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.
I suspect that "loka" is another of those words that has different layers of meaning, and is also highly context dependent. In some places it may have the meaning of the "the world" as a place or realm, in others the meaning of "our world" as our subjective experience - though ultimately is there any difference? In any case I don't think it makes sense to impose one meaning in all situations.
Precisely, which is why I don't think one should limit its meaning to a 'world' outside of our present experience, as in applying solely to postmortem rebirth rather than the experience of the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience. Hence, when the Buddha says things like "rearising in an injurious world," it can mean more than just being reborn into an unpleasant state of experience after death, such being reborn into an unpleasant experience in the here and now.
Sure, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, what I don't get is the pressure from some quarters to always take the metaphorical route when many passages make perfect sense when taken at face value, ie literally. I get the feeling that some people just don't like the literal reading and go to great lengths to argue against it ( while arguing that such discussion is a waste of time anway! ).
It might help to look at the Pali for "re-arising in an injurious world"?
Talk about a war on karma!—while some secular Buddhists claim that their agenda is not to throw karma and rebirth into the dust bin of history, on the secular Buddhist site I found this description of Stephen Batchelor's latest book, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. (Emphasis added.)
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist This week's recommendation is Stephen Batchelor's Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, the new book that tells a more personal story of the author's progress in secular Buddhist practice.
Description -- “Batchelor's Buddhism Without Beliefs (1997) described a secular approach to the Eastern philosophy stripped of doctrines such as karma and rebirth; how a young British monk ordained in the Tibetan tradition turned into a Buddhist atheist is revealed in this new book. On the dharma trail in India and Korea, and later as a lay resident at the nonsectarian Sharpham community in England, Batchelor was beset by doubts about traditional Buddhist teachings. Finally convinced that present-day forms of Buddhism have moved far beyond what founder Gotama had intended, Batchelor embarked on a study of the Pali canon (very early Buddhist texts) to find out what the Buddha's original message might have been. Batchelor's own story of conversion is woven effortlessly with his analysis of Buddhist teachings and a 2003 pilgrimage to Indian sites important in the Buddha's life. He is candid about his disillusionments with institutionalized Buddhism without engaging in another new atheist broadside against religion. While Batchelor may exaggerate the novelty of his Buddhism without beliefs stance, this multifaceted account of one Buddhist's search for enlightenment is richly absorbing.” -- From Publishers Weekly
Sure, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, what I don't get is the pressure from some quarters to always take the metaphorical route when many passages make perfect sense when taken at face value, ie literally. I get the feeling that some people just don't like the literal reading and go to great lengths to argue against it ( while arguing that such discussion is a waste of time anway! ).
Talk about a war on karma!—while some secular Buddhists claim that their agenda is not to throw karma and rebirth into the dust bin of history...
I guess there's nothing wrong in Buddhism with the concept of going to war against Buddhism...over and over and over you post negative things about "secular Buddhists". You're sort of like Martin Luther posting his Ninety-Five Theses on the church door.
Sure, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, what I don't get is the pressure from some quarters to always take the metaphorical route when many passages make perfect sense when taken at face value, ie literally. I get the feeling that some people just don't like the literal reading and go to great lengths to argue against it ( while arguing that such discussion is a waste of time anway! ).
I don't have an aversion to taking passages at face value, nor do I argue that such discussions are a was of time, yet this one can easily be read both literally and metaphorically, in my opinion. For example, the Buddha says:
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.
Notice that he doesn't say one becomes a being in hell, but that one experiences painful feelings like those of the beings in hell. And considering the fact that the term 'world' itself is often used in reference to the experience of the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience, I don't think it's a stretch to say that, in this particular instance, it can refer to being reborn into an unpleasant experience in the here and now as much as it can being reborn into an unpleasant state of experience after death.
Somewhat related op-ed piece about secularism in general.
Secular Buddhism is a somewhat different species of secularism but, in general, sticks with Holyoake's main idea.
I noted this in my blog:
Some key points that secular Buddhism shares with Holyoke's vision is, first, that secular Buddhism pretty much sees itself as independent of important traditional Buddhist tenets such as karma and rebith. Secondly, secular Buddhism is based on knowledge that can be obtained in in this life which is capable of being tested by experience. Next, secular Buddhism’s own light and guidance, like that of secularism, comes from mundane truths (we could even say science).
I think this is a fair reading. However, the scope of traditional Buddhism goes far beyond whatever benefits Buddhist secularism offers. Not only does it offer light and guidance (even psychological light and guidance), but also profound knowledge (jñâna/gnosis) of the transcendent that can be attained in this lifetime with the aid of meditation (dhyana).
Incidentally, I have read enough of Stephen Batchelor, the main spokesperson for secular Buddhism, to know that he doesn't buy the transcendent.
Songhill, as I have been reading your posts where you denigrate secular Buddhists, I have thought a number of times of how "GOP"-ish that sounds. You apparently want a "small tent", where I think most of us favor the "big tent".
And considering the fact that the term 'world' itself is often used in reference to the experience of the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience,
But this statement is also based on assumption and interpretation. Anyway, thanks for the Pali for "re-arising in an injurious world", I'll consult my Pali dictionaries!
But this statement is also based on assumption and interpretation. Anyway, thanks for the Pali for "re-arising in an injurious world", I'll consult my Pali dictionaries!
No, this statement is also based upon the context of how the world loka is used throughout the suttas, which is used in at least three different ways (e.g., see Piya Tan's translations and annotations of AN 4.45 ). Honestly, I don't see why this is so controversial since, according to the suttas, kamma applies to, and is experienced in, both the present and the future, in both this life and next.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I don't think it's that pondering this is a waste of time but that it doesn't really matter.
If we do good to recieve some kind of karmic reward, the point is being missed.
If you don't think it's a waste of time, you must be getting something out of it. I'm curious to know what that is.
For me, the main thing I get out of topics like this is a better understanding of these concepts and the role they play in the practice. By discussing what the suttas have to say about these things, for example, I've been able to see how these teachings relate to the present (i.e., a more useful, concrete understanding) as much as to some possible state of being after death (i.e., a less useful understanding, in my opinion).
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If you don't think it's a waste of time, you must be getting something out of it. I'm curious to know what that is.
Sure. It's fun.
I certainly get something out of knowing that actions have consequence but to take that extra step and extrapolate about what may or may not happen next takes focus away from what is going on right now.
Right now, I am aware that I am pondering that which doesn't matter all that much but I am having fun doing it right now.
But this statement is also based on assumption and interpretation. Anyway, thanks for the Pali for "re-arising in an injurious world", I'll consult my Pali dictionaries!
No, this statement is also based upon the context of how the world loka is used throughout the suttas, which is used in at least three different ways (e.g., see Piya Tan's translations and annotations of AN 4.45 ). Honestly, I don't see why this is so controversial since, according to the suttas, kamma applies to, and is experienced in, both the present and the future, in both this life and next.
Yes, because the way in which "loka" is used in different suttas is a matter of intepretation - as in the example of "re-arising in an injurious world".
Yes, because the way in which "loka" is used in different suttas is a matter of intepretation - as in the example of "re-arising in an injurious world".
Fair enough. From that point of view, however, our understanding of any word is simply an interpretation that depends on the way it's used at any given time. But in this case, looking at the sutta as a whole and paying careful attention to how things are phrased, I stand by my initial interpretation that the term 'world' here can refer to being reborn into an unpleasant experience in the here and now as much as it can being reborn into an unpleasant state of experience after death.
Comments
It might help to look at the Pali for "re-arising in an injurious world"?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/06/my-take-the-five-biggest-misconceptions-about-secularism/?hpt=hp_c2
I noted this in my blog: I think this is a fair reading. However, the scope of traditional Buddhism goes far beyond whatever benefits Buddhist secularism offers. Not only does it offer light and guidance (even psychological light and guidance), but also profound knowledge (jñâna/gnosis) of the transcendent that can be attained in this lifetime with the aid of meditation (dhyana).
Incidentally, I have read enough of Stephen Batchelor, the main spokesperson for secular Buddhism, to know that he doesn't buy the transcendent.
If we do good to recieve some kind of karmic reward, the point is being missed.
I certainly get something out of knowing that actions have consequence but to take that extra step and extrapolate about what may or may not happen next takes focus away from what is going on right now.
Right now, I am aware that I am pondering that which doesn't matter all that much but I am having fun doing it right now.