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.
It doesn't matter much to me what I believe about whatever afterlife. I just don't have a profound need to know. But things my kids have said, having no knowledge whatsoever of events before their birth yet being able to talk at length about them at very young ages leaves me very interested in the anecdotal portion of the discussion on rebirth. One of them was a discussion with my oldest, who was 3 at the time and could barely speak (he's on the autism scale and didn't start talking at all until he was 3) had a lengthy and very detailed talk with me about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson, which happened before he was born and wasn't anything he would have had access to, including descriptions of the murder scene, the murder weapon and other things, and using words he had no reason to even understood what they meant.
Do I think a lot of the time we convince ourselves off things? Yes. I dreamed I had a phone call from my dead ex, and it was very disturbing and I woke up very shaken. Do I think it was him really contacting me in my dreams? no. I think it was me needing to say things I wish I could have said before he died. But there are other things that go unexplained considering the knowledge and level of understanding of the person involved.
I have decided that both sides are right (completely serious) Rebirth exists and we are also deluding (convincing) ourselves about rebirth's existence.
If you understand the reality of your existence, what you actually are and realize what does not emanate from the body, the question of what happens to you after the death of the body, does not arise.
Student: What is the real meaning of rebirth (punar-bhava)?
Busheng: Are you here right now?
Student: Well, I think so.
Busheng: Good answer. Now, what is your true nature?
Student: I don't know.
Busheng: When you uncover that you will fully understand what again (punar) and again gets generated into different forms. You will not be deceived again.
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
I’ve stock for a thousand years, But no one’s buying. If only you would come And take one good drink The ancient mental craving Would instantly cease. ~ Baisaô (1675–1763), “the Old Tea Seller”
A valid cognition on the conventional level would just be the most accurate description or representation of ultimate cognition one can convey using concepts. Conventional or relative truths always correlate with the use of linear thought processes and language. So in truth, a 'conventional truth' or valid conventional cognition is never really a "truth", just an accurate account of the ultimate.
A valid ultimate cognition can never really be known apart from the experience itself. It's like describing the taste of an apple. The verbal, conceptual description is the conventional. The actual, sensual taste is the ultimate or absolute truth. The description of the taste obviously never properly captures the actual taste. In terms of peak experiences or realizations in the dharma, a metaphor of attempting to describe the color red to a man blind since birth can be used. Having never seen before the man would have no reference level with which to gauge your description. So the same principle goes for those attempting to describe ultimate truths or cognitions in the dharma as well. A nondual experience or liberation or what have you can be described conventionally, but the ultimate cognition or nature is only to be actualized in your own experience.
If thought or reasoning are being implemented to understand or break something down it's always only conventional. An experience of an ultimate cognition is just direct sensual experience divorced from/prior to translation or interpretation in thought/language etc.. And an ultimate truth or experience in reference to a realization or liberation will be explicitly evident beyond any doubts. When those things pop up more often than not you won't have to ask, it is just an innate intuitive certainty.
Your statement only applies to the physical sciences. Buddhism, last I heard, was not included in the physical sciences. The test the Buddha uses is self verification. If it doesn't work for a person, they can either safeguard it (because later on they may find out it is true), or find another religion.
That’s the dogmatic approach to Buddhism that I reject. It’s the unfair come-and-see-for-yourself invitation. We can test the teaching, but we cannot reach the conclusion that the teaching is wrong. We are only allowed to say we don’t fully agree yet (and disqualify our present understanding in doing so) or submit to the dogmatic truth.
The truth however is that beautiful and profound sounding language can’t hide the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion; much like heaven and hell; much like ghosts, fairies and Santa. Poetic but not true.
the heart is always the heart and has nothing to do with voices and words and clever arguments…….it is just there and its you at your deepest level……..it is your sanity and it will always come back……….in fact it never goes anywhere………..it just gets drowned out sometimes
The truth however is that beautiful and profound sounding language can’t hide the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion; much like heaven and hell; much like ghosts, fairies and Santa.
...at the start of the world, the Moon was so pleased with the Earth that she wanted to give mankind the gift of immortality. The Moon sent her companion, Hare, to pass on the message: 'Just as the Moon dies and rises again so shall you.' But Hare confused the message and said instead: 'Just as the Moon dies and perishes, so shall you.' Earth's people believed these words and became mortal. When the Moon heard what Hare had done, she became so angry that she beat Hare with a stick and split his nose, but as they continue to live together, they have mended their friendship.
Hare is your intellect, which dilutes and distorts your understanding like chinese whispers. It is not your enemy, however; just like Hare and Moon, you can be reconciled.
Those skeptical of literal rebirth (not reincarnation) have commented on how meditation is verifiable through science, but what about the concept of non-self? Do you believe in non-self? If so, what is the scientific evidence that supports that belief?
When modern neuroscience looks at the activity of the brain they find that many different parts work together to create a coherent experience, there is no central area organizing everything. I'm too lazy right now to dig up a reference, but google around a bit and you should come up with something, its a fairly well established idea.
Would you also say there is non-organs? They are all made up of different parts that make a whole.
I guess I can understand it... but I am not sure if my understanding and realization of non-self is the same as what science is claiming to be non-self. It seems to be comparing apple seeds to apples or to the apple tree.
The truth however is that beautiful and profound sounding language can’t hide the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion; much like heaven and hell; much like ghosts, fairies and Santa. Poetic but not true.
There is such a thing as rebirth, but it pertains to the arising of the psychological phenomenon; it being born anew from total silence, the slate wiped clean. It has nothing to do with the silliness of personal continuation after the death of the body.
That’s the dogmatic approach to Buddhism that I reject. It’s the unfair come-and-see-for-yourself invitation. We can test the teaching, but we cannot reach the conclusion that the teaching is wrong. We are only allowed to say we don’t fully agree yet (and disqualify our present understanding in doing so) or submit to the dogmatic truth.
The truth however is that beautiful and profound sounding language can’t hide the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion; much like heaven and hell; much like ghosts, fairies and Santa. Poetic but not true.
It's not dogmatic, not if you try to see what the Buddha saw. The Buddha is not asking you to believe such and such. He is just saying that if you do what I did hopefully you will see what I saw. Then you will understand my notion of punarbhava/rebirth.
@Songhill The tolerance of Buddhism (in this frequently quoted “eshipassiko” phrase) is that we don’t have to believe such and such. At the other hand, when we don’t believe, we can either leave, or disqualify our own present level of understanding. But we cannot question. Only those who are capable of convincing themselves of the correctness of the teaching are right. That’s dogmatic. There is no room for critical thought. And I believe there should be room for it. Buddhism can be important to us - living in the 21st century - but not as a dogmatic set of beliefs from ancient India.
I was raised with Christian dogmatic faith and I was freed from it by critical thinking. I’m not giving that capacity of critical thought up now and trade it for dogmatic Buddhism.
Great post zenff ... as we know critical thought is required. In that sense dogmatic Buddhism is a misnomer to the intentions of the teachings ... many do not see it this way, I know
It's not dogmatic, not if you try to see what the Buddha saw. The Buddha is not asking you to believe such and such. He is just saying that if you do what I did hopefully you will see what I saw.
Yes, that's how it comes across in the suttas. People sometimes tend to conflate "dogma" with teachings which make them feel a bit uncomfortable.
There is such a thing as rebirth, but it pertains to the arising of the psychological phenomenon; it being born anew from total silence, the slate wiped clean.
A dogma is something one can't question. But if we look at the suttas, the Buddha didn't teach rebirth like that. He also investigated it. And so it's not like all people who belief in rebirth didn't question or investigate it themselves. (of course many do especially in Asia, but that's not the point)
And one can also be dogmatic about the non-existence of rebirth. That's how a lot of mainstream science treats it for example, it's not up for questioning.
So what's more dogmatic? Saying it's through personal experience or the following:
the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion
Now apparently that's fine, but if someone disagrees it's a dogma..
In the end it's all as dogmatic as we ourselves portray it to be.
Buddhism can be important to us - living in the 21st century - but not as a dogmatic set of beliefs from ancient India.
Buddhism is a set of teachings, not a set of beliefs. If you're really interested in understanding what those teachings are, then an open mind is helpful. I've found that people can be dogmatic in their disbeliefs too.
There is such a thing as rebirth, but it pertains to the arising of the psychological phenomenon; it being born anew from total silence, the slate wiped clean.
The suttas don't support that interpretation.
It's not an interpretation. It's what rebirth actually is.
It's not an interpretation. It's what rebirth actually is.
It is an interpretation, and it isn't consistent with the suttas. If you want the evidence I'll happily provide it, but as a starting point I'd recommend reading the way the nidanas are described in MN9 and SN12.2 - they don't support a psychological interpretation.
And if we do decide to interpret rebirth in a psychological sense, then what exactly is reborn in your opinion?
In that sense dogmatic Buddhism is a misnomer to the intentions of the teachings ... many do not see it this way, I know
Buddhism is certainly non-dogmatic in the sense that an open mind is essential, and attachment to views is a hindrance. But stubborn disbelief - a refusal to allow for possibilites - that's a dogmatic position too.
It's not an interpretation. It's what rebirth actually is.
It is an interpretation, and it isn't consistent with the suttas. If you want the evidence I'll happily provide it, but as a starting point I'd recommend reading the way the nidanas are described in MN9 and SN12.2 - they don't support a psychological interpretation. And if we do decide to interpret rebirth in a psychological sense, then what exactly is reborn in your opinion?
*****************************
What was posted is not an interpretation of some fairy tale attributed to the Buddha. What is born anew, has already been said
It is an interpretation, and it isn't consistent with the suttas. If you want the evidence I'll happily provide it, but as a starting point I'd recommend reading the way the nidanas are described in MN9 and SN12.2 - they don't support a psychological interpretation.
And if we do decide to interpret rebirth in a psychological sense, then what exactly is reborn in your opinion?
For what it's worth, I think both interpretations of dependent co-arising are supported by the Suttas, and neither is necessarily mutually exclusive. In my opinion, dependent co-airing not only clearly details the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind, and the ceaseless arising and ceasing of self-identity view in relation to the aggregates, but the process by which beings are reborn, as well.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally 'action') deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that doesn't necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience.
This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically in terms of arising and ceasing self-identity views).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117). Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they're placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path.
In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding the mental processes by which we construct our sense of self, as well as how to utilize those processes in more skillful ways. And this psychological interpretation of rebirth as pleasant and unpleasant mental states that we mentally take birth into is supported by the Suttas themselves. For example, we find passages like these in AN 4.235 (notice the qualifier 'like'):
And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.
And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication ... a non-injurious verbal fabrication ... a non-injurious mental fabrication ... He rearises in a non-injurious world ... There he is touched by non-injurious contacts ... He experiences feelings that are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Beautiful Black Devas. This is called kamma that is bright with bright result.
The tolerance of Buddhism (in this frequently quoted “eshipassiko” phrase) is that we don’t have to believe such and such. At the other hand, when we don’t believe, we can either leave, or disqualify our own present level of understanding. But we cannot question. Only those who are capable of convincing themselves of the correctness of the teaching are right. That’s dogmatic. There is no room for critical thought. And I believe there should be room for it. Buddhism can be important to us - living in the 21st century - but not as a dogmatic set of beliefs from ancient India.
I was raised with Christian dogmatic faith and I was freed from it by critical thinking. I’m not giving that capacity of critical thought up now and trade it for dogmatic Buddhism.
That's your spin, not mine.
If you have ever noticed, Buddhist statements are, empirically, neither true nor false. I should add, such statements can never add up to call to dogma or to be dogmatic.
"Ehipassika," viz., the invitation 'to come and see,' can only be understood as an invitation to practice the Buddha's course (patipâda) not to verify certain sentences, empirically, as being true or not true in the case of rebirth.
All of us here are invited to come and to see, to practice the course. That's not dogmatic to me and to many other Buddhists. The statements in Buddhism arise from those who have personal knowledge (attanâ va jâneyyâtha) and personal higher knowledge (sâmam yea dhammam abhiññâya). This type of knowledge is outside of the realm of modernity.
If the Buddha says this:
"The old is destroyed, the new is not arising. [Those whose minds are disgusted with future existence, their seeds (of rebirth) have been destroyed (and) they have no desire for growth.] The wise are quenched like this lamp. This outstanding jewel too is is in the Order; by this truth may there be well-being" (Sutta-Nipata 235).
We have to read it as coming from personal knowledge or personal higher knowledge.
Perhaps as an inspiration to those who want to approach it through experience -and to get beyond this discussion of dogma stuff, which doesn't help anyone for sure- these suttas contain a way to recollect previous lives:
I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.
When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html Also http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
This is the method Ajahn Brahm (the video we started with) also teaches, in a little more detail in his book.
According to this sutta recollecting can also occur without all the details the Buddha saw:
"Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.079.than.html
In that sense dogmatic Buddhism is a misnomer to the intentions of the teachings ... many do not see it this way, I know
Buddhism is certainly non-dogmatic in the sense that an open mind is essential, and attachment to views is a hindrance. But stubborn disbelief - a refusal to allow for possibilites - that's a dogmatic position too.
Stubborn disbelief is not the sentiment of Buddhist teachings though.
And this psychological interpretation of rebirth as pleasant and unpleasant mental states that we mentally take birth into is supported by the Suttas themselves. For example, we find passages like these in AN 4.235 (notice the qualifier 'like'):
And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.
I don't see how one can put a psychological spin on this passage, because it clearly says "On rearising in an injurious world".... If it meant "on developing an unwholesome mental state" ( whatever ) then it would say that. And generally similies in the suttas are clearly labelled as such.
My perception is that some people are uncomfortable with the teachings on rebirth, kamma and the realms, and so they look for metaphorical meanings where they weren't intended - for example attempts to put a psychological spin on dependent orgination, despite the fact that the nidana descriptions flatly contradict this interpretation.
For sure, there is a lot of psychology in the suttas, but it doesn't relate to rebirth.
Stubborn disbelief is not the sentiment of Buddhist teachings though.
I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make.
............................................................................ Neither is stubborn belief a sentiment taught by the sutras.
Tell me, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between "stubborn disbelief" and the "stubborn belief" that someone might accuse you of? You seem to think that there is some sort of difference. All this is, this dualistic picking of who is right and who is wrong, is looking at the same thing from two different viewpoints.
You and I believe differently, but we both believe deeply. I am not a "disbeliever" because we disagree on this one topic. I just believe something different. To me, you are the disbeliever. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm incapable of belief, or of faith, or of having an open mind just because I come to different conclusions and beliefs.
When it comes to what the Dharma means in our daily lives, it's not a matter of right and wrong. You have your understanding and I have mine.
To paraphrase a famous sutra:
"Disbelief is belief, and belief is disbelief. They are the same thing."
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm incapable of belief, or of faith, or of having an open mind just because I come to different conclusions and beliefs.
But you have made it clear previously that you are a skeptic. And skeptics don't have an open mind.
............................................................................ Neither is stubborn belief a sentiment taught by the sutras.
Tell me, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between "stubborn disbelief" and the "stubborn belief" that someone might accuse you of? You seem to think that there is some sort of difference. All this is, this dualistic picking of who is right and who is wrong, is looking at the same thing from two different viewpoints.
You and I believe differently, but we both believe deeply. I am not a "disbeliever" because we disagree on this one topic. I just believe something different. To me, you are the disbeliever. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm incapable of belief, or of faith, or of having an open mind just because I come to different conclusions and beliefs.
When it comes to what the Dharma means in our daily lives, it's not a matter of right and wrong. You have your understanding and I have mine.
To paraphrase a famous sutra:
"Disbelief is belief, and belief is disbelief. They are the same thing."
In general I agree, but while what the Dhamma means in our daily life may not be a matter of "right" and "wrong", when it comes to rebirth, was position is correct, the other is incorrect. I have no idea which is which.
Does it really matter what happens after we die? Honestly, I think we should worry more about what's happening NOW. If you believe in creating good karma, you have an added afterlife bonus. If do not want the bonus or don't believe there's a bonus, that's fine. The important thing is that you are finding happiness in your present life.
@Driedleaf, if you assume -- which it appears you are -- that only Buddhism has got "it" right, then I guess it doesn't matter.
But, of the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist, Hinduism, Chinese traditional religion, Buddhism, primal-indigenous, African Traditional & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism, and Scientology) -- either they're all wrong, or all of them are wrong except one.
So yes, for most of, if we suddenly found that one religion got it right and all the others were wrong, then I guess if we are intelligent beings we'd switch to the religion that's got it correct. So, yes, it matters.
And I would hope that all of us sees more to life than just creating our own happiness (as you put it).
Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm incapable of belief, or of faith, or of having an open mind just because I come to different conclusions and beliefs.
But you have made it clear previously that you are a skeptic. And skeptics don't have an open mind.
Comments
Do I think a lot of the time we convince ourselves off things? Yes. I dreamed I had a phone call from my dead ex, and it was very disturbing and I woke up very shaken. Do I think it was him really contacting me in my dreams? no. I think it was me needing to say things I wish I could have said before he died. But there are other things that go unexplained considering the knowledge and level of understanding of the person involved.
Busheng: Are you here right now?
Student: Well, I think so.
Busheng: Good answer. Now, what is your true nature?
Student: I don't know.
Busheng: When you uncover that you will fully understand what again (punar) and again gets generated into different forms. You will not be deceived again.
Can we have that tea now?
Busheng: It's very unique.
Which drink is the best?
Staying to discuss rebirth or checking out another webpage or watching tv, it's all the best.
It’s the unfair come-and-see-for-yourself invitation. We can test the teaching, but we cannot reach the conclusion that the teaching is wrong. We are only allowed to say we don’t fully agree yet (and disqualify our present understanding in doing so) or submit to the dogmatic truth.
The truth however is that beautiful and profound sounding language can’t hide the fact that rebirth is an outdated religious notion; much like heaven and hell; much like ghosts, fairies and Santa. Poetic but not true.
Hare is your intellect, which dilutes and distorts your understanding like chinese whispers. It is not your enemy, however; just like Hare and Moon, you can be reconciled.
Here's a better rendition of the story.
I guess I can understand it... but I am not sure if my understanding and realization of non-self is the same as what science is claiming to be non-self. It seems to be comparing apple seeds to apples or to the apple tree.
EDIT: left off 'n' from non-organs
The tolerance of Buddhism (in this frequently quoted “eshipassiko” phrase) is that we don’t have to believe such and such. At the other hand, when we don’t believe, we can either leave, or disqualify our own present level of understanding. But we cannot question.
Only those who are capable of convincing themselves of the correctness of the teaching are right. That’s dogmatic. There is no room for critical thought. And I believe there should be room for it. Buddhism can be important to us - living in the 21st century - but not as a dogmatic set of beliefs from ancient India.
I was raised with Christian dogmatic faith and I was freed from it by critical thinking. I’m not giving that capacity of critical thought up now and trade it for dogmatic Buddhism.
In that sense dogmatic Buddhism is a misnomer to the intentions of the teachings ... many do not see it this way, I know
And one can also be dogmatic about the non-existence of rebirth. That's how a lot of mainstream science treats it for example, it's not up for questioning.
So what's more dogmatic? Saying it's through personal experience or the following: Now apparently that's fine, but if someone disagrees it's a dogma..
In the end it's all as dogmatic as we ourselves portray it to be.
:eek:
Must have been a monk in a past life
I've found that people can be dogmatic in their disbeliefs too.
It's not an interpretation. It's what rebirth actually is.
And if we do decide to interpret rebirth in a psychological sense, then what exactly is reborn in your opinion?
And if we do decide to interpret rebirth in a psychological sense, then what exactly is reborn in your opinion?
What was posted is not an interpretation of some fairy tale attributed to the Buddha. What is born anew, has already been said
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally 'action') deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that doesn't necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience.
This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically in terms of arising and ceasing self-identity views).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117). Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there's a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they're placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path.
In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding the mental processes by which we construct our sense of self, as well as how to utilize those processes in more skillful ways. And this psychological interpretation of rebirth as pleasant and unpleasant mental states that we mentally take birth into is supported by the Suttas themselves. For example, we find passages like these in AN 4.235 (notice the qualifier 'like'): For more about dependent co-arising as "a description of how and why we humans create many of our own prob-lems (experienced as dukkha) through a false sense of 'self,'" I suggest checking out this article in the May 2012 edition of the Journal for the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies: "Burning Yourself: Paticca Samuppāda as a Description of the Arising of a False Sense of Self Modeled on Vedic Rituals" (p. 36).
If you have ever noticed, Buddhist statements are, empirically, neither true nor false. I should add, such statements can never add up to call to dogma or to be dogmatic.
"Ehipassika," viz., the invitation 'to come and see,' can only be understood as an invitation to practice the Buddha's course (patipâda) not to verify certain sentences, empirically, as being true or not true in the case of rebirth.
All of us here are invited to come and to see, to practice the course. That's not dogmatic to me and to many other Buddhists. The statements in Buddhism arise from those who have personal knowledge (attanâ va jâneyyâtha) and personal higher knowledge (sâmam yea dhammam abhiññâya). This type of knowledge is outside of the realm of modernity.
If the Buddha says this: We have to read it as coming from personal knowledge or personal higher knowledge.
According to this sutta recollecting can also occur without all the details the Buddha saw: With kindness,
Sabre
Stubborn disbelief is not the sentiment of Buddhist teachings though.
I don't see how one can put a psychological spin on this passage, because it clearly says "On rearising in an injurious world".... If it meant "on developing an unwholesome mental state" ( whatever ) then it would say that.
And generally similies in the suttas are clearly labelled as such.
My perception is that some people are uncomfortable with the teachings on rebirth, kamma and the realms, and so they look for metaphorical meanings where they weren't intended - for example attempts to put a psychological spin on dependent orgination, despite the fact that the nidana descriptions flatly contradict this interpretation.
For sure, there is a lot of psychology in the suttas, but it doesn't relate to rebirth.
............................................................................
Neither is stubborn belief a sentiment taught by the sutras.
Tell me, just out of curiosity, what is the difference between "stubborn disbelief" and the "stubborn belief" that someone might accuse you of? You seem to think that there is some sort of difference. All this is, this dualistic picking of who is right and who is wrong, is looking at the same thing from two different viewpoints.
You and I believe differently, but we both believe deeply. I am not a "disbeliever" because we disagree on this one topic. I just believe something different. To me, you are the disbeliever. Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm incapable of belief, or of faith, or of having an open mind just because I come to different conclusions and beliefs.
When it comes to what the Dharma means in our daily lives, it's not a matter of right and wrong. You have your understanding and I have mine.
To paraphrase a famous sutra:
"Disbelief is belief, and belief is disbelief. They are the same thing."
But, of the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist, Hinduism, Chinese traditional religion, Buddhism, primal-indigenous, African Traditional & Diasporic, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarianism, and Scientology) -- either they're all wrong, or all of them are wrong except one.
So yes, for most of, if we suddenly found that one religion got it right and all the others were wrong, then I guess if we are intelligent beings we'd switch to the religion that's got it correct. So, yes, it matters.
And I would hope that all of us sees more to life than just creating our own happiness (as you put it).
Fair enough. Appreciate the honesty.