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 can even refer to both at once. But one is still nothing more than a concept to me, while the other I see firsthand in every moment; as such, I'm only willing to entertain the possibility of literal rebirth right now. So yes, rebirth is what "rebirth" refers to as opposed to "donkey balls" or "swiss cheese." English 101. Glad you cleared that up for me.
Ok let's test it. If I say you obviously enjoy donkey balls, am I saying you like the concept or am I saying you like something that belongs to a donkey? In the same way, when the sutras talk about rebirth do they talk about a person's fleeting imagination or do they talk about the very many different specifications of rebirth?
Which must we then conclude? That Buddha asserts rebirth to be a concept? Or that Buddha asserts rebirth to be all the various things that his usage of the word refer to?
If I say you obviously enjoy donkey balls, am I saying you like the concept or am I saying you like something that belongs to a donkey? In the same way, when the sutras talk about rebirth do they talk about a person's fleeting imagination or do they talk about the very many different specifications of rebirth?
I'm not sure what you mean by "do they talk about a person's fleeting imagination"?
Which must we then conclude? That Buddha asserts rebirth to be a concept? Or that Buddha asserts rebirth to be all the various things that his usage of the word refer to?
Neither, in my opinion. I said until I know it directly it is nothing more than a concept to me. I see the importance of the concept of rebirth within the context of DO directly. I personally do not see the importance of the concept of literal rebirth on my path in Buddhism. I do not deny that it's possible the usage of rebirth here refers to something beyond my own understanding thus far (i.e. extends to literal rebirth). I personally haven't seen anything so far in the suttas where he is teaching literal rebirth. I have seen him use the concept to teach, yes. In my opinion these two things are different.
Or that Buddha asserts rebirth to be all the various things that his usage of the word refer to?
The entire issue here is that people argue what all his usage of the word refers to.
"It takes most people a long time to get used to the idea of rebirth."
That's not the case here. I actually used to believe in it, wholeheartedly. My position on what happens after death became an agnostic one, as I realized my belief was just blind faith, and ultimately unimportant to the heart of the Dhamma.
You seem to want to convince me, very badly, that literal rebirth is true and essential to Buddhism. I'm still open to seeing the proof you have.
I was pondering. The exact content of what a person claims to believe is not what really matters for me. A person doesn't have to believe in literal rebirth (or even have heard of the Buddha) to be compassionate, to understand how flawed our view of reality is, to be mindful, or etc. If what the Buddha taught was the ultimate reality, then we all can hope to see it someday, regardless of whatever concepts we may or may not have about it, in the end I'll guess we will just have to see for ourselves to get the real picture.
The entryways into the Dharma (including here anything that reaches Nibbana, whether spoke by the Buddha or not) should probably be many. I don't see myself dropping literal rebirth as a belief, but I see people in this forums hadling their everyday problems, debating what is ethical behavior and and attaining some amount of happiness in this world drenched in suffering through what they call buddhism, with or without belief in rebirth. As far as I am concerned their beliefs are as valid as anybody else's, we just have to accept we are a quite heterogenous group of people and our ideas are gonna differ at some point.
An old member of this site recently posted this on another forum:
I saw a quote from a Nichiren fellow, which I have now misplaced, who said to the effect, "The Buddha's teachings are universal, applicable to everyone, relevant to everyone, in any time, place or culture. If it doesn't make sense and isn't relevant for everyone, everywhere, in any time and any culture, it isn't the Buddhadhamma."
What you said it true and made me think of that quote.
I personally haven't seen anything so far in the suttas where he is teaching literal rebirth. I have seen him use the concept to teach, yes. In my opinion these two things are different.
It's utterly explicit in the sutras. But since you're a giant pit of "I personally" and "subjectivity" the topic is difficult.
*****
The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death. So this aging and this death are what is called aging and death. With the arising of birth there is the arising of aging and death. With the cessation of birth there is the cessation of aging and death.
When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path
*****
The topic btw is not the matter of trying to change your personal view of rebirth. The topic is the idea that Buddha holds rebirth to be a concept and should not be treated as truth, which is what you said.
(small note: "you personally" not understanding something does not negate the authentic lineages who extend back to the Buddha and who all assert rebirth. It's pretty arrogant to sort of demand proofs from them. It would be like - I don't know.. a highschool kid who hasn't even heard of calculus bursting into a room of uni professors with some sort of totally rookie question)
It's utterly explicit in the sutras. But since you're a giant pit of "I personally" and "subjectivity" the topic is difficult.
Thank you aaki. I have absolutely no idea what I did to you but I'm going to stop reading your post right there and refer you to Nameless's last post. I have been open to hearing your opinion and have asked numerous times for the proof you keep refering to. Now you've turned this into something personal, and are making personal attacks. You are very personally offended that I dare to question whether or not the Buddha taught literal rebirth, and I'm not sure why. You'll find that many people, including lineage-holding teachers, do not hold the view that he did. If you are interested in hearing -that- side of things, the links in my first post might be of use, and you will see that a lot of people do not agree that it's "utterly explicit." I'm not sure how saying my view is agnostic and asking for proof of your view rather than blindly accepting it is arrogant, but ok. If the Buddha himself told me that rebirth is true, I still wouldn't believe it until I saw proof. I'm sorry if that offends you.
Edit -
The topic is the idea that Buddha holds rebirth to be a concept and should not be treated as truth, which is what you said.
I didn't say the Buddha holds it to be a concept. The Buddha was beyond views, philosophies, concepts, ideas... but ALL of his teachings are just concepts to US until WE experience them directly.
I, and others, are just not so sure he taught it as truth and relevant to the Dhamma at all. I have already refered to sites that give a good idea why this is, with reasoning you can see for yourself. The suttas are the closest thing we have to his words, but even they were not written by the Buddha himself. What we have are also translations and interpretations, unless you speak Pali. The real question is: do you need to believe in rebirth to benefit from the Dhamma? Is the belief essential to Buddhism? Or should we tell the OP that he can't practice Buddhism? You are not reading what I said, at all.
This debate is getting a bit out of hand. We know what the scriptures presented, because we have translations. We can conjecture till we're all blue in the face about whether or not the Buddha was just using the metaphors and superstitions of the time, but until evidence of this is presented, all we have is the scriptures and what the living traditions tell us. Beyond that, we're in speculation-ville.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the position of Buddhism is that the Buddha knew of these things through direct perception rather than playing to the superstitions of the locals. 2 out of the 3 knowledges of the Buddha are specifically related to supramundane vision of reincarnation and the one of the critical teachings of Buddhism, dependent co-arising, is dependent upon this vision. At least that is what the Sutras and the Sangha tell us, which also happen to be 2 of the 3 jewels we take refuge in. The triple jewel is honored across all schools of Buddhism.
So, don't be surprised when you meet resistance from people who have studied the sutras in depth and who have joined the Sangha. And while we are all going to hold our own personal suspicions and conjectures as to what the truth of these matters are, the sutras say what they say. They may or may not be true, final and fully accurate descriptions of reality, but they are what the sutras consistently tell us.
Also, to those who cite the kalama sutta in every single thread, while the Buddha most certainly taught to not accept teachings based on things such as a teacher's reputation, speculation, etc, but rather by direct investigation, that does not in any way mean that the teachings are wrong or that we should regard them as mere relics of past superstitions. Additionally, I would suggest reading this commentary on the kalama sutta by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
Now, I understand the value of skepticism, and perhaps that's why I really haven't fully entered into the path. But the teachings are what they are and until I have direct knowledge of the claims of Buddhism I'm not going to speculate. I just don't see the point. Either the practice will bear out the teachings or it won't.
Anyway, what is the actual argument at this point?
Any words can be read in any number of ways. "I love you" can be taken as an "up yours" in the right context. Even the suttas themselves can be interpreted in any number of ways - and ALL understandings are interpretation and therefore "speculation-ville." We are all unenlightened and therefore even words straight from the Buddha's mouth have to be processed and interpeted through the filter of our unenlightened minds. Only an enlightened being is free from speculation-ville. None of our understandings of rebirth/Kamma, of the suttas, are flawless.
the sutras say what they say.
Yes, the original ones do. Translations are imperfect, and that is why we have so many. The fact is that there are times where the Pali word for "birth" has been translated as "rebirth." Things like this happen all the time. The word rebirth also has numerous meanings. Another fact is that there are living traditions, lineage-holding teachers, who agree with this view. This view does not deny rebirth (nor does it affirm it). It simply holds that it is unimportant to the Dhamma.
Also, to those who cite the kalama sutta in every single thread, while the Buddha most certainly taught to not accept teachings based on things such as a teacher's reputation, speculation, etc, but rather by direct investigation, that does not in any way mean that the teachings are wrong or that we should regard them as mere relics of past superstitions.
No one said that it means they're wrong.
In my opinion, "the real question is: do you need to believe in rebirth to benefit from the Dhamma? Is the belief essential to Buddhism?"
NamelessRiver's post truly summed things up nicely:
I was pondering. The exact content of what a person claims to believe is not what really matters for me. A person doesn't have to believe in literal rebirth (or even have heard of the Buddha) to be compassionate, to understand how flawed our view of reality is, to be mindful, or etc. If what the Buddha taught was the ultimate reality, then we all can hope to see it someday, regardless of whatever concepts we may or may not have about it, in the end I'll guess we will just have to see for ourselves to get the real picture.
The entryways into the Dharma (including here anything that reaches Nibbana, whether spoke by the Buddha or not) should probably be many. I don't see myself dropping literal rebirth as a belief, but I see people in this forums hadling their everyday problems, debating what is ethical behavior and and attaining some amount of happiness in this world drenched in suffering through what they call buddhism, with or without belief in rebirth. As far as I am concerned their beliefs are as valid as anybody else's, we just have to accept we are a quite heterogenous group of people and our ideas are gonna differ at some point.
And thus we can all coexist peacefully, ya?
<!-- / message -->
In my opinion, "the real question is: do you need to believe in rebirth to benefit from the Dhamma? Is the belief essential to Buddhism?"
I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion has claimed that you couldn't benefit from Buddhism without a belief in rebirth. So while you may feel this is the real issue (according to you), I am simply discussing the way that Buddhism presents itself. People have been making statements that the Buddha did not mean what he said, etc. There really just isn't any evidence for this. And the information we DO have contradicts this idea.
Now, you may feel this is inconsequential for you and others, and it may well be (at very least for now). But there are many dedicated practitioners far along in the path that would disagree with you as to the central nature of the doctrine of rebirth and karma in Buddhism. So when you say:
Another fact is that there are living traditions, lineage-holding teachers, who agree with this view. This view does not deny rebirth (nor does it affirm it). It simply holds that it is unimportant to the Dhamma.
I'd like you to let us know who those are. I am aware of a few Zen offshoots like Brad Warner who feel this way, but that's about it. Got any more info on what schools of Buddhism regard the doctrines of karma and reincarnations as inconsequential?
Any words can be read in any number of ways. "I love you" can be taken as an "up yours" in the right context. Even the suttas themselves can be interpreted in any number of ways - and ALL understandings are interpretation and therefore "speculation-ville." We are all unenlightened and therefore even words straight from the Buddha's mouth have to be processed and interpeted through the filter of our unenlightened minds. Only an enlightened being is free from speculation-ville. None of our understandings of rebirth/Kamma, of the suttas, are flawless.
The sutras themselves explain the context of the teachings and say that he had direct knowledge of these things, so I'm not sure how much you can interpret that away. So, based on your own statement that unenlightened folks are in speculation-ville, i'm not sure why you're defending any conjectures beyond what the sutras themselves state.
Yes, the original ones do. Translations are imperfect, and that is why we have so many. The fact is that there are times where the Pali word for "birth" has been translated as "rebirth." Things like this happen all the time. The word rebirth also has numerous meanings.
Are you referring to bhavana (becoming), jati (birth) or something else? I guess I'm unaware of this issue. Do you have any more info or links on this subject? Translations from pali to english have come a long, long way over the past 100 years.
If the Moderators have an issue with something in this Thread, they'll let us know.
OK then: your tone's been a bit rude in places here, and you're not alone.
Ironically, the person who seems to hold the strongest position, the "I'm right, you're wrong" position, is the one who started complaining
since you're a giant pit of "I personally" and "subjectivity"
Calm down there.
Where you fail
Can you understand
I hope you won't take this personally, but not bloody likely.
Seriously? Can we not be a little more civil with each other and have a little empathy before posting?
We treat this site like it's our living room, and we expect you to speak to each other as if you are guests in it, sharing tea. Raising your voice and making digs at each other is unwelcome.
Why, this member, who is not a Moderator, even felt that he should decide what topics are and aren't acceptable to debate, and told us to leave if we didn't like it.
You're right, he's not a moderator. He is, however, an informal staff member and he's been here four years. You've been here, what? Four weeks? Please, take issue with statements he makes, but don't think for a moment it is your place to put him in his place. :skeptical
I'm not suggesting you kowtow to his suggestions for topic; I'm requesting greater courtesy and greater patience until you know each other better. :cool:
I rarely care who's right and who's wrong on NewBuddhist. I care about who's building relationships and who's tearing them down. Don't sacrifice that to make a point.
That said, there is also some good conversation mixed in here. I just want to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. We can all do better.
Lincoln, you just quoted me three times from a single post, each taken completely out of context. I find that remarkable, considering my post was entirely civil, even-mannered, and rational. Are women expected to kowtow to superior male egos in this forum? Or is it just that you disagree with the content of my message, and chose to cite it as "uncivil" and "insulting?" My words would not have been different had they been spoken in your living room or anywhere else. I stand behind them. If you find my directness threatening, I suggest looking at yourself before pointing a finger my way.
Are women expected to kowtow to superior male egos in this forum?
Actually I think it works the other way around. Have you met Fede? :eek:
The phrases were demonstrative of the issue in this thread which was using loaded phrases that demeaned their target. I suspect you posted before I edited my post to remove most of the attributions since I realized (as I brushed my teeth) that my goal of setting a better tone would be undermined by calling out names in front of the class.
I did in fact read your entire post as well as study the thread for half an hour before making my response despite not rationally having the time to do so. I wag my finger because I care. :crazy:
//edit: Seriously though, I had no thought of your gender before you brought it up; I don't assume anything from usernames nor do I care. You've got the wrong Buddhist
Just to throw in my 2 cents, I've been a member here for quite a while (though not so active as of late) and I've never seen anything remotely suggesting sexism on the part of the administration here.
Please, let's all do a little better about not projecting motives on one another here. It's one thing to believe the quotes were a misrepresentation, but let's please let's take each other for our stated intents.
"Can we agree all on one thing here? That regardless of how we practice and understand things, there isnt a single one of us, me included, who isnt completely hypocritical when say someone else is being absolutist. There isnt a single(f-ing) person here who doesnt think they are right, dress it how you like. So lets just start from there. Not one of us."
...is not right speech. (Apart from the fact that it does appear in another post without censure), If this posting is so grievious as to be flagged. and that I should be flagged, considering nasty business it was responding to. I am happy to self delete, (if I can figure out how to do it).
... there isnt a single one of us, me included, who isnt completely hypocritical when say someone else is being absolutist.
this is a major insight into humans and reality IMO.
virtually all human beings are hypocrites, and that is as it should be because our intentions characteristically aim above our behavior.
as in keeping with how we're made, frankly. ...and there should be no pejorative associated with this view IMO.
as humans, we love to throw the term 'hypocrite' against each other, but when we throw a little empathy into the situation, we should be able to see a fellow human who is suffering and aiming for better understanding / action in the face of that suffering. and that insight has the potential to connect us to any number of humans whose view of reality has previously appeared offensive / grotesque.
It was from The Buddha From Brooklyn, which I collected from the library during lunch. Should be a fun read.
Gossip is such an ugly word, though. I prefer the term "biographical data."
I would strongly suggest you check out what the Buddha had to say about gossip and why you shouldn't practice it. It actually doesn't matter whether it's "true" or not. It's the malicious intent that is the problem. I would also point out that it is against the rules of this board to disparage another person's teacher. 'Nuf said?
I'm sorry if I have devotion to my teacher. It's the Vajrayana way, after all. There is no doubt in my mind that she is enlightened, just as her teachers, His Holiness Penor Rinpoche, His Holiness Karma Kuchen Rinpoche, Gyaltrul Rinpoche, are also. I've seen and experienced too much to think otherwise. Of course, you all haven't had the same experience so of course you wouldn't necessarily share that view. I understand that. But to repeat something His Holiness Penor Rinpoche once said, I call 'em like I see 'em. If I upset anyone because of that, I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.
I would like you all to keep in mind though that the main mental characteristic of the human realm is doubt. It's the main thing that keeps us from recognizing our true natures. I firmly believe that in order to attain liberation you have to at some point simply surrender. That's something that, I understand, is extremely difficult for Westerners in general to do. Me too. It's not at all easy. I fight it at every turn. But it's necessary. Liberation and ego-clinging are not something you can do together. It's either one or the other. It's like it says down there in my signature block, we all want to awaken but we don't want to stop dreaming.
And I do sympathize with people like yourself, Tokyo Rose, who are not able to study with a teacher because of whatever reason. I know it's difficult, and all I can say is don't feel badly because of it. You just do the best you can. It's all any of us can do. We all have obstacles to our practice, and part of that practice is learning to live with those obstacles.
BTW, did I ever tell you I met the real Tokyo Rose (or one of them, there were several) in Chicago years ago? She ran a nice Japanese store that I used to frequent when I lived there. Very nice lady actually.
"Can we agree all on one thing here? That regardless of how we practice and understand things, there isnt a single one of us, me included, who isnt completely hypocritical when say someone else is being absolutist. There isnt a single(f-ing) person here who doesnt think they are right, dress it how you like. So lets just start from there. Not one of us."
I agree with you. Let me throw in my two cents:
Feeling offended when someone criticizes our view is suffering, and its contaminating this thread (1st NT)
What is the cause of suffering? (2nd NT) (you guys might help me out here ) We see what we want to see, we perceive what we think is there. There are so many people committed, absolutely sure that they are on the right path, that they will not admit different opinions. Why? In my opinion people want to be right, correct, there is a certain satisfaction is saying "I am right". Some other people defend their view because they might think "hey, this person is giving other people the wrong idea, I should correct him". Is it because people cling too much to the finger pointing to the moon? Wouldn't the Dharma make sense only when it is used to dimish suffering? If Dharma becomes a battleground, it is not Dharma anymore. The root of the suffering here might just be craving: to be right, to hold the right opinion. The craving comes out in the form of harsh speech and you might say idle chatter (the whole "I am right, you are wrong" thing).
This suffering can end, it can even become something good, as long as we take the right course of action from this point on (3rd NT)
What should we do to end the suffering here? (4 NT) I think the important thing is the Right View, reading this thread in the scope of Dharma.
[Feel free to point my mistakes here, I would like your opinions]
Who isnt a giant pit of "I personally" and "Subjectivity" Do we have a candidate? :rarr:
aaki Come here. Let me hug you and eat your ego!
Yes, every existing authentic buddhist lineage. They are based on inducing realization generation to generation. This is the main function and part of the definition of what it means to be a lineage, which are themselves the basis for buddhism in this world. When they die buddhism dies.
In the mean time, there are outsiders studying buddhism who get caught up in beginner level perceptual theory, namely the subjective aspect. They get solipsism sickness which leads to things like thinking 1) a person can validly understand anything to mean anything 2) each person's thoughts are of equal validity 3) solipsism sickness is a truth which applies to everyone and thus to criticize it is to be immoral, ego driven, and disrespectful.
The antidote is actually getting a buddhist education so that one clearly understands how subjects are dependent on objects, and that instead of most people's ideas being valid, they are in fact invalid cognitions.
... but ALL of his teachings are just concepts to US until WE experience them directly.
Saying that might carry some merit. It's better than saying "Rebirth is still a concept. So we shouldn't present it as truth or fact."
The idea that it is common for teachers to deny rebirth or that is it ok to do so, the idea about translation and interpretation of sutra, the idea of what Buddha defined his own speech as being, etc are typcial of a non-buddhist devoid of any applicable knowledge.
The idea isn't that one cannot seriously doubt or ask questions, the problem is that one can't start saying what is or is not when they by definition don't know. Apart from that, I admire what you say your motivation is (ie. unbias and willing to thoroughly analyze reasonings) but since I can't validate it I will continue to not regard you on a personal level since it seems pointless to do so over an internet forum.
ps. since in the sutra retaking birth is talked of within the context of death being "their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body" etc are you even slightly willing to acknowledge it as an example of rebirth as a matter of fact in the sutras? Or do you not trust accesstoinsight as a valid source, or..?
Even the suttas themselves can be interpreted in any number of ways - and ALL understandings are interpretation and therefore "speculation-ville." We are all unenlightened and therefore even words straight from the Buddha's mouth have to be processed and interpeted through the filter of our unenlightened minds. Only an enlightened being is free from speculation-ville.
I saw this quote and had to add it. This assertion is a complete fantasy and is contradicted by Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Mind-Only and Middle-Way. In other words, everybody.
I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion has claimed that you couldn't benefit from Buddhism without a belief in rebirth. So while you may feel this is the real issue (according to you),
If you read the first post, the OP was attracted to Buddhism. But the ideas of literal Kamma/rebirth were a bit of a road block. This is common. Therefore, that is ultimately the question... it was the point of this Thread. If you read his other posts, he says he's willing to consider it, just not blindly accept it as truth.
If you don't think that is truly the important question here, then let me know what is. Arguing endlessly over whose interpretation of the suttas is correct?
Now, you may feel this is inconsequential for you and others, and it may well be (at very least for now). But there are many dedicated practitioners far along in the path that would disagree with you as to the central nature of the doctrine of rebirth and karma in Buddhism. So when you say
I'm aware of that. But there are many dedicated practitioners far along in the path that would disagree with you, as well, that the literal interpretations are correct and central to the doctrine. So we are back to the question: "Is belief in literal rebirth necessary to Buddhism?"
The sutras themselves explain the context of the teachings and say that he had direct knowledge of these things, so I'm not sure how much you can interpret that away. So, based on your own statement that unenlightened folks are in speculation-ville, i'm not sure why you're defending any conjectures beyond what the sutras themselves state.
*I* am not the one who interpreted things that way. There are MANY more advanced practitioners who have, and who have deeply studied the suttas and original Pali. I have seen many sides to this argument, including yours and aaki's (and even once held this view) and thus my stance on the literal rebirth issue is agnostic at this point, and so I let the OP know that it's ok if his is too. The debate over whether the Buddha taught literal rebirth or if it was central to his teachings is endless and, I feel, pointless. I was not trying to argue that and push my beliefs, but simply explain to the OP that there isn't just one view on this subject and he should come in with an open mind and decide whether or not this subject is relevant to his path.
I said in another post in this Thread: "That's why I said to simply refer to and study the suttas, and most importantly, practice meditation to come to direct and experiential understandings, rather than listen to ANY "Buddha Dhamma hearsay," including mine."
People have been making statements that the Buddha did not mean what he said, etc.
That entire link is relevant to this Thread but in regards to "the Buddha did not mean what he said," there's an interesting post (#28):
Rebirth is a View, as is no Rebirth. The Buddha taught us to abandon views
Now he actually tells us why he teaches it (on occasion)
MN 68
"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height 2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt
He teaches it because there are
"faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
So it promotes morality and wholesome mindstates that help people
Are you referring to bhavana (becoming), jati (birth) or something else? I guess I'm unaware of this issue. Do you have any more info or links on this subject? Translations from pali to english have come a long, long way over the past 100 years.
Translations have not come a long way. "All your base are belong to us" - and that was one modern language to another. Translations are ALWAYS based on personal bias and interpretation (absolutely direct, word-for-word translations are useless), just as reading is. It's unavoidable. If the words inherently convey the Dhamma then why are we not all the same page and Enlightened simply through reading them? Again, my first post provides a couple links to a huge debate on the issue. Simon also posted this a while ago: http://www.tricycle.com/feature/3857-1.html - and there are plenty of Threads in this forum as well on the topic.
aaki,
Quote:
Even the suttas themselves can be interpreted in any number of ways - and ALL understandings are interpretation and therefore "speculation-ville." We are all unenlightened and therefore even words straight from the Buddha's mouth have to be processed and interpeted through the filter of our unenlightened minds. Only an enlightened being is free from speculation-ville.
I saw this quote and had to add it. This assertion is a complete fantasy and is contradicted by Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Mind-Only and Middle-Way. In other words, everybody.
Ok, aaki. You're right. You know the Truth, and only we are in speculation-ville. I apologize.
ps. since in the sutra retaking birth is talked of within the context of death being "their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body" etc are you even slightly willing to acknowledge it as an example of rebirth as a matter of fact in the sutras?
Quote me once as saying that literal rebirth never comes up in the suttas. Go ahead.
In regards to the sutta you referenced, I see how it can refer to both usages of "rebirth." After checking with someone else, there are creative liberties taken with this translation, and when you look back at the Pali, it can definitely be interpretted either way (transmitigation/samsara for example). For me, I find more use in the non-literal interpretation. If you find more use in the literal one, ok. I'm not here to argue your interpretation of words, aaki.
In the mean time, there are outsiders studying buddhism who get caught up in beginner level perceptual theory, namely the subjective aspect. They get solipsism sickness which leads to things like thinking 1) a person can validly understand anything to mean anything 2) each person's thoughts are of equal validity 3) solipsism sickness is a truth which applies to everyone and thus to criticize it is to be immoral, ego driven, and disrespectful.
My old views were the same as yours, and I blindly accepted from hearsay that literal rebirth is part of and necessary to Buddhism, and I had blind faith in it. After speaking to numerous others who are quite advanced, and then going to the suttas myself, through my own practice, I've decided that there's a much more important context in which the Kamma/rebirth concepts play a role in Buddhism, for me. But I am open to the possibility that it extends beyond this as well. Every school, every teacher within a school, will not teach precisely the same thing, even when it comes to this. And again, believe it or not, there ARE lineage-holding teachers who hold the same view. This does not detract from what your teachers say, or from your path, and vice versa - do what works for you, and let others do what is working for them. Maybe we'll cross paths someday.
One minute we are saying, (and I am guilty of this, too), that we should question everything, just like the Buddha told us to.
(Lets face it, this examination would have to happen right here in this exact, present moment),
and the very next moment, we are puffing up our chests, and saying, “This is what the Buddha said,” or “This is what our tradition has said,” and therefore we shouldn’t be so arrogant as to question it.
Please explain, which is it? Should we be passive, and gullible, and swallow everything whole? Or should we question everything? Or should we only question some things, and not other things.
I think too that we must remember that, the Buddha never wrote one single word. So everything that has come down to us from him is already translation through another person’s mind, and when read this, we further translate it and embellish it with our own opinions.
It is my opinion that, our only real hope, this far from the source, Buddha, is to look at exactly what he looked at, directly, and in this way, try to decipher what he must have meant.
Thinking that when we look at the sutra, that we all see the same thing in those words, is basically a form of fundamentalism, meaning that the words aren’t open to personal translation.
Very often the masters spoke on multiple levels at the same time, and this way they were able to reach out to their whole audience, which obviously were not all on the same page, any more than we are here, today.
So when he said reincarnation, it is very possible that on one level, that he was simply using a metaphor.
Let us remember, too, the story of how the Buddha one day held out a rose, and only one man in the audience was able to come forward and take that rose from his hand.
I think one big problem with opinions, and wanting/needing to be right, is that we wrongfully identify with these opinions as being our very self, and defend them as though we our selves were being attack.
If we could hold these opinions far more loosely, using them and discarding them more easily, reasonably understanding that they are merely tools, and not an end in themselves, than there would be a lot less blood in the streets. Yes, even fewer wars.
The idea that it is common for teachers to deny rebirth or that is it ok to do so, the idea about translation and interpretation of sutra, the idea of what Buddha defined his own speech as being, etc are typcial of a non-buddhist devoid of any applicable knowledge.
Isn't this is just a round-about way of stating, "You're not a real Buddhist and you don't know what you're talking about?"
The idea isn't that one cannot seriously doubt or ask questions, the problem is that one can't start saying what is or is not when they by definition don't know.
That goes both ways, doesn't it? On the matter of death and rebirth, you can't possibly know for certain until you see for yourself. Unless you have lucid memory of all your past lives--or are, in fact, dead--then you have no more authority on the matter than anybody else. Your only evidence is hearsay. Granted, the alleged source(s) may be imminently respectable, but it is, nevertheless, still hearsay. "One can't start saying what is or is not when they by definition don't know."
ps. since in the sutra retaking birth is talked of within the context of death being "their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body" etc are you even slightly willing to acknowledge it as an example of rebirth as a matter of fact in the sutras? Or do you not trust accesstoinsight as a valid source, or..?
The question, for me, is not what is written in the sutras. What is written is what is written. Just because something is written, however, does not make it fact.
Buddha was not a Buddhist, in the same way Christ was not a Christian. Buddha's foundation was in Hinduism. This is the context he had to work with. When you find clay, you don't attempt to paint with it. You make a pot. Nobody would have accepted his teachings, or even understood them, had he not presented them with cultural context.
The spirit of his teachings was not to become attached to beliefs, but to transcend belief and escape the Wheel of Life altogether. Whether you take his teachings on reincarnation literally or metaphorically, the end result is exactly the same. It makes not one ounce of difference.
Belief is only a vessel for crossing rivers of doubt and uncertainty. Once you have landed upon the far shore, you don't carry the vessel on your back. You leave it behind.
Of course there are many profound levels to the Buddha's teachings and I'm not saying there is no value to contemplating teachings on rebirth and karma beyond just a literal interpretation, but the Sutras themselves state explicitly that rebirth is not just a metaphorical teaching, even if one can use apply the teaching in a metaphorical way, and that it happens between multiple lives (not just moment-to-moment rebirth).
Now, i'm not saying Buddhists have to believe this to make progress on the path, or even that the teaching is necessarily true. I'm simply asserting that this is what the sutras themselves state. If you actually look at the sutras that specifically teach us about rebirth, etc, they are constructed in a very deliberate way and Buddhist adepts from generation to generation have confirmed these interpretations through their practice.
I'd like to re-iterate that I have no problem with practitioners taking an agnostic standpoint on these issues or even ultimately rejecting them as incorrect on some level, but the teachings themselves are quite explicit on these matters and these teachings are no small part of Buddhism.
Buddha was not a Buddhist, in the same way Christ was not a Christian. Buddha's foundation was in Hinduism. This is the context he had to work with. When you find clay, you don't attempt to paint with it. You make a pot. Nobody would have accepted his teachings, or even understood them, had he not presented them with cultural context.
This is something that I guess I have to take issue with. If you read the scriptures, there is no suggestion that the Buddha was merely putting his teaching in cultural context. Now, you could perhaps argue that the sutras were fabricated or do not constitute actual evidence of rebirth, but to say they are just an appeal to Hindus seems to disregard the way rebirth is presented in the sutras.
stuka used to make a pretty good case that the Buddha was exploiting cultural context when he referred to the life-to-life rebirth cosmology, and he based this on the sutras. But he was banned a while back, so I guess he's not going to speak up here.
If you read the scriptures, there is no suggestion that the Buddha was merely putting his teaching in cultural context.
Nor would there be. Still, I would not presume to know what was on Buddha's mind when he gave his sermons. My only point is that this was the culture and theology Buddha had to work with. It is only logical that his teachings would emerge from this frame of reference.
Now, you could perhaps argue that the sutras were fabricated or do not constitute actual evidence of rebirth,
I have no cause to suggest the sutras were fabricated. The fact that they do not constitute "actual evidence," however, should be perfectly clear. They are still hearsay. I say this not to discredit them, by any means, simply to assert that they should be taken as they are, not how we imagine or want them to be.
Scriptures are still only words, written by fallible humans. I adore the sutras I have read and studied, and am grateful for them. I do not worship them, or accept them on blind faith. If what I read agrees with my experience and sense of reason, I accept them. If it doesn't, I file it in my "maybe--we'll see" drawer and move on.
The worst reason to believe anything is because somebody insists it is true. In my experience, the more urgently one demands his words are true, the more distrustful you should be of his intentions. Where belief is peddled as fact, there is always an agenda.
This is something that I guess I have to take issue with. If you read the scriptures, there is no suggestion that the Buddha was merely putting his teaching in cultural context.
This is all -debated-. I provided links in my first post and my last one, as you requested, if you are interested in seeing the other side of this. I even provided a quote from an old post here that DOES suggest this:
Rebirth is a View, as is no Rebirth. The Buddha taught us to abandon views
Now he actually tells us why he teaches it (on occasion)
MN 68
"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height 2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt
He teaches it because there are
"faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"
So it promotes morality and wholesome mindstates that help people
But NONE of this matters. We can all interpret what the suttas say on this matter in any way, and yes, it's ALL interpretation, including yours and aaki's, including the commonly held view within Buddhism. You don't have to agree me on what the suttas really say. And I don't have to agree with you. In the end, whether we believe in rebirth, don't believe in rebirth, or choose to remain agnostic, it doesn't matter. Can we agree on this?
The entryways into the Dharma (including here anything that reaches Nibbana, whether spoke by the Buddha or not) should probably be many. I don't see myself dropping literal rebirth as a belief, but I see people in this forums hadling their everyday problems, debating what is ethical behavior and and attaining some amount of happiness in this world drenched in suffering through what they call buddhism, with or without belief in rebirth. As far as I am concerned their beliefs are as valid as anybody else's, we just have to accept we are a quite heterogenous group of people and our ideas are gonna differ at some point.
stuka used to make a pretty good case that the Buddha was exploiting cultural context when he referred to the life-to-life rebirth cosmology, and he based this on the sutras. But he was banned a while back, so I guess he's not going to speak up here.
Anything's possible. I guess that just seems a bit deceptive and unethical and I have a hard time meshing that with everything else. And the Buddha made rebirth pretty central to some key teachings, so I have a hard time seeing that he did not claim actual knowledge of rebirth. Now, I don't recall seeing stuka's arguments, so I'd have to see how he/she framed the argument, but it just seems a bit unlikely to me. Perhaps my glasses are a little rosey, but I just haven't seen enough evidence to suggest any sort of misrepresentation on the part of the Buddha or the sutras in regard to these teaching to feel that way.
Nor would there be. Still, I would not presume to know what was on Buddha's mind when he gave his sermons. My only point is that this was the culture and theology Buddha had to work with. It is only logical that his teachings would emerge from this frame of reference.I have no cause to suggest the sutras were fabricated. The fact that they do not constitute "actual evidence," however, should be perfectly clear. They are still hearsay. I say this not to discredit them, by any means, simply to assert that they should be taken as they are, not how we imagine or want them to be.
Scriptures are still only words, written by fallible humans. I adore the sutras I have read and studied, and am grateful for them. I do not worship them, or accept them on blind faith. If what I read agrees with my experience and sense of reason, I accept them. If it doesn't, I file it in my "maybe--we'll see" drawer and move on.
The worst reason to believe anything is because somebody insists it is true. In my experience, the more urgently one demands his words are true, the more distrustful you should be of his intentions. Where belief is peddled as fact, there is always an agenda.
Fair enough, thanks for your response.
I guess for me, I'm not so much arguing that the teachings are true, but rather that the sutras are not as vague as to how literal they are to be regarded as some people appear to suggest. In other words, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the teachings, they're not as open to interpretation as some people are arguing.
Well, I did look at the thurman-batchelor link, but I only read what you quoted from to the buddha mind thread. I didn't actually go there.
Then why would you keep arguing without taking a look first? The links are actually exactly what Fivebells was refering to, with posts by many other extremely knowledgable people. Until you've read it, it's not fair to say things like this:
Anything's possible. I guess that just seems a bit deceptive and unethical and I have a hard time meshing that with everything else. And the Buddha made rebirth pretty central to some key teachings, so I have a hard time seeing that he did not claim actual knowledge of rebirth. Now, I don't recall seeing stuka's arguments, so I'd have to see how he/she framed the argument, but it just seems a bit unlikely to me. Perhaps my glasses are a little rosey, but I just haven't seen enough evidence to suggest any sort of misrepresentation on the part of the Buddha or the sutras in regard to these teaching to feel that way.
I mean, sure, you can say it seems unlikely and that these people are probably just deceptive and unethical, and there's no reasonable way that people could hold these views. But you have access now to the discussions, so why not at least see for yourself first, rather than speculating?
(I said that there are also two links in my first post, as well. So you have three links to the discussions Fivebells is talking about)
I think that this is one of those issues that goes around and around, like the Ouroborus. This issue certainly has the earmarks of an issue within finite mind, being so circular, and in the end leaving us empty handed.
I personally believe, time being a limited quantity, that if you spend a lot of time thinking about past lives, you are not going to be about the business of ‘Waking Up,” once and for all. Am I missing something here?
Quote me once as saying that literal rebirth never comes up in the suttas. Go ahead.
Since the literal meaning of the words refer to rebirth, if you claim that they must be reinterpretted, you are asserting the denial of the validity of the literal meaning which is rebirth. You are saying rebirth is not taught anywhere in the sutras.
There's nothing that can be said in brief to your entire line of reasoning except that it's a joke. Obviously we are in need of a good pali scholar to write up a thorough online article to spearhead this entire category of lunacy that will undoubtedly spread in the future.. somehow almost universally among people who share the characteristic of almost total lack of knowledge of buddhism.
Please explain, which is it? Should we be passive, and gullible, and swallow everything whole? Or should we question everything? Or should we only question some things, and not other things.
We should be very critical in examining. The topic of investigation however should be buddhism, not fantasy, such as is for example mundus' assertion that because a poor translation of something exists therefore an accurate translation of the sutras could never exist (he says this within a total absence of knowledge on the topic he is commenting about mind you).
The lineages are a step-by-step succession of realized persons maintaining what the disciples around the time of the buddha understood. We are talking about Arhats, Aryas, etc. Which is more gullible? Accepting what an online person's personal reading of the sutras mean? Or accepting what the lineages have maintained since around the time of the buddha, based on your own understanding of how the lineages were formed, who formed them, etc? If a person can learn some history and gather some insight into the qualities of the sangha then the 2nd choice seems slightly better.
Since the literal meaning of the words refer to rebirth, if you claim that they must be reinterpretted, you are asserting the denial of the validity of the literal meaning which is rebirth. You are saying rebirth is not taught anywhere in the sutras.
No, aaki, I am not. You are putting words in my mouth. Reread the things I've said, please.
Literal rebirth OBVIOUSLY comes up in the suttas. Whether this was merely a teaching tool, or meant absolutely literally, or metaphorically, is what is being debated. There are also instances in the suttas where it SEEMS that it is refering to literal rebirth, but it might not be. I'm not saying one way or the other. Everyone can look for themselves. If you feel it's all entirely literal, and that works for you, then it's true for you. And if others feel it isn't, and it works for them, then it's true for them.
"I saw a quote from a Nichiren fellow, which I have now misplaced, who said to the effect, "The Buddha's teachings are universal, applicable to everyone, relevant to everyone, in any time, place or culture. If it doesn't make sense and isn't relevant for everyone, everywhere, in any time and any culture, it isn't the Buddhadhamma." "
There's nothing that can be said in brief to your entire line of reasoning except that it's a joke.
(he says this within a total absence of knowledge on the topic he is commenting about mind you
that because a poor translation of something exists therefore an accurate translation of the sutras could never exist
Stop putting words in my mouth, please. There are a million translations, all from the original Pali. That means, the original suttas can be interpreted in many ways. But you continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Ultimately, the Truth will only be understood and revealed through meditation, upon awakening. The point is, whether one believes in rebirth or not is entirely irrelevent to the end goal. Maybe you're right, and rebirth is true. It doesn't matter.
Obviously we are in need of a good pali scholar to write up a thorough online article to spearhead this entire category of lunacy that will undoubtedly spread in the future.. somehow almost universally among people who share the characteristic of almost total lack of knowledge of buddhism.
Read the links, and stop personally insulting me and my beliefs, along with everyone else who doesn't agree with you. You'll find in these links the suttas dissected by those knowledgable in the Pali language. Accept our differences and move along.
The lineages are a step-by-step succession of realized persons maintaining what the disciples around the time of the buddha understood.
Perhaps this is taught in your lineage, but not in everyone's. Why do you think there are so many different lineages? Because it's all been interpreted in so many different ways. If you cannot acknowledge this, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Quit banging so loudly. I didn't attack you for me not reading your link and I was simply being honest about the fact that I hadn't. If I wanted to be unfair or disingenuous I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I'd read what you posted/quoted, but I did not have any real reason to go reread another thread at that point. I figured that what you quoted was sufficient to get across what you wanted to get across and I did not feel like reading another thread from start to finish. Also, I did not know it contained the whole stuka argument. I'm kind of busy today and I will be able to respond more fully tonight if other things don't come up.
You overstate your case for multiple interpretation by a great deal. Also, your tone indicates that you may be taking this personally and you seem upset. I assure you, I am not attacking you as a person or as a Buddhist.
The lineages are a step-by-step succession of realized persons maintaining what the disciples around the time of the buddha understood. We are talking about Arhats, Aryas, etc. Which is more gullible? Accepting what an online person's personal reading of the sutras mean? Or accepting what the lineages have maintained since around the time of the buddha, based on your own understanding of how the lineages were formed, who formed them, etc? If a person can learn some history and gather some insight into the qualities of the sangha then the 2nd choice seems slightly better.
If we're going to follow -- blindly so, might I say -- a belief system on the basis of tradition and a long lineage, we might as well just do it with Christianity. After all, the upholders of its traditions went to such great lengths as genocide to ensure the "right" understanding was conveyed to the "ignorant masses" -- so it must be more true than weak-wristed Buddhism could ever be!
Also, your tone indicates that you may be taking this personally and you seem upset.
There is no tone other than what others project into my words when they read them. Can't help that online. My posts there are directed at aaki, not you. I am admittedly a little tired of her referring to me as if I'm not here and making rude comments about my beliefs, yes. It's frustrating to have words put in your mouth over and over again, and be personally insulted repeatedly. I was hoping we could accept that there're differences in understandings that are all equally valid and coexist peacefully.
I appreciate that you'll take the time to read the links - I wasn't mad that you didn't, I was laughing about that whole situation. I apologize if you read my post to you that way, it wasn't intended.
I guess for me, I'm not so much arguing that the teachings are true, but rather that the sutras are not as vague as to how literal they are to be regarded as some people appear to suggest. In other words, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the teachings, they're not as open to interpretation as some people are arguing.
Hmm. I guess I can live with that. I would suggest, however, that strictly speaking, everything we perceive is open to interpretation. I get your point, though.
Comments
Which must we then conclude? That Buddha asserts rebirth to be a concept? Or that Buddha asserts rebirth to be all the various things that his usage of the word refer to?
A good article: Do You Believe in Rebirth?
I'm not sure what you mean by "do they talk about a person's fleeting imagination"?
Neither, in my opinion. I said until I know it directly it is nothing more than a concept to me. I see the importance of the concept of rebirth within the context of DO directly. I personally do not see the importance of the concept of literal rebirth on my path in Buddhism. I do not deny that it's possible the usage of rebirth here refers to something beyond my own understanding thus far (i.e. extends to literal rebirth). I personally haven't seen anything so far in the suttas where he is teaching literal rebirth. I have seen him use the concept to teach, yes. In my opinion these two things are different.
The entire issue here is that people argue what all his usage of the word refers to.
"It takes most people a long time to get used to the idea of rebirth."
That's not the case here. I actually used to believe in it, wholeheartedly. My position on what happens after death became an agnostic one, as I realized my belief was just blind faith, and ultimately unimportant to the heart of the Dhamma.
You seem to want to convince me, very badly, that literal rebirth is true and essential to Buddhism. I'm still open to seeing the proof you have.
The entryways into the Dharma (including here anything that reaches Nibbana, whether spoke by the Buddha or not) should probably be many. I don't see myself dropping literal rebirth as a belief, but I see people in this forums hadling their everyday problems, debating what is ethical behavior and and attaining some amount of happiness in this world drenched in suffering through what they call buddhism, with or without belief in rebirth. As far as I am concerned their beliefs are as valid as anybody else's, we just have to accept we are a quite heterogenous group of people and our ideas are gonna differ at some point.
An old member of this site recently posted this on another forum:
What you said it true and made me think of that quote.
Straight from accesstoinsight
Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View
*****
The aging of beings in the various orders of beings, their old age, brokenness of teeth, grayness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of life, weakness of faculties — this is called aging. The passing of beings out of the various orders of beings, their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body — this is called death. So this aging and this death are what is called aging and death. With the arising of birth there is the arising of aging and death. With the cessation of birth there is the cessation of aging and death.
When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
And what is birth, what is the origin of birth, what is the cessation of birth, what is the way leading to the cessation of birth? The birth of beings into the various orders of beings, their coming to birth, precipitation [in a womb], generation, manifestation of the aggregates, obtaining the bases for contact — this is called birth. With the arising of being there is the arising of birth. With the cessation of being there is the cessation of birth. The way leading to the cessation of birth is just this Noble Eightfold Path
*****
The topic btw is not the matter of trying to change your personal view of rebirth. The topic is the idea that Buddha holds rebirth to be a concept and should not be treated as truth, which is what you said.
(small note: "you personally" not understanding something does not negate the authentic lineages who extend back to the Buddha and who all assert rebirth. It's pretty arrogant to sort of demand proofs from them. It would be like - I don't know.. a highschool kid who hasn't even heard of calculus bursting into a room of uni professors with some sort of totally rookie question)
Edit -
I didn't say the Buddha holds it to be a concept. The Buddha was beyond views, philosophies, concepts, ideas... but ALL of his teachings are just concepts to US until WE experience them directly.
I, and others, are just not so sure he taught it as truth and relevant to the Dhamma at all. I have already refered to sites that give a good idea why this is, with reasoning you can see for yourself. The suttas are the closest thing we have to his words, but even they were not written by the Buddha himself. What we have are also translations and interpretations, unless you speak Pali. The real question is: do you need to believe in rebirth to benefit from the Dhamma? Is the belief essential to Buddhism? Or should we tell the OP that he can't practice Buddhism? You are not reading what I said, at all.
aaki Come here. Let me hug you and eat your ego!
This debate is getting a bit out of hand. We know what the scriptures presented, because we have translations. We can conjecture till we're all blue in the face about whether or not the Buddha was just using the metaphors and superstitions of the time, but until evidence of this is presented, all we have is the scriptures and what the living traditions tell us. Beyond that, we're in speculation-ville.
So, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that the position of Buddhism is that the Buddha knew of these things through direct perception rather than playing to the superstitions of the locals. 2 out of the 3 knowledges of the Buddha are specifically related to supramundane vision of reincarnation and the one of the critical teachings of Buddhism, dependent co-arising, is dependent upon this vision. At least that is what the Sutras and the Sangha tell us, which also happen to be 2 of the 3 jewels we take refuge in. The triple jewel is honored across all schools of Buddhism.
So, don't be surprised when you meet resistance from people who have studied the sutras in depth and who have joined the Sangha. And while we are all going to hold our own personal suspicions and conjectures as to what the truth of these matters are, the sutras say what they say. They may or may not be true, final and fully accurate descriptions of reality, but they are what the sutras consistently tell us.
Also, to those who cite the kalama sutta in every single thread, while the Buddha most certainly taught to not accept teachings based on things such as a teacher's reputation, speculation, etc, but rather by direct investigation, that does not in any way mean that the teachings are wrong or that we should regard them as mere relics of past superstitions. Additionally, I would suggest reading this commentary on the kalama sutta by Bhikkhu Bodhi:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
Now, I understand the value of skepticism, and perhaps that's why I really haven't fully entered into the path. But the teachings are what they are and until I have direct knowledge of the claims of Buddhism I'm not going to speculate. I just don't see the point. Either the practice will bear out the teachings or it won't.
Anyway, what is the actual argument at this point?
Any words can be read in any number of ways. "I love you" can be taken as an "up yours" in the right context. Even the suttas themselves can be interpreted in any number of ways - and ALL understandings are interpretation and therefore "speculation-ville." We are all unenlightened and therefore even words straight from the Buddha's mouth have to be processed and interpeted through the filter of our unenlightened minds. Only an enlightened being is free from speculation-ville.
Yes, the original ones do. Translations are imperfect, and that is why we have so many. The fact is that there are times where the Pali word for "birth" has been translated as "rebirth." Things like this happen all the time. The word rebirth also has numerous meanings. Another fact is that there are living traditions, lineage-holding teachers, who agree with this view. This view does not deny rebirth (nor does it affirm it). It simply holds that it is unimportant to the Dhamma.
No one said that it means they're wrong.
In my opinion, "the real question is: do you need to believe in rebirth to benefit from the Dhamma? Is the belief essential to Buddhism?"
NamelessRiver's post truly summed things up nicely:
And thus we can all coexist peacefully, ya?
<!-- / message -->
I don't think anyone on either side of this discussion has claimed that you couldn't benefit from Buddhism without a belief in rebirth. So while you may feel this is the real issue (according to you), I am simply discussing the way that Buddhism presents itself. People have been making statements that the Buddha did not mean what he said, etc. There really just isn't any evidence for this. And the information we DO have contradicts this idea.
Now, you may feel this is inconsequential for you and others, and it may well be (at very least for now). But there are many dedicated practitioners far along in the path that would disagree with you as to the central nature of the doctrine of rebirth and karma in Buddhism. So when you say:
I'd like you to let us know who those are. I am aware of a few Zen offshoots like Brad Warner who feel this way, but that's about it. Got any more info on what schools of Buddhism regard the doctrines of karma and reincarnations as inconsequential?
The sutras themselves explain the context of the teachings and say that he had direct knowledge of these things, so I'm not sure how much you can interpret that away. So, based on your own statement that unenlightened folks are in speculation-ville, i'm not sure why you're defending any conjectures beyond what the sutras themselves state.
Are you referring to bhavana (becoming), jati (birth) or something else? I guess I'm unaware of this issue. Do you have any more info or links on this subject? Translations from pali to english have come a long, long way over the past 100 years.
We treat this site like it's our living room, and we expect you to speak to each other as if you are guests in it, sharing tea. Raising your voice and making digs at each other is unwelcome.
You're right, he's not a moderator. He is, however, an informal staff member and he's been here four years. You've been here, what? Four weeks? Please, take issue with statements he makes, but don't think for a moment it is your place to put him in his place. :skeptical
I'm not suggesting you kowtow to his suggestions for topic; I'm requesting greater courtesy and greater patience until you know each other better. :cool:
I rarely care who's right and who's wrong on NewBuddhist. I care about who's building relationships and who's tearing them down. Don't sacrifice that to make a point.
That said, there is also some good conversation mixed in here. I just want to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.
The phrases were demonstrative of the issue in this thread which was using loaded phrases that demeaned their target. I suspect you posted before I edited my post to remove most of the attributions since I realized (as I brushed my teeth) that my goal of setting a better tone would be undermined by calling out names in front of the class.
I did in fact read your entire post as well as study the thread for half an hour before making my response despite not rationally having the time to do so.
//edit: Seriously though, I had no thought of your gender before you brought it up; I don't assume anything from usernames nor do I care. You've got the wrong Buddhist
Please, let's all do a little better about not projecting motives on one another here. It's one thing to believe the quotes were a misrepresentation, but let's please let's take each other for our stated intents.
I apologize if it seems I misjudged you.
Namaste.
~AD
"Can we agree all on one thing here? That regardless of how we practice and understand things, there isnt a single one of us, me included, who isnt completely hypocritical when say someone else is being absolutist. There isnt a single(f-ing) person here who doesnt think they are right, dress it how you like. So lets just start from there. Not one of us."
...is not right speech. (Apart from the fact that it does appear in another post without censure), If this posting is so grievious as to be flagged. and that I should be flagged, considering nasty business it was responding to. I am happy to self delete, (if I can figure out how to do it).
virtually all human beings are hypocrites, and that is as it should be because our intentions characteristically aim above our behavior.
as in keeping with how we're made, frankly. ...and there should be no pejorative associated with this view IMO.
as humans, we love to throw the term 'hypocrite' against each other, but when we throw a little empathy into the situation, we should be able to see a fellow human who is suffering and aiming for better understanding / action in the face of that suffering. and that insight has the potential to connect us to any number of humans whose view of reality has previously appeared offensive / grotesque.
I would strongly suggest you check out what the Buddha had to say about gossip and why you shouldn't practice it. It actually doesn't matter whether it's "true" or not. It's the malicious intent that is the problem. I would also point out that it is against the rules of this board to disparage another person's teacher. 'Nuf said?
I'm sorry if I have devotion to my teacher. It's the Vajrayana way, after all. There is no doubt in my mind that she is enlightened, just as her teachers, His Holiness Penor Rinpoche, His Holiness Karma Kuchen Rinpoche, Gyaltrul Rinpoche, are also. I've seen and experienced too much to think otherwise. Of course, you all haven't had the same experience so of course you wouldn't necessarily share that view. I understand that. But to repeat something His Holiness Penor Rinpoche once said, I call 'em like I see 'em. If I upset anyone because of that, I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention.
I would like you all to keep in mind though that the main mental characteristic of the human realm is doubt. It's the main thing that keeps us from recognizing our true natures. I firmly believe that in order to attain liberation you have to at some point simply surrender. That's something that, I understand, is extremely difficult for Westerners in general to do. Me too. It's not at all easy. I fight it at every turn. But it's necessary. Liberation and ego-clinging are not something you can do together. It's either one or the other. It's like it says down there in my signature block, we all want to awaken but we don't want to stop dreaming.
And I do sympathize with people like yourself, Tokyo Rose, who are not able to study with a teacher because of whatever reason. I know it's difficult, and all I can say is don't feel badly because of it. You just do the best you can. It's all any of us can do. We all have obstacles to our practice, and part of that practice is learning to live with those obstacles.
BTW, did I ever tell you I met the real Tokyo Rose (or one of them, there were several) in Chicago years ago? She ran a nice Japanese store that I used to frequent when I lived there. Very nice lady actually.
Palzang
I agree with you. Let me throw in my two cents:
Feeling offended when someone criticizes our view is suffering, and its contaminating this thread (1st NT)
What is the cause of suffering? (2nd NT) (you guys might help me out here
This suffering can end, it can even become something good, as long as we take the right course of action from this point on (3rd NT)
What should we do to end the suffering here? (4 NT) I think the important thing is the Right View, reading this thread in the scope of Dharma.
[Feel free to point my mistakes here, I would like your opinions]
And thank you, RenGalskap and not1not2 (so nice to have you back here, I always love your posts).
Palzang
In the mean time, there are outsiders studying buddhism who get caught up in beginner level perceptual theory, namely the subjective aspect. They get solipsism sickness which leads to things like thinking 1) a person can validly understand anything to mean anything 2) each person's thoughts are of equal validity 3) solipsism sickness is a truth which applies to everyone and thus to criticize it is to be immoral, ego driven, and disrespectful.
The antidote is actually getting a buddhist education so that one clearly understands how subjects are dependent on objects, and that instead of most people's ideas being valid, they are in fact invalid cognitions.
Saying that might carry some merit. It's better than saying "Rebirth is still a concept. So we shouldn't present it as truth or fact."
The idea that it is common for teachers to deny rebirth or that is it ok to do so, the idea about translation and interpretation of sutra, the idea of what Buddha defined his own speech as being, etc are typcial of a non-buddhist devoid of any applicable knowledge.
The idea isn't that one cannot seriously doubt or ask questions, the problem is that one can't start saying what is or is not when they by definition don't know. Apart from that, I admire what you say your motivation is (ie. unbias and willing to thoroughly analyze reasonings) but since I can't validate it I will continue to not regard you on a personal level since it seems pointless to do so over an internet forum.
ps. since in the sutra retaking birth is talked of within the context of death being "their passing away, dissolution, disappearance, dying, completion of time, dissolution of the aggregates, laying down of the body" etc are you even slightly willing to acknowledge it as an example of rebirth as a matter of fact in the sutras? Or do you not trust accesstoinsight as a valid source, or..?
I saw this quote and had to add it. This assertion is a complete fantasy and is contradicted by Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Mind-Only and Middle-Way. In other words, everybody.
If you read the first post, the OP was attracted to Buddhism. But the ideas of literal Kamma/rebirth were a bit of a road block. This is common. Therefore, that is ultimately the question... it was the point of this Thread. If you read his other posts, he says he's willing to consider it, just not blindly accept it as truth.
If you don't think that is truly the important question here, then let me know what is. Arguing endlessly over whose interpretation of the suttas is correct?
I'm aware of that. But there are many dedicated practitioners far along in the path that would disagree with you, as well, that the literal interpretations are correct and central to the doctrine. So we are back to the question: "Is belief in literal rebirth necessary to Buddhism?"
*I* am not the one who interpreted things that way. There are MANY more advanced practitioners who have, and who have deeply studied the suttas and original Pali. I have seen many sides to this argument, including yours and aaki's (and even once held this view) and thus my stance on the literal rebirth issue is agnostic at this point, and so I let the OP know that it's ok if his is too. The debate over whether the Buddha taught literal rebirth or if it was central to his teachings is endless and, I feel, pointless. I was not trying to argue that and push my beliefs, but simply explain to the OP that there isn't just one view on this subject and he should come in with an open mind and decide whether or not this subject is relevant to his path.
I said in another post in this Thread: "That's why I said to simply refer to and study the suttas, and most importantly, practice meditation to come to direct and experiential understandings, rather than listen to ANY "Buddha Dhamma hearsay," including mine."
Actually, that hasn't really been brought up in this Thread. But since you brought it up, there was actually an interesting discussion on the forum a while back: http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3516&highlight=Stuka+Fivebells+hit+imponderable
That entire link is relevant to this Thread but in regards to "the Buddha did not mean what he said," there's an interesting post (#28):
Translations have not come a long way. "All your base are belong to us" - and that was one modern language to another.
aaki,
Ok, aaki. You're right. You know the Truth, and only we are in speculation-ville. I apologize.
Quote me once as saying that literal rebirth never comes up in the suttas. Go ahead.
In regards to the sutta you referenced, I see how it can refer to both usages of "rebirth." After checking with someone else, there are creative liberties taken with this translation, and when you look back at the Pali, it can definitely be interpretted either way (transmitigation/samsara for example). For me, I find more use in the non-literal interpretation. If you find more use in the literal one, ok. I'm not here to argue your interpretation of words, aaki.
My old views were the same as yours, and I blindly accepted from hearsay that literal rebirth is part of and necessary to Buddhism, and I had blind faith in it. After speaking to numerous others who are quite advanced, and then going to the suttas myself, through my own practice, I've decided that there's a much more important context in which the Kamma/rebirth concepts play a role in Buddhism, for me. But I am open to the possibility that it extends beyond this as well. Every school, every teacher within a school, will not teach precisely the same thing, even when it comes to this. And again, believe it or not, there ARE lineage-holding teachers who hold the same view. This does not detract from what your teachers say, or from your path, and vice versa - do what works for you, and let others do what is working for them. Maybe we'll cross paths someday.
One minute we are saying, (and I am guilty of this, too), that we should question everything, just like the Buddha told us to.
(Lets face it, this examination would have to happen right here in this exact, present moment),
and the very next moment, we are puffing up our chests, and saying, “This is what the Buddha said,” or “This is what our tradition has said,” and therefore we shouldn’t be so arrogant as to question it.
Please explain, which is it? Should we be passive, and gullible, and swallow everything whole? Or should we question everything? Or should we only question some things, and not other things.
I think too that we must remember that, the Buddha never wrote one single word. So everything that has come down to us from him is already translation through another person’s mind, and when read this, we further translate it and embellish it with our own opinions.
It is my opinion that, our only real hope, this far from the source, Buddha, is to look at exactly what he looked at, directly, and in this way, try to decipher what he must have meant.
S9
Thinking that when we look at the sutra, that we all see the same thing in those words, is basically a form of fundamentalism, meaning that the words aren’t open to personal translation.
Very often the masters spoke on multiple levels at the same time, and this way they were able to reach out to their whole audience, which obviously were not all on the same page, any more than we are here, today.
So when he said reincarnation, it is very possible that on one level, that he was simply using a metaphor.
Let us remember, too, the story of how the Buddha one day held out a rose, and only one man in the audience was able to come forward and take that rose from his hand.
I don't believe that man was a florist. ; ^ )
S9
Ah, wasn’t that refreshing?
; ^ )
S9
I think one big problem with opinions, and wanting/needing to be right, is that we wrongfully identify with these opinions as being our very self, and defend them as though we our selves were being attack.
If we could hold these opinions far more loosely, using them and discarding them more easily, reasonably understanding that they are merely tools, and not an end in themselves, than there would be a lot less blood in the streets. Yes, even fewer wars.
S9
That goes both ways, doesn't it? On the matter of death and rebirth, you can't possibly know for certain until you see for yourself. Unless you have lucid memory of all your past lives--or are, in fact, dead--then you have no more authority on the matter than anybody else. Your only evidence is hearsay. Granted, the alleged source(s) may be imminently respectable, but it is, nevertheless, still hearsay. "One can't start saying what is or is not when they by definition don't know."
The question, for me, is not what is written in the sutras. What is written is what is written. Just because something is written, however, does not make it fact.
Buddha was not a Buddhist, in the same way Christ was not a Christian. Buddha's foundation was in Hinduism. This is the context he had to work with. When you find clay, you don't attempt to paint with it. You make a pot. Nobody would have accepted his teachings, or even understood them, had he not presented them with cultural context.
The spirit of his teachings was not to become attached to beliefs, but to transcend belief and escape the Wheel of Life altogether. Whether you take his teachings on reincarnation literally or metaphorically, the end result is exactly the same. It makes not one ounce of difference.
Belief is only a vessel for crossing rivers of doubt and uncertainty. Once you have landed upon the far shore, you don't carry the vessel on your back. You leave it behind.
Of course there are many profound levels to the Buddha's teachings and I'm not saying there is no value to contemplating teachings on rebirth and karma beyond just a literal interpretation, but the Sutras themselves state explicitly that rebirth is not just a metaphorical teaching, even if one can use apply the teaching in a metaphorical way, and that it happens between multiple lives (not just moment-to-moment rebirth).
Now, i'm not saying Buddhists have to believe this to make progress on the path, or even that the teaching is necessarily true. I'm simply asserting that this is what the sutras themselves state. If you actually look at the sutras that specifically teach us about rebirth, etc, they are constructed in a very deliberate way and Buddhist adepts from generation to generation have confirmed these interpretations through their practice.
I'd like to re-iterate that I have no problem with practitioners taking an agnostic standpoint on these issues or even ultimately rejecting them as incorrect on some level, but the teachings themselves are quite explicit on these matters and these teachings are no small part of Buddhism.
This is something that I guess I have to take issue with. If you read the scriptures, there is no suggestion that the Buddha was merely putting his teaching in cultural context. Now, you could perhaps argue that the sutras were fabricated or do not constitute actual evidence of rebirth, but to say they are just an appeal to Hindus seems to disregard the way rebirth is presented in the sutras.
Scriptures are still only words, written by fallible humans. I adore the sutras I have read and studied, and am grateful for them. I do not worship them, or accept them on blind faith. If what I read agrees with my experience and sense of reason, I accept them. If it doesn't, I file it in my "maybe--we'll see" drawer and move on.
The worst reason to believe anything is because somebody insists it is true. In my experience, the more urgently one demands his words are true, the more distrustful you should be of his intentions. Where belief is peddled as fact, there is always an agenda.
This is all -debated-. I provided links in my first post and my last one, as you requested, if you are interested in seeing the other side of this. I even provided a quote from an old post here that DOES suggest this:
But NONE of this matters. We can all interpret what the suttas say on this matter in any way, and yes, it's ALL interpretation, including yours and aaki's, including the commonly held view within Buddhism. You don't have to agree me on what the suttas really say. And I don't have to agree with you. In the end, whether we believe in rebirth, don't believe in rebirth, or choose to remain agnostic, it doesn't matter. Can we agree on this?
That's all that matters.
Anything's possible. I guess that just seems a bit deceptive and unethical and I have a hard time meshing that with everything else. And the Buddha made rebirth pretty central to some key teachings, so I have a hard time seeing that he did not claim actual knowledge of rebirth. Now, I don't recall seeing stuka's arguments, so I'd have to see how he/she framed the argument, but it just seems a bit unlikely to me. Perhaps my glasses are a little rosey, but I just haven't seen enough evidence to suggest any sort of misrepresentation on the part of the Buddha or the sutras in regard to these teaching to feel that way.
If you would refer to the links I posted that I keep mentioning...
Fair enough, thanks for your response.
I guess for me, I'm not so much arguing that the teachings are true, but rather that the sutras are not as vague as to how literal they are to be regarded as some people appear to suggest. In other words, regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the teachings, they're not as open to interpretation as some people are arguing.
Nah, wasn't about you. I know you're familiar with the argument already, you had no reason to check the links.
Well, I did look at the thurman-batchelor link, but I only read what you quoted from to the buddha mind thread. I didn't actually go there.
Then why would you keep arguing without taking a look first? The links are actually exactly what Fivebells was refering to, with posts by many other extremely knowledgable people. Until you've read it, it's not fair to say things like this:
I mean, sure, you can say it seems unlikely and that these people are probably just deceptive and unethical, and there's no reasonable way that people could hold these views. But you have access now to the discussions, so why not at least see for yourself first, rather than speculating?
(I said that there are also two links in my first post, as well. So you have three links to the discussions Fivebells is talking about)
I think that this is one of those issues that goes around and around, like the Ouroborus. This issue certainly has the earmarks of an issue within finite mind, being so circular, and in the end leaving us empty handed.
I personally believe, time being a limited quantity, that if you spend a lot of time thinking about past lives, you are not going to be about the business of ‘Waking Up,” once and for all. Am I missing something here?
S9
There's nothing that can be said in brief to your entire line of reasoning except that it's a joke. Obviously we are in need of a good pali scholar to write up a thorough online article to spearhead this entire category of lunacy that will undoubtedly spread in the future.. somehow almost universally among people who share the characteristic of almost total lack of knowledge of buddhism.
We should be very critical in examining. The topic of investigation however should be buddhism, not fantasy, such as is for example mundus' assertion that because a poor translation of something exists therefore an accurate translation of the sutras could never exist (he says this within a total absence of knowledge on the topic he is commenting about mind you).
The lineages are a step-by-step succession of realized persons maintaining what the disciples around the time of the buddha understood. We are talking about Arhats, Aryas, etc. Which is more gullible? Accepting what an online person's personal reading of the sutras mean? Or accepting what the lineages have maintained since around the time of the buddha, based on your own understanding of how the lineages were formed, who formed them, etc? If a person can learn some history and gather some insight into the qualities of the sangha then the 2nd choice seems slightly better.
No, aaki, I am not. You are putting words in my mouth. Reread the things I've said, please.
Literal rebirth OBVIOUSLY comes up in the suttas. Whether this was merely a teaching tool, or meant absolutely literally, or metaphorically, is what is being debated. There are also instances in the suttas where it SEEMS that it is refering to literal rebirth, but it might not be. I'm not saying one way or the other. Everyone can look for themselves. If you feel it's all entirely literal, and that works for you, then it's true for you. And if others feel it isn't, and it works for them, then it's true for them.
"I saw a quote from a Nichiren fellow, which I have now misplaced, who said to the effect, "The Buddha's teachings are universal, applicable to everyone, relevant to everyone, in any time, place or culture. If it doesn't make sense and isn't relevant for everyone, everywhere, in any time and any culture, it isn't the Buddhadhamma." "
Stop putting words in my mouth, please. There are a million translations, all from the original Pali. That means, the original suttas can be interpreted in many ways. But you continue to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Ultimately, the Truth will only be understood and revealed through meditation, upon awakening. The point is, whether one believes in rebirth or not is entirely irrelevent to the end goal. Maybe you're right, and rebirth is true. It doesn't matter.
Read the links, and stop personally insulting me and my beliefs, along with everyone else who doesn't agree with you. You'll find in these links the suttas dissected by those knowledgable in the Pali language. Accept our differences and move along.
Perhaps this is taught in your lineage, but not in everyone's. Why do you think there are so many different lineages? Because it's all been interpreted in so many different ways. If you cannot acknowledge this, then you are living in a fantasy world.
Quit banging so loudly. I didn't attack you for me not reading your link and I was simply being honest about the fact that I hadn't. If I wanted to be unfair or disingenuous I wouldn't have mentioned it in the first place. I'd read what you posted/quoted, but I did not have any real reason to go reread another thread at that point. I figured that what you quoted was sufficient to get across what you wanted to get across and I did not feel like reading another thread from start to finish. Also, I did not know it contained the whole stuka argument. I'm kind of busy today and I will be able to respond more fully tonight if other things don't come up.
You overstate your case for multiple interpretation by a great deal. Also, your tone indicates that you may be taking this personally and you seem upset. I assure you, I am not attacking you as a person or as a Buddhist.
If we're going to follow -- blindly so, might I say -- a belief system on the basis of tradition and a long lineage, we might as well just do it with Christianity. After all, the upholders of its traditions went to such great lengths as genocide to ensure the "right" understanding was conveyed to the "ignorant masses" -- so it must be more true than weak-wristed Buddhism could ever be!
There is no tone other than what others project into my words when they read them. Can't help that online. My posts there are directed at aaki, not you. I am admittedly a little tired of her referring to me as if I'm not here and making rude comments about my beliefs, yes. It's frustrating to have words put in your mouth over and over again, and be personally insulted repeatedly. I was hoping we could accept that there're differences in understandings that are all equally valid and coexist peacefully.
I appreciate that you'll take the time to read the links - I wasn't mad that you didn't, I was laughing about that whole situation.