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 can accept that there are people like this. Of course. But to me it would be a very strange view. It seems to be the view that the Buddha was not a Buddha.
Can we use 'rebirth' instead of 'reincarnation'? I should think that all Buddhists doubt that reincarnation is true.
I have no definition for 'real Buddhist'. I am not one. It would not be necessary to be a Buddhist to become a Buddha, fortunately, for otherwise there would never have been one.
It seems to me that the teachings in the sutras are sytematic to the point that it would be very difficult to doubt one element without doubting the whole lot. It is such a simple doctrine, once reduced to its metaphysical essentials, that it would be very difficult to reject one aspect without rejecting the whole lot. The only exception for me would be rebirth, which seems to float free of the central logic, allowing us to accept or reject it, at least until such time we discover the facts.
I would be tempted to say that someone who does not believe that the Buddha knew the truth, or that he was the truth, is not really a Buddhist in a full sense. But if, despite this, they were still determined to check the veracity of the teachings for themselves through their practice and study, then for me they would qualify regardless of any doubts. I feel that Buddhism is all about doubt and the attempt to dispel it.
I do, however, believe that it would have been impossible for the Buddha to make a mistake in his teachings. We can, of course, make endless mistakes trying to understand them, and there may be spurious texts containing mistakes, albeit that such texts should not be too difficult to spot by analysis and comparison to the main body of texts. But to suggest that the Buddha got his teachings wrong would be to suggests that his knowledge claims are false, which would be difficult to reconcile with the idea that he was a fully realised person.
I have no problem with that. It's a common view. But where's the proof?
Ah...thank you...where is your proof?
I don't have to prove anything. You claimed that the Buddha was mistaken. I asked for a proof. You should at least have some argument to support your assertion. Otherwise it is an opinion stated as a fact. This is not about whether your opinion is correct, but about whether it is any more than an opinion.
@Florian I do understand where you are coming from. For many Buddhists, rethinking the reincarnation tradition is a bridge too far, and I know that. In the end, all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say not only does it work for me, but it allowed me to penetrate the Dharma even more. But that's just me.
I also prefer the term "rebirth" because what is being born is composed of elements that ultimately were created in the heart of exploding stars a billion years ago, built to a genetic code provided by mother and father only nine months before, but this and every time around we're a bundle of new potential, not some actor being shoved on stage for yet another round of improv.
It is because the other side did not make a claim. The claim was yours. I cannot prove that you do not have a proof of your statement, of course, which is why I asked 'Where's the proof?' I did not state that such a proof would be impossible, although I believe it would be. since then I would have had to prove it.
Btw. I'm aware that I can come across as arrogant, and that this can lead to some annoyance.
Oops. I expected my previous post to follow on from @vinlyn's previous post , but the post previous to my previous post intervened. I think I could have said that more simply.
@Florian I do understand where you are coming from. For many Buddhists, rethinking the reincarnation tradition is a bridge too far, and I know that. In the end, all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say not only does it work for me, but it allowed me to penetrate the Dharma even more. But that's just me.
I also prefer the term "rebirth" because what is being born is composed of elements that ultimately were created in the heart of exploding stars a billion years ago, built to a genetic code provided by mother and father only nine months before, but this and every time around we're a bundle of new potential, not some actor being shoved on stage for yet another round of improv.
By 'rethinking the reincarnation tradition' I assume you mean 'giving up our personal belief in reincarnation'. Yes, not a comfortable thing to do, or not unless you believe that not being born at all is as wonderful as the Buddha reports.
Not the same actor, maybe, it might depend on how we look at it, but the same old improv class.
Comments
Can we use 'rebirth' instead of 'reincarnation'? I should think that all Buddhists doubt that reincarnation is true.
I have no definition for 'real Buddhist'. I am not one. It would not be necessary to be a Buddhist to become a Buddha, fortunately, for otherwise there would never have been one.
It seems to me that the teachings in the sutras are sytematic to the point that it would be very difficult to doubt one element without doubting the whole lot. It is such a simple doctrine, once reduced to its metaphysical essentials, that it would be very difficult to reject one aspect without rejecting the whole lot. The only exception for me would be rebirth, which seems to float free of the central logic, allowing us to accept or reject it, at least until such time we discover the facts.
I would be tempted to say that someone who does not believe that the Buddha knew the truth, or that he was the truth, is not really a Buddhist in a full sense. But if, despite this, they were still determined to check the veracity of the teachings for themselves through their practice and study, then for me they would qualify regardless of any doubts. I feel that Buddhism is all about doubt and the attempt to dispel it.
I do, however, believe that it would have been impossible for the Buddha to make a mistake in his teachings. We can, of course, make endless mistakes trying to understand them, and there may be spurious texts containing mistakes, albeit that such texts should not be too difficult to spot by analysis and comparison to the main body of texts. But to suggest that the Buddha got his teachings wrong would be to suggests that his knowledge claims are false, which would be difficult to reconcile with the idea that he was a fully realised person.
But why does only one side of a point of view need to have proof?
I also prefer the term "rebirth" because what is being born is composed of elements that ultimately were created in the heart of exploding stars a billion years ago, built to a genetic code provided by mother and father only nine months before, but this and every time around we're a bundle of new potential, not some actor being shoved on stage for yet another round of improv.
Btw. I'm aware that I can come across as arrogant, and that this can lead to some annoyance.
Not the same actor, maybe, it might depend on how we look at it, but the same old improv class.