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.
Extract from Kalama Sutta ( "[...]" inserted by me):
The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
'Suppose there is a hereafter [rebirth] and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill [kamma]. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
'Suppose there is no hereafter [no rebirth] and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill [no kamma]. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
It's nice to know that the Buddha's teachings provide "solace" for both believers and non-belivers of rebirth and kamma.
Yes. This quote, a version of Pascal's Wager (even though the Buddha came up with the idea 2,000 years earlier), is also reminiscent of passages from MN 60 (the name of the sutta itself, Apannaka, roughly translates as 'safe bet'):
With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is no causality, then — at the break-up of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is causality, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after death — will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Even if we didn't speak of causality, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-causality. If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the wise here-&-now, and in that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone applying this kind of reasoning to their own actions (if I do x, I will gain y in this life and possibly z in the next life, which, if it actually exists, is something I want), but I don't think it's a very good (nor particularly effective) argument to use against other people in order to persuade them to adopt a specific set of religious beliefs, as versions of Pascal's Wager are sometimes used to do.
For some of us, there is a problem with what the sutras and many Buddhists claim about literal reincarnation and the other teachings on impermanence and no-self and emptiness. On the deepest level, they are incompatible.
Can you go into more detail about how they are incompatible at the deepest level?
In my experience people seek Dharma for a number of reasons..sometimes its to build themselves an alternative persona..which is a double edged sword. The remedy can become part of the problem due to the innate tendency to cling. Sometimes however it is because they are suffering in the here and now and glimpse the possibility of transcending that.
There is another way of approaching the issue, and that is to acknowledge that in some areas, the sutras simply got it wrong. They were great thinkers and enlightened, but not gods. They operated within the framework of what they were taught and assumed about the world.
If you feel my saying something in the sutras can be honestly, simply wrong is sacrilegious or disqualifies me from claiming I'm a Buddhist, I'm sorry about that but it doesn't mean I'm going to change my own deeply held beliefs. Buddhism transformed my life and this is my understanding of the dharma after many years of meditation and contemplation and discussion with other Buddhists and even a few Masters.
I'm not saying this is how you must understand the dharma. I don't go around preaching it to other Buddhists or insisting you have a problem. I'm just a voice on a board like this that tells people who say, "I like what Buddhism says but can't get past reincarnation beliefs" that you don't have to in order to practice Buddhism.
For some of us, there is a problem with what the sutras and many Buddhists claim about literal reincarnation and the other teachings on impermanence and no-self and emptiness. On the deepest level, they are incompatible. That doesn't make the rest of the dharma invalid.
It's a wise view to be able to say the suttas are wrong on some points. I have the same attitude, but that's towards points that occur once, maybe twice in the entire collection. Those can be mistranslations for example, and there are also things added later (can be shown by textual analysis). But dependent origination and rebirth in general occurs time after time. It didn't get in there by accident.
To say the suttas may be wrong there is doubting much more of the dhamma itself. Which is not nescessarily wrong to do of course, I don't support blind faith. However, a view of rebirth changes much of how one would look upon life, upon suffering, upon the dhamma. It's something we seriously need to consider, especially if things seem incompatible. So far I've found that when I disagreed with the suttas, I was mistaken and the suttas were right.
We have some empirical evidence for reincarnation. It is to be found in the works of the late psychiatrist Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia and more recent, Jim Tucker, MD. What both did prove is that it is reasonable to believe in rebirth.
Here is a very interesting case:
The parents of James Leininger were first puzzled and then disturbed when their two-year-old son began screaming out chilling phrases during recurrent nightmares, such as, "Plane on fire! Little man can't get out!" The centerpiece of a loving family of three, James was a happy, playful toddler who had only just begun stringing together sentences. Determined to understand what was happening to their son, Bruce and Andrea set off on a journey of discovery that was to rock them to their core. For the more they researched the arcane comments and fragmented details little James revealed, the more they were drawn inescapably to a shocking conclusion: that James was reliving the life of James Huston, a World War II fighter pilot who was killed in the battle for Iwo Jima-- over sixty years ago!
Through painstaking research and conversations with war veterans and surviving members of James Huston's family, Bruce and Andrea were forced to confront their skepticism and reexamine their entire belief system. In the process, they not only managed to solve the mystery of their son's statements. They also uncovered revelations about James Huston's life and wartime experiences that could finally bring peace and healing to his loved ones, decades after his death.
This book features stunning drawings from James Leininger illustrating his unshakable memories, photos that portray the eerie resemblance between young James and the adult James Huston, and a foreword from world-renowned past lives expert Carol Bowman. In SOUL SURVIVOR, readers will come to know and believe in the special child who harbors the soul of a man who died in 1945.
One is the view that the Buddha was referring to literal post mortem rebirth. It is possible to find much in the Suttas that appears to corroborate that view..that the kandhas/skandhas take a series of serial rupic forms. This is called the Three Births Model. not that births are restricted to three in number..but the reference is to past, present and future births. Another interpretation, which despite some suggestions is NOT " modern " but has a well established pedigree. is the One Birth Model..which to be clear does not rule out multiple births in a dogmatic way..this model says that Dependent Origination happens on a moment to moment basis, and that what is reborn is a process.
Yes, dependent origination is all about dependently arising processes, and it can be viewed over different time scales. But what exactly is the"well-established pedigree" for the one birth model? And can you explain why it isn't consistent with the way the nidanas are described in MN9 and SN12.2?
"The problem with knowledge is the problem of Hume, that the principles used in establishing factual knowledge cannot establish themselves; induction cannot induce induction; there are no verifiable general statements; and the basis of science is non-scientific." — Lothar Schäfer In Search of Divine Reality
That is a bold claim to make. With that claim. You are giving valiblity to Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers.
I am not giving valiblity [sic] to anyone. Lothar Schäfer is trying to bring science back to the fold of the first science which is philosophy. One has to be off their rocker to believe that thought-things like mass, force, resistance, acceleration, phase space, etc., are actual objects in themselves. Ultimately, the true basis of science is the first-person, who is not scientific.
Comments
It's nice to know that the Buddha's teachings provide "solace" for both believers and non-belivers of rebirth and kamma.
Yes. This quote, a version of Pascal's Wager (even though the Buddha came up with the idea 2,000 years earlier), is also reminiscent of passages from MN 60 (the name of the sutta itself, Apannaka, roughly translates as 'safe bet'): Personally, I see nothing wrong with someone applying this kind of reasoning to their own actions (if I do x, I will gain y in this life and possibly z in the next life, which, if it actually exists, is something I want), but I don't think it's a very good (nor particularly effective) argument to use against other people in order to persuade them to adopt a specific set of religious beliefs, as versions of Pascal's Wager are sometimes used to do.
Thanks for the quote.
Sometimes however it is because they are suffering in the here and now and glimpse the possibility of transcending that.
To say the suttas may be wrong there is doubting much more of the dhamma itself. Which is not nescessarily wrong to do of course, I don't support blind faith. However, a view of rebirth changes much of how one would look upon life, upon suffering, upon the dhamma. It's something we seriously need to consider, especially if things seem incompatible. So far I've found that when I disagreed with the suttas, I was mistaken and the suttas were right.
Here is a very interesting case:
I am not giving valiblity [sic] to anyone. Lothar Schäfer is trying to bring science back to the fold of the first science which is philosophy. One has to be off their rocker to believe that thought-things like mass, force, resistance, acceleration, phase space, etc., are actual objects in themselves. Ultimately, the true basis of science is the first-person, who is not scientific.