion on the other, even though they are very different entities. One, science, based on its own logic and proof thereof, the other (religion) is based on theory without proof.
So far you have only confirmed your belief that science is based on faith.... and? .....?
Firstly as I said, through careful study of Buddha's teachings, I found them to be rational, therefore worthy of faith. As Thusness said: "...our knowledge is nothing certain nor absolute. Science is itself a belief system for us to better understand the phenomenon existence. It is its certainty in predictability within a prescribed environment that convinces us that faith is not necessary. It creates the impression of certainty and made a probable knowledge appears absolute but in actual case, science itself is a belief system and a great deal of faith (maybe good and rational faith in this case) is vested in science unknowingly. " You can say, in the case of Buddhism, the faith begin when I considered Buddhism as "good and rational faith" by studying the teachings and finding it to be meaningful, beneficial, very wise, based on experience than conjectures, 'reproducible and predictable' (in the same way as described by Thusness). Then when true experience and realization arose, it supercedes mere belief or faith. But faith is where I started, and I must say it is quite helpful and important in my path.
Buddha, along with countless others who did as he instructed, was able to get awakened, liberated, recall past lives, etc. I personally know of people close to me, trustworthy (I know that is subjective to you), too many a number who can recall past lives with great clarity and even tell me how those karmic repurcussions affect this life in great details. A great many were also awakened to the truths the Buddha awakened to, was able to experience the meditative states the Buddha experienced, and so on.
And to those who think memories of past lives could be deluded hallucinations etc, there is the research done by Dr. Ian Stevensons on rebirth and past lives, that the very large number of the memories of children's past lives were proven to be accurate. Such research were published in scientific and medical journals.
There is nothing as "a Buddhist" or "a Buddhism". In the time of the Buddha, he called his followers either by "Bikkhus/Bikkhunis", which means monks/nuns or by their family/clan name. And Buddhism was just called "the dhamma", meaning the teaching or the truth.
why say things like this when they have no basis whatsoever? in the time of the Buddha each teacher had their "dhamma" and Buddha's dhamma was 'Buddha's-Dhamma', which is basically the same as "Buddhism"
Assaji replied: "There is, O friend, the Great Recluse, the scion of the Sakyas, who has gone forth from the Sakya clan. Under that Blessed One I have gone forth. That Blessed One is my teacher and it is his Dhamma that I profess."
Of all those things that from a cause arise, Tathagata the cause thereof has told; And how they cease to be, that too he tells, This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse.
You're basically confirming what I said. There is no such thing as being "a Buddhist" with a sharp contrast to a "non Buddhist", like the contrasts that exist in Hinduïsm, Judaïsm, Christianity for example. There is just following the Dhamma, or the 8-fold path. This is not the same as being "a Buddhist". And why I said is in the rest of my post.
My emphazis is on the developing aspect of the path. If someone beliefs or doesn't belief in rebirth doesn't make anyone more or less "Buddhist".
Therefore, "whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth" is in my eyes a nonsensical aproach.
There is no doer on the path, nor an enterer into nirvana, the path is simply the coming together (dependent origination) of the right factors which results in fruition.
Buddha called dependent origination "the wrong way". Buddha called dependent cessation "the right way". Dependent origination actually explains how the "doer" or "self" originates. But yes, no "self" enters into Nirvana given Nirvana is the absence of "self"
Cessation is never dependent, it is the lack of dependence. (When this is not, that is not).
That is why Nibbana (Cessation) is known as Unconditioned.
But I get what you mean.
Lastly, Nirvana is not "absence of self" but the "absence of ignorance that conceives a self" (along with all taints like craving, aversion, ignorance). There is a difference here. If you say Nirvana is absence or disappearance of self, then it falls into a nihilistic statement (such as Tathagata becomes non-existent after passing).
The Sutta clearly explains that no self can be pinned down in or outside the five aggregates in this present life to begin with, so how can you talk about its existence or non-existence in post-mortem. I think you already know this but just for clarity sake.
Anatta is a dharma seal that is already so, not a state. It has to be realized or seen with direct vision.
Are we just a little conceited here? You have authenticated some of Buddha's teachings?????
It is quite sad if you think that authenticating some of Buddha's teachings is conceitful. I think it should be the norm for Buddhists in the same way that graduating from college should be the norm for those entering college. It will be a very sad thing if all the Buddhists are Buddhists but never authenticate Buddha's teachings, don't you think? If anything, my e-book is written to share and inspire, others from an ordinary (not special, gifted, etc) person's journey on the path. Buddhism is not for special or gifted people. You should enter Buddhism expecting to achieve what the Buddha taught you to achieve, in the same way you should enter college with the mindset that you will graduate.
Right view (not your idea of right view, but the right view taught by Buddha) requires some faith at first, since the view that there is rebirth and afterlife is one of the right views taught by Buddha.
the "right view" you are referring to is what Buddha called right view with asava & attachment
please refer to the link to straightened out your "understanding", dear young scholar :coffee:
The suttas say "Herein, the worldling is of two kinds: one outside the Dispensation and one within the Dispensation. Herein, one outside the Dispensation who believes in kamma is one of right view on account of the view of kamma as one's own, but not on account of that which is in conformity with the truths, because he holds to the view of self. One within the Dispensation is of right view on account of both. The disciple in higher training is one of right view on account of fixed right view,[4] the one beyond training on account of (the right view) that is beyond training.[5]"
Basically, right view is twofold, which means understanding rebirth and karma (common in Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings) as well as understanding anatta, dependent origination, four noble truths, which rejects the view of self (perculiar to Buddhism). It is quite important for a practitioner of the noble path to have right view "on account of both".
Note that understanding anatta does not reject the understanding of rebirth and karma. And it is already clearly stated that there are "those arahants who know the next world"
The suttas say "Herein, the worldling is of two kinds: one outside the Dispensation and one within the Dispensation. Herein, one outside the Dispensation who believes in kamma is one of right view on account of the view of kamma as one's own, but not on account of that which is in conformity with the truths, because he holds to the view of self. One within the Dispensation is of right view on account of both. The disciple in higher training is one of right view on account of fixed right view,[4] the one beyond training on account of (the right view) that is beyond training.[5]"
Basically, right view is twofold, which means understanding rebirth and karma (common in Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings) as well as understanding anatta, dependent origination, four noble truths, which rejects the view of self (perculiar to Buddhism). It is quite important for a practitioner of the noble path to have right view "on account of both".
Oops. That was from commentaries, not suttas. sorry!
Are we just a little conceited here? You have authenticated some of Buddha's teachings?????
It is quite sad if you think that authenticating some of Buddha's teachings is conceitful. I think it should be the norm for Buddhists in the same way that graduating from college should be the norm for those entering college. It will be a very sad thing if all the Buddhists are Buddhists but never authenticate Buddha's teachings, don't you think? If anything, my e-book is written to share and inspire, others from an ordinary (not special, gifted, etc) person's journey on the path. Buddhism is not for special or gifted people. You should enter Buddhism expecting to achieve what the Buddha taught you to achieve, in the same way you should enter college with the mindset that you will graduate.
What I object to is the word you chose. To me it has a connotation that you have made yourself an expect on Buddhist thought. If you have said something along the lines of, "My experiences have convinced me that...", then I would have no issue with your statement.
So, do you have some special qualifications that make you an expert to "inspire" others and to personally "authenticate" Buddha's teachings?
I mean, for example, you keep talking about "arahants who know the next world". Have you personally (not historically) identified an arahant? And, if so, what power do you have to do that?
The suttas also say Dependent Origination ceases while the body & mind are alive & functioning. Dependent Origination ceases when the eye sees the form; the ear hears the sound, etc. Therefore, the ending of Dependent Origination does not result in the ending of literal rebirth.
Are we just a little conceited here? You have authenticated some of Buddha's teachings?????
It is quite sad if you think that authenticating some of Buddha's teachings is conceitful. I think it should be the norm for Buddhists in the same way that graduating from college should be the norm for those entering college. It will be a very sad thing if all the Buddhists are Buddhists but never authenticate Buddha's teachings, don't you think? If anything, my e-book is written to share and inspire, others from an ordinary (not special, gifted, etc) person's journey on the path. Buddhism is not for special or gifted people. You should enter Buddhism expecting to achieve what the Buddha taught you to achieve, in the same way you should enter college with the mindset that you will graduate.
What I object to is the word you chose. To me it has a connotation that you have made yourself an expect on Buddhist thought. If you have said something along the lines of, "My experiences have convinced me that...", then I would have no issue with your statement.
So, do you have some special qualifications that make you an expert to "inspire" others and to personally "authenticate" Buddha's teachings?
I mean, for example, you keep talking about "arahants who know the next world". Have you personally (not historically) identified an arahant? And, if so, what power do you have to do that?
My reference to "arahants who know the next world" was a reference to the suttas, because it appears that WallyB somehow thinks that arahants have some kind of higher view that negates rebirth and karma.
I personally know of people who remember past lives, but that is another matter...
On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
Mortem.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering
In the same way that a candle no longer lights when the wax is finished, no further birth can arise when the conditions are exhausted. There is no longer 'the sustenence for further fire'.
There are however two kinds of nibbana (nibbana with residue, and without residue) which I'm sure you know of - one is the cessation of ignorance and taints while sense faculties are functioning, ther other is where even sense faculties are ceased.
In the twelves links of D.O., the Buddha talks about the process of consciousness descending into the mother’s womb leading to the maturation of the fetus’s body, which means the mental/karmic formations supporting the consciousness leading to maturation of the fetus must surely be from a previous lifetime:
”’From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”
“No, lord.”
“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?”
“No, lord.”
“If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?”
“No, lord.”
“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness.”
"Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance.
the Kalama Sutta does not support the compulsoriness of rebirth belief. instead, it merely considers rebirth belief as an option & the benefits of rebirth belief. it states:
'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.
Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality."
So, do you have some special qualifications that make you an expert to "inspire" others and to personally "authenticate" Buddha's teachings?
Buddhism does not hand out qualification certificates. However, something can be achieved from Buddhism, which is your own awakening from delusion, your own liberation.
Have you personally (not historically) identified an arahant? And, if so, what power do you have to do that?
I personally have known people I have reason to believe (with good reason) are *close* to Arahantship, having met criterias like overcoming self-view, overcoming sexual desires, etc. They have shared their insights and experiences rather openly when asked, and you can find some of their writings online even.
And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.
There are however two kinds of nibbana (nibbana with residue, and without residue) which I'm sure you know of - one is the cessation of ignorance and taints while sense faculties are functioning, ther other is where even sense faculties are ceased.
so? Buddha taught the Nibbana with fuel (i.e., feeling) because most seekers are searching for & imagine a Nibbana without feeling. please think critically for a moment (rather than unreflectively following this & that scholar).
if the Buddha never taught about Nibbana with feeling, would you image such a state to exist?
for example, does Hinduism (whatever) teach the soul will one day merge with Paramatman (whatever) with feelings of pleasure & pain? or is the Hindu view that merging will be absolutely pure?
In the twelves links of D.O., the Buddha talks about the process of consciousness descending into the mother’s womb leading to the maturation of the fetus’s body, which means the mental/karmic formations supporting the consciousness leading to maturation of the fetus must surely be from a previous lifetime:
the Buddha taught the Great Standards, which are if a sutta (in the future) does not accord with the other suttas, it is not words spoken by Buddha
the scores, even hundreds, of suttas on Dependent Origination & Sense Bases all define consciousness as the six fold consciousness (which is dependent on sense organ & mind-body)
we may lack the courage to be utterly free from doubt Buddha never spoke DN 15
Bhante Sujato holds the opinion most of the DN was composed after Buddha and used for the purpose of converting Hindus (Brahmins). DN 15 fits this theory well
If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?
If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?
If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?
these quotes are embarrassing & it is impossible a Buddha could speak them because they have no conformity to science or reality or with Buddhism
body & mind does actually does take shape in a womb without consciousness. does science provide any evidence that an embyro or fetus is actually conscious via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & mind? the consciousness of boys & girls can be cut off (such as becoming blind or deaf) but their body & mind continues to grow
Buddha taught consciousness is sense awareness in hundreds of discourses. but DN 15 describes consciousness as some kind of life force (jiva indriya). this is not Buddhism
the scriptures contain thousands of discources but merely one sole sutta (DN 15) teaches like this
"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.
Don't slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness.'
Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.
buddha taught 'rebirth' but not as you assert he did
buddha taught like this:
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living in the Koliyan country: there is a town of the Koliyans called Haliddavasana.
2. Then Punna, a son of the Koliyans and an ox-duty ascetic, and also Seniya a naked dog duty ascetic, went to the Blessed One, and Punna the ox duty ascetic paid homage to the Blessed One and sat down at one side, while Seniya the naked dog-duty ascetic exchanged greetings with the Blessed One, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he too sat down at one side curled up like a dog. When Punna the ox-duty ascetic sat down, he asked the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that."
A second time... A third time Punna the ox-duty ascetic asked the Blessed One: "Venerable sir, this naked dog-duty ascetic Seniya does what is hard to do: he eats his food when it is thrown on the ground. That dog duty has long been taken up and practiced by him. What will be his destination? What will be his future course?"
"Well, Punna, since I certainly cannot persuade you when I say 'Enough, Punna, let that be. Do not ask me that,' I shall therefore answer you.
3. "Here, Punna, someone develops the dog duty fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog-habit fully and unstintingly, he develops the dog mind fully and unstintingly, he develops dog behavior fully and unstintingly. Having done that, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of dogs. But if his view is such as this: 'By this virtue or duty or asceticism or religious life I shall become a (great) god or some (lesser) god,' that is wrong view in his case. Now there are two destinations for one with wrong view, I say: hell or the animal womb. So, Punna, if his dog duty is perfected, it will lead him to the company of dogs; if it is not, it will lead him to hell."
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.
I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.
But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?
If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?
If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?
compare to other Buddha-Dhamma:
What is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling?"
"In the case of the one who is dead, who has completed his time, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is exhausted, his heat subsided & his faculties are scattered. But in the case of a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling, his bodily fabrications have ceased & subsided, his verbal fabrications ... his mental fabrications have ceased & subsided, his vitality is not exhausted, his heat has not subsided & his faculties are exceptionally clear. This is the difference between one who is dead, who has completed his time, and a monk who has attained the cessation of perception & feeling."
I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.
But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
thus, it seems apparant the Buddha taught beings take birth or are "born again" according to their karma
and it also seems without evidence Buddha taught consciousness is "reborn"
Exactly so, friends. I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One such that it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another.
Then those monks, desiring to pry the monk Sāti the Fisherman's Son away from that pernicious viewpoint, quizzed him back & forth and rebuked him, saying, "Don't say that, friend Sāti. Don't slander the Blessed One, for it is not good to slander the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that.
There seems to be a potentially divisive debate in Western Buddhism on whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth. Some say the idea of karma makes no sense in its absence. Thoughts?
Buddha taught it as one of his teachings, All his teachings on Liberation are to do with becoming free from the cycle of suffering and that includes rebirth within the 6 realms. His teachings on Karma are inevitably linked to rebirth its not something that can be escaped its always present in his teachings.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2012
Moderator Note: @WallyB - that's 11 posts in a row. @xabir - that was 10, with one interruption.... Please be a little more judicious with your posting. if you can't say something adequately in a couple of posts, maybe a PM dialogue might be better, instead of hogging the thread and reducing the discussion to a two-way dialogue....? thanks.
WallyB, thanks for your generous sharing of pali suttas resources, however I have read them before. I do not hold, and I do not think the DN sutta implies that consciousness is some unconditioned entity. In any case, I am glad you are aware that the suttas supports literal rebirth.
Are we just a little conceited here? You have authenticated some of Buddha's teachings?????
i have too, of course everyone who has done any kind of meditation have as well to some degree.
here's a question to you: are we really debating in good faith? or are we so set in stone with our ideas that there is no more openness? And all that is left is disdain for other opinions from people who have different experiences and views?
Are we just a little conceited here? You have authenticated some of Buddha's teachings?????
i have too, of course everyone who has done any kind of meditation have as well to some degree.
here's a question to you: are we really debating in good faith? or are we so set in stone with our ideas that there is no more openness? And all that is left is disdain for other opinions from people who have different experiences and views?
Pat, as I explained earlier, what bothers me about the post in question is the word that was used -- "authenticated". I know that there are various definitions of that word, but the most generally used implies that there is an expertise involved, or an officiality. Xabir is clearly a Buddhist, but unless I've missed something he is not in a position (based on my use of the word) to authenticate Buddha's teaching. If he had said (as I indicated previously) "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that"...then I'd have no problem with his posts.
As far as me, in regard to the concept of rebirth, I have no firm position on it. It may be true, or not. I don't know. I find discussions about it interesting, BUT the conversations begin to bother me when people start saying that it is a FACT.
There seems to be a potentially divisive debate in Western Buddhism on whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth. Some say the idea of karma makes no sense in its absence. Thoughts?
I'm one who believes that karma makes no sense with out rebirth. But so what? What someone else believes or thinks has no bearing on you or your practice. If you don't believe it, then that's fine. Just practice.
Pat, as I explained earlier, what bothers me about the post in question is the word that was used -- "authenticated". I know that there are various definitions of that word, but the most generally used implies that there is an expertise involved, or an officiality. Xabir is clearly a Buddhist, but unless I've missed something he is not in a position (based on my use of the word) to authenticate Buddha's teaching. If he had said (as I indicated previously) "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that"...then I'd have no problem with his posts.
As far as me, in regard to the concept of rebirth, I have no firm position on it. It may be true, or not. I don't know. I find discussions about it interesting, BUT the conversations begin to bother me when people start saying that it is a FACT.
No, it does not mean 'expertise' or 'officiality'. It means directly experiencing and realizing the truth.
Authenticate: "Authentication is the act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a datum or entity."
Everyone can and should confirm the truth through their experience. There is nothing special about that.
Pat, as I explained earlier, what bothers me about the post in question is the word that was used -- "authenticated". I know that there are various definitions of that word, but the most generally used implies that there is an expertise involved, or an officiality. Xabir is clearly a Buddhist, but unless I've missed something he is not in a position (based on my use of the word) to authenticate Buddha's teaching. If he had said (as I indicated previously) "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that"...then I'd have no problem with his posts.
As far as me, in regard to the concept of rebirth, I have no firm position on it. It may be true, or not. I don't know. I find discussions about it interesting, BUT the conversations begin to bother me when people start saying that it is a FACT.
No, it does not mean 'expertise' or 'officiality'. It means directly experiencing and realizing the truth.
Authenticate: "Authentication is the act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a datum or entity."
Everyone can and should confirm the truth through their experience. There is nothing special about that.
We will have to disagree on the usual usage of the word. Sorry. No further comments about that from my viewpoint.
Pat, as I explained earlier, what bothers me about the post in question is the word that was used -- "authenticated". I know that there are various definitions of that word, but the most generally used implies that there is an expertise involved, or an officiality. Xabir is clearly a Buddhist, but unless I've missed something he is not in a position (based on my use of the word) to authenticate Buddha's teaching. If he had said (as I indicated previously) "in my view" or "in my opinion" or "it seems to me that"...then I'd have no problem with his posts.
As far as me, in regard to the concept of rebirth, I have no firm position on it. It may be true, or not. I don't know. I find discussions about it interesting, BUT the conversations begin to bother me when people start saying that it is a FACT.
No, it does not mean 'expertise' or 'officiality'. It means directly experiencing and realizing the truth.
Authenticate: "Authentication is the act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a datum or entity."
Everyone can and should confirm the truth through their experience. There is nothing special about that.
We will have to disagree on the usual usage of the word. Sorry. No further comments about that from my viewpoint.
I guess I'll have to be more careful about using such terms.
I'm one who believes that karma makes no sense with out rebirth.
@Mountains I'm surprised to hear you say that since cause and effect works in the short term as well and, if adhered to, teaches people the same lessons. Just wondering....
I am glad you are aware that the suttas supports literal rebirth.
i did not infer that or deny that. i am simply aware the suttas support the reality that karma (action) bears result. for example, if it is believed certain kinds of karma (action) can result in a literal post-mortem hell or, alternately, here-&-now psychological torment, both beliefs are the same because both beliefs lead to the same result, namely, the abandoning of harmful karma & the development of non-harmful karma
this is why in the Kalama Sutta & elsewhere, Buddha taught both ways
thus your gladness is misplaced & your misrepresentations of my view is unwarranted
I'm one who believes that karma makes no sense with out rebirth.
@Mountains I'm surprised to hear you say that since cause and effect works in the short term as well and, if adhered to, teaches people the same lessons. Just wondering....
I would agree, and go so far as to say it's the only karma we can actually observe.
On seeing a form with the eye, he isn't infatuated with pleasing forms, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. He discerns, as it has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
Mortem.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering
Post-mortem.
hi Xabir
i forget to mention. your post above seems to deny sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair can occur in this life. your post above appears to assert sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair can only occur in another life
1. thru craving, there is attachment (eg. man's craving & attachment towards a woman)
2. thru attachment, there is becoming (eg. man peforms actions that lead to becoming a woman's husband)
3. thru becoming, there is birth (eg. the man have the status & self-identity of being that woman's husband)
4. thru birth, there is aging-&-death (eg. loss of that status & self-identity when the woman leaves her husband or when the woman dies)
5. thru aging & death come sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair (eg. sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair due to the loss or death of a man's wife that he regards & identifies as "my dear beloved wife")
yes...Buddha did give some teaching that are interpreted as post-mortem rebirth but not in the form of Dependent Origination
The OP actually poses two questions: "What if I don't believe in rebirth?", and a request for thoughts on the question: "Does karma make any sense without rebirth?" The first question was answered quite adequately several times on Page 1. The answer to the 2nd question is as "possibilities" stated: karma operates throughout our lives, so the answer is "yes". That's neither an argument for or against rebirth, though.
But the OP didn't ask whether there is rebirth. The OP only asks if karma makes sense without rebirth, and if it's ok if the OP personally doesn't believe in rebirth. Now that the OP's questions have been answered several times over, is there any point in continuing? Those who want to debate rebirth can start a rebirth thread. Those who want to debate the meaning of the Kalama Sutra can start a Kalama Sutra thread.
OP: in case the message has gotten drowned out and buried in tangential discussions, we don't care if you believe in rebirth or not. You're good with us, you're welcome here, you are not disqualified from considering yourself a Buddhist. Welcome to the forum.
@Mountains I'm surprised to hear you say that since cause and effect works in the short term as well and, if adhered to, teaches people the same lessons. Just wondering....
I don't see where there's a problem with both. If I knock over my coffee cup, my pants are going to be wet with coffee. Cause >>> effect. If I kill 2,000,000 innocent people in a genocide in this lifetime, I will not likely achieve enlightenment for many, many more lifetimes to come. And my next one might be as a horribly abused animal (just an example). Cause >>> effect.
'OP: in case the message has gotten drowned out and buried in tangential discussions, we don't care if you believe in rebirth or not. You're good with us, you're welcome here, you are not disqualified from considering yourself a Buddhist.'
Errr..., actually it does. if you reject all the basic teachings of buddha, how can you consider yourself a buddhist?
Comments
please refer to the link to straightened out your "understanding", dear young scholar :coffee:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html
Dependent origination explains the origination of "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair" therefore Namdrol is definitely incorrect and, instead of calling others "deluded", it seems Namdrol themself is deluded
To say Dependent origination explains "rebirth" is not correct. There is no need to quote any suttas about this because the scores, possibly hundreds, of suttas about Dependent Origination all basically say dependent origination explains the origination of "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair".
The suttas also say Dependent Origination ceases while the body & mind are alive & functioning. Dependent Origination ceases when the eye sees the form; the ear hears the sound, etc. Therefore, the ending of Dependent Origination does not result in the ending of literal rebirth.
Therefore, Namdrol may have their own individual ideas but these ideas do not conform with original Buddhism
Where's the problem?
My emphazis is on the developing aspect of the path. If someone beliefs or doesn't belief in rebirth doesn't make anyone more or less "Buddhist".
Therefore, "whether or not being a Buddhism neccesitates a belief in Rebirth" is in my eyes a nonsensical aproach.
With metta,
Sabre
Cessation is never dependent, it is the lack of dependence. (When this is not, that is not).
That is why Nibbana (Cessation) is known as Unconditioned.
But I get what you mean.
Lastly, Nirvana is not "absence of self" but the "absence of ignorance that conceives a self" (along with all taints like craving, aversion, ignorance). There is a difference here. If you say Nirvana is absence or disappearance of self, then it falls into a nihilistic statement (such as Tathagata becomes non-existent after passing).
The Sutta clearly explains that no self can be pinned down in or outside the five aggregates in this present life to begin with, so how can you talk about its existence or non-existence in post-mortem. I think you already know this but just for clarity sake.
Anatta is a dharma seal that is already so, not a state. It has to be realized or seen with direct vision.
The suttas say "Herein, the worldling is of two kinds: one outside the Dispensation and one within the Dispensation. Herein, one outside the Dispensation who believes in kamma is one of right view on account of the view of kamma as one's own, but not on account of that which is in conformity with the truths, because he holds to the view of self. One within the Dispensation is of right view on account of both. The disciple in higher training is one of right view on account of fixed right view,[4] the one beyond training on account of (the right view) that is beyond training.[5]"
Basically, right view is twofold, which means understanding rebirth and karma (common in Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings) as well as understanding anatta, dependent origination, four noble truths, which rejects the view of self (perculiar to Buddhism). It is quite important for a practitioner of the noble path to have right view "on account of both".
Note that understanding anatta does not reject the understanding of rebirth and karma. And it is already clearly stated that there are "those arahants who know the next world"
So, do you have some special qualifications that make you an expert to "inspire" others and to personally "authenticate" Buddha's teachings?
I mean, for example, you keep talking about "arahants who know the next world". Have you personally (not historically) identified an arahant? And, if so, what power do you have to do that?
I personally know of people who remember past lives, but that is another matter...
In the same way that a candle no longer lights when the wax is finished, no further birth can arise when the conditions are exhausted. There is no longer 'the sustenence for further fire'.
There are however two kinds of nibbana (nibbana with residue, and without residue) which I'm sure you know of - one is the cessation of ignorance and taints while sense faculties are functioning, ther other is where even sense faculties are ceased.
In the twelves links of D.O., the Buddha talks about the process of consciousness descending into the mother’s womb leading to the maturation of the fetus’s body, which means the mental/karmic formations supporting the consciousness leading to maturation of the fetus must surely be from a previous lifetime:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
Name-and-form
”’From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.’ Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?”
“No, lord.”
“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?”
“No, lord.”
“If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?”
“No, lord.”
“Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness.”
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1_l.htm
"Now does the Kalama Sutta suggest, as is often held, that a follower of the Buddhist path can dispense with all faith and doctrine, that he should make his own personal experience the criterion for judging the Buddha's utterances and for rejecting what cannot be squared with it? It is true the Buddha does not ask the Kalamas to accept anything he says out of confidence in himself, but let us note one important point: the Kalamas, at the start of the discourse, were not the Buddha's disciples. They approached him merely as a counselor who might help dispel their doubts, but they did not come to him as the Tathagata, the Truth-finder, who might show them the way to spiritual progress and to final liberation.
Thus, because the Kalamas had not yet come to accept the Buddha in terms of his unique mission, as the discloser of the liberating truth, it would not have been in place for him to expound to them the Dhamma unique to his own Dispensation: such teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the three characteristics, and the methods of contemplation based upon them. These teachings are specifically intended for those who have accepted the Buddha as their guide to deliverance, and in the suttas he expounds them only to those who "have gained faith in the Tathagata" and who possess the perspective necessary to grasp them and apply them. The Kalamas, however, at the start of the discourse are not yet fertile soil for him to sow the seeds of his liberating message. Still confused by the conflicting claims to which they have been exposed, they are not yet clear even about the groundwork of morality."
There is no need for powers, just some discernment and careful investigation on that person, the Buddha already taught how to spot an Arahant: http://mahindaramatemple.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima-Nikaya/mn-112.htm
if the Buddha never taught about Nibbana with feeling, would you image such a state to exist?
for example, does Hinduism (whatever) teach the soul will one day merge with Paramatman (whatever) with feelings of pleasure & pain? or is the Hindu view that merging will be absolutely pure?
the scores, even hundreds, of suttas on Dependent Origination & Sense Bases all define consciousness as the six fold consciousness (which is dependent on sense organ & mind-body)
we may lack the courage to be utterly free from doubt Buddha never spoke DN 15
Bhante Sujato holds the opinion most of the DN was composed after Buddha and used for the purpose of converting Hindus (Brahmins). DN 15 fits this theory well
body & mind does actually does take shape in a womb without consciousness. does science provide any evidence that an embyro or fetus is actually conscious via the eyes, ears, nose, tongue & mind? the consciousness of boys & girls can be cut off (such as becoming blind or deaf) but their body & mind continues to grow
Buddha taught consciousness is sense awareness in hundreds of discourses. but DN 15 describes consciousness as some kind of life force (jiva indriya). this is not Buddhism
the scriptures contain thousands of discources but merely one sole sutta (DN 15) teaches like this
our exchange reminds me of the Anupada Sutta: One By One As They Occurred
and it also seems without evidence Buddha taught consciousness is "reborn"
@WallyB - that's 11 posts in a row.
@xabir - that was 10, with one interruption....
Please be a little more judicious with your posting.
if you can't say something adequately in a couple of posts, maybe a PM dialogue might be better, instead of hogging the thread and reducing the discussion to a two-way dialogue....?
thanks.
here's a question to you:
are we really debating in good faith? or are we so set in stone with our ideas that there is no more openness? And all that is left is disdain for other opinions from people who have different experiences and views?
As far as me, in regard to the concept of rebirth, I have no firm position on it. It may be true, or not. I don't know. I find discussions about it interesting, BUT the conversations begin to bother me when people start saying that it is a FACT.
Authenticate: "Authentication is the act of confirming the truth of an attribute of a datum or entity."
Everyone can and should confirm the truth through their experience. There is nothing special about that.
this is why in the Kalama Sutta & elsewhere, Buddha taught both ways
thus your gladness is misplaced & your misrepresentations of my view is unwarranted
i forget to mention. your post above seems to deny sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair can occur in this life. your post above appears to assert sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair can only occur in another life
1. thru craving, there is attachment (eg. man's craving & attachment towards a woman)
2. thru attachment, there is becoming (eg. man peforms actions that lead to becoming a woman's husband)
3. thru becoming, there is birth (eg. the man have the status & self-identity of being that woman's husband)
4. thru birth, there is aging-&-death (eg. loss of that status & self-identity when the woman leaves her husband or when the woman dies)
5. thru aging & death come sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair (eg. sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair due to the loss or death of a man's wife that he regards & identifies as "my dear beloved wife")
yes...Buddha did give some teaching that are interpreted as post-mortem rebirth but not in the form of Dependent Origination
metta
But the OP didn't ask whether there is rebirth. The OP only asks if karma makes sense without rebirth, and if it's ok if the OP personally doesn't believe in rebirth. Now that the OP's questions have been answered several times over, is there any point in continuing? Those who want to debate rebirth can start a rebirth thread. Those who want to debate the meaning of the Kalama Sutra can start a Kalama Sutra thread.
OP: in case the message has gotten drowned out and buried in tangential discussions,
we don't care if you believe in rebirth or not. You're good with us, you're welcome here, you are not disqualified from considering yourself a Buddhist. Welcome to the forum.
we don't care if you believe in rebirth or not. You're good with us, you're welcome here, you are not disqualified from considering yourself a Buddhist.'
Errr..., actually it does.
if you reject all the basic teachings of buddha, how can you consider yourself a buddhist?