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.
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.
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.
I didn't. You said the same thing again. Because there are a lot of translations of one text or one example of a bad translation, that one existing translation cannot be truer than another one.
However this STILL doesn't mean that sutras are open to interpretation, because all the translations use the same general definitions for the pali terms and they all translate to the same essential meaning - assuming we look at just the knowledgeable translators.
If we look at a christian translation of a sutra which uses their own interpretation of the definitions, or if we use an anti-rebirth interpretation of the defintions then THIS is reinterpretation of the sutras, whereas the mere variance of syntax and choice of words is not.
Perhaps this is taught in your lineage, but not in everyone's. Why do you think there are so many different lineages?
Well you don't need to ask this question. You already have all the answers. Even though you don't know who Dharmakirti or Vasubhandu are, and you have never heard the ancient debates proving past and future lives, I'm so certain you can explain why different lineages exist. Such a ridiculous joke, speaking about lineages, when you know nothing about them.
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.
and you have never heard the ancient debates proving past and future lives
I've heard of them now. Unfortunately, it doesn't change my opinion on anything. I didn't take part in them. I guess I'm an inferior Buddhist because I hadn't heard of these debates that are not part of the tradition I practice.
Even though you don't know who Dharmakirti or Vasubhandu are
Putting words in my mouth again.
Because there are a lot of translations of one text or one example of a bad translation, that one existing translation cannot be truer than another one.
And again.
I'm so certain you can explain why different lineages exist. Such a ridiculous joke, speaking about lineages, when you know nothing about them.
My god you are arrogant and presumptuous.
You never answered, by the way, if you yourself have taken part in these debates, and studied the 10,000+ pages of these mysterious texts you refer to?
Presumptuous or no, will you please point us to all these lineages that do not support a literal interpretation of rebirth? I asked you to do that a while back.
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!
Who said blindly? Yes, we should do it with christianity. Meaning, go to them to learn about their lineage. Listen to their definitions and proofs for god.
Why would you claim that god doesn't exist without first hearing their definition of god? It's meaningless to do so. Would you pick up a bible and based on reading it for a little while say that you know more than all the scholars combined? Just because they differ a little on translations?
But this is a little different with buddhism because buddhism is based on direct cognition meaning every assertion is verifiable. Other systems like christianity contain many things which are by definition unverifiable. This allows for greater confusion, inconsistency, fundamental disagreements about the implications of the unverifiable things, to grow over time. In buddhism however, things like gross and subtle selflessnes haven't changed in any of the 4 main systems since buddhism began, nor will they ever. Because all of the same types of Aryas realize the same thing.
There seems to be a hostile undertone to these debates that I just don't think is necessary.
Please keep in mind that aggressiveness occurs often when someone decides that the other side isn't listening. A lot of times it's poor communication that makes us decide this. So, I think the best response to an attack is to better explain our position rather than just respond in kind. I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of doing this, but I'm aware of the fact that I do it in frustration 9 times out of 10. And frustration is not really a good justification for aggressiveness.
1. Nobody should blindly accept any teaching as fact, but rather we should fully investigate the arguments proposed and evaluate them as objectively as possible.
2. Nobody here has sufficient personal experience to assess the accuracy of the claims of Buddhism with authority
3. It is possible to practice Buddhism sincerely with agnosticism and even skepticism towards metaphysical claims
I guess I'm an inferior Buddhist because I hadn't heard of these debates that are not part of the tradition I practice.
The authors and their texts are the basis of EVERYTHING since 400 AD. I wonder what you trace your lineage back to. Why bother calling it buddhism? If it's not linked with Dignaga, Dharmakirti etcetc what exactly is buddhist about it? How COULD it be?
It would be like saying you're really good at maths but then disagreeing with every advancement of maths in the past 500 years. It doesn't make sense because they're the same thing..
My god you are arrogant and presumptuous.
Why? You're the one debating something which hasn't ever been an issue. The lineages since the time of the buddha never understood rebirth to be anything other than literal - or as you say "really literal" or something. Why am I arrogant for pointing this out and by saying that you think you can correctly assess ALL the lineages so easily? Understanding Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory in depth alone takes 10 years.
Understanding Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory in depth alone takes 10 years.
I am just curious about your background. How did you get that information? I mean, it is not something that you come across in Dalai Lama books, as far as I know. How do you study Buddhism? Do you have a teacher?
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!
While I take your point that the sutras are not absolute proof of anything, I don't think anyone here is saying that they are. Also, I would like to point out that the process of sutra transcription was more well documented and less nebulous than Christianity, so this comparison is not necessarily as good as you are making it out to be. From what I have read, the Agamas (buddhist canon that made it to China, etc) and the Tripitaka (Theravadan canon) are very consistent with each other, so we know that these suttas are about as close to authentic as we can hope for. And we know a lot about the process of transcribing them:
About three months after the death of the historical Buddha, ca. 480 BCE, 500 of his disciples gathered in Rajagaha, in what is now northeast India. This gathering came to be called the First Buddhist Council. The purpose of the Council was to review the Buddha's teachings and take steps to preserve them.
The Council was convened by Mahakasyapa, an outstanding student of the Buddha who became leader of the sangha after the Buddha's death. Mahakasyapa had heard a monk remark that the death of the Buddha meant monks could abandon the rules of discipline and do as they liked. So, the Council's first order of business was to review the rules of discipline for monks and nuns.
A venerable monk named Upali was acknowledged to have the most complete knowledge of the Buddha's rules of monastic conduct. Upali presented all of the Buddha's rules of monastic discipline to the assembly, and his understanding was questioned and discussed by the 500 monks. The assembled monks eventually agreed that Upali's recitation of the rules was correct, and the rules as Upali remembered them were adopted by the Council.
Then Mahakasyapa called on Ananda, a cousin of the Buddha who had been the Buddha's closest companion. Ananda was famous for his prodigious memory. Ananda recited all of the Buddha's sermons from memory, a feat that surely took several days. (Ananda began all of his recitations with the words "Thus I have heard," and so all Buddhist sutras begin with those words.) The Council agreed that Ananda's recitation was accurate, and the collection of sutras Ananda recited was adopted by the Council.
Now, I'm not arguing that this proves the truth of the scriptures or anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that we have more reason to be confident in them as representative of what the Buddha actually taught than we have to be confident in the Christian scriptures as representative of what Christ actually taught. Not final proof, just arguably better documentation.
It would be best if you left implications of how Buddhist/non-Buddhist his position is out of this discussion, otherwise you will just put him on the defensive and encourage an aggressive exchange. The ideal purpose of debate is not to win, but to arrive at truth.
The authors and their texts are the basis of EVERYTHING since 400 AD. I wonder what you trace your lineage back to. Why bother calling it buddhism? If it's not linked with Dignaga, Dharmakirti etcetc what exactly is buddhist about it? How COULD it be?
You put words in my mouth yet again, aaki. I said I was not familiar with the debates you referred to, and that's all I said.
What is your lineage, aaki? Who do you study under? Have you read those 10k+ pages of texts you keep citing, that we have no access to, as proof? No, I'm not really asking, because it's irrelevant to me. You're turning this into "I got more star stickers than you in kindergarten" and "my sources are better than your sources." If you are right, and your understanding is The Right One, then surely that truth will reveal itself to me in time, neh? Can we just accept our differences and move on for now? Please?
And if you ever feel like providing me with the lectures/texts that you said were available online, I would be more than happy to read them still...
not1not2,
Presumptuous or no, will you please point us to all these lineages that do not support a literal interpretation of rebirth? I asked you to do that a while back.
I'm sorry. I've looked back and I still don't see where you originally asked that. But, yes, sure. There are people who reject the idea of literal rebirth alltogether, some who see it as a teaching tool, some who are agnostic on the subject and feel it refers specifically to DO within the Buddha's teachings, some who see it as a metaphor, etc. etc. So all of these are examples of those who don't accept it the various ways I've been speaking of.
Stephen Bachelor, one of the men in the debate I linked to, holds this view, and was ordained within the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism (but also has experience in Theravada and Zen).
"On the occasion of giving a special talk, I feel I should deal with those important subjects that most adequately sum up the principles of Dhamma (Ultimate Truth; the truth of nature; the duty of all that lives; the teachings of the Buddha.) You will feel that there are a great number of things to be known and that they keep increasing until there are too many to understand and practice. This is the root cause of failure, for it results in discouragement and an interest that becomes more and more unfocused and imprecise. In the end, it's as if one is carrying around a great load of knowledge without being capable of studying or practicing so as to make use of it.
To call something the foundation of the Buddhist Teachings is only correct if firstly, it is a principle which aims at the extinction of Dukkha (the suffering, unsatisfactoriness or imperfection of every experience or state clung to as being "I" or "mine") and, secondly, it has a logic that one can see for oneself without having to believe others. These are the most important constituents of a foundation.
The Buddha refused to have any dealings with those things which don't lead to the extinction of Dukkha.Take the question of whether or not there is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance? (kamma-is volitional action by means of body, speech or mind.) These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so, they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism.
Likewise, Santikaro holds similar views. Stuka introduced me to his Yahoo! group (buddhadasa) where you might be able to get in touch with him directly, even.
And I believe Ken McLeod (Fivebells, correct me if I'm wrong) does not not accept the literal interpretation, or at least does not hold it to have relevance to Buddha Dharma(Shangpa-Kagyu tradition).
Obviously these people are well beyond any of us, and yet they question these things as well. These few examples off the top of my head are enough to show that even on this level, there is debate and multiple interpretations within the various lineages and traditions. Do most teachers teach the literal meaning? Yes. Does that prove anything? No. Am I asking anyone to change their bliefs? No. The purpose of me bringing this up, at all, was to show the OP that his views can fit in perfectly well with Buddhism.
There are also many members of this very forum who are much more experienced than all of us, who hold these views as well. To assume they aren't "proper Buddhists" or that they haven't "studied properly" is unfair. I know of a few in particular who are more formally educated within Buddhism than any of us.
Again, the three links I provided go explain these sorts of beliefs in depth. No one has to read them, but I hope that someone will before claiming it's all "lunacy" and "fantasy" and "absurd" again. I feel all our beliefs and interpretations are legitimate if they're working for us. Many paths, same destination.
Things we can agree on:
1. Nobody should blindly accept any teaching as fact, but rather we should fully investigate the arguments proposed and evaluate them as objectively as possible.
2. Nobody here has sufficient personal experience to assess the accuracy of the claims of Buddhism with authority
3. It is possible to practice Buddhism sincerely with agnosticism and even skepticism towards metaphysical claims
Would anyone like to add to this list?
Sounds good to me. This is what I've been trying to get at for a good while now.
This thread is a great example of why I have trouble believing anything. The facts are so vast that logic can't keep up with them. For example, if you dedicated your life to playing chess, over that life time you could logically deduce all the moves and commit them to memory. Then you could be on par with a computer, in the realm of chess. But thinking that I know many answers to many questions in the realm of everything? Oh that's a difficult thing.
Chess is easy too because I don't have that much attachment or association with any of the particular pieces or moves (perhaps until I win a big game I guess), but in life, my mind and logic process are drawn towards or away from facts by my ego, so its intrinsically flawed (selection bias).
It would be like saying you're really good at maths but then disagreeing with every advancement of maths in the past 500 years. It doesn't make sense because they're the same thing..
Unlike mathematics, karma and rebirth are not tangible, literal facts you can verify with a formula. You have to take it on the faith of what you are told. Whether you get the information verbally or aurally, it is received second-hand. That makes it hearsay. No matter how respectable the alleged source may be, there is no basis for blindly accepting it as irrefutable fact. Unless, perhaps, you have some inside information you'd like to share? If you have a logical, rational argument for rebirth that does not require accepting anything on faith or hearsay, I would be most willing and eager to listen. Constantly pushing the same argument, however--in a nutshell, it's true because somebody said so--accomplishes less than nothing. Give me reason to believe.
The lineages since the time of the buddha never understood rebirth to be anything other than literal - or as you say "really literal" or something.
I challenge your claim to know what the "lineages since the time of Buddha" understood. Were you there? What are your credentials?
Why am I arrogant for pointing this out and by saying that you think you can correctly assess ALL the lineages so easily? Understanding Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory in depth alone takes 10 years.
I'm with NamelessRiver on this one. What is your background with this? Are you putting forth that you understand Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory, in depth? In the spirit of productive conversation, why don't you summarize your understanding of these ideas and how they apply to the subject at hand?
This argument is disjointed. We have one side saying that the scriptures are not proof enough (which is fine) and the other saying that Buddhism presents rebirth as a literal teaching. If we do not recognize this fundamental lack of clashing, we will continue to go in circles on this.
In regard to the lineages, I believe what aaki is saying is that all the major traditions of buddhism regard rebirth as a literal teaching. I think you making more out of his argument than there is. And just to head off a rebuttal at the pass, while there are certainly advanced practitioners who may not regard the literal teaching of rebirth to be accurate or necessary, I do not have any knowledge of any schools of Buddhism that actually teach that rebirth is not literal.
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."
In a sense. But we are not criticizing each other's personal idea of rebirth, we're talking about the basic buddhist tenets themselves. And what they say is that the mental continuum is endless. Furthermore they directly address all the implications this has. For example how to cognize previous lifetimes, how the mind is not the brain, how the mind can be improved for the future, what can happen to the mind in the future, what has happened to the mind in the past, how the mind operates, how it is that a thing can be endless, refutations of logical attacks on the assertion that the mind is endless, etcetc.
So the idea is to be aware of all of that and to critically analyze it. Furthermore direct cognition of past lives is not the only valid form of knowing. Logic is a valid way of knowing things as well (we say). Another is meditating on the nature of mind and understanding its qualities without explicitly cognizing a past or future life neccesarily.
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.
One problem is that any meditator can directly cognize many past lives. It's a particular training of particular concentration levels. It's not something difficult or impressive. Even if we ignore the fact that instructions on how to reach these concentrations are given and have been tested over and over again, if a lot of history and testimonials are to be believed, these kinds of meditators were basically commonplace 500+ BC.
Another problem is that buddha decimated hinduism and every other system. They are all at deadly odds with selflessness and emptiness because everyone grasps to a self / true existence. Denying rebirth is a minor matter compared to denying selfhood. It would be like worrying about having to explain how to build a fancy wooden cabinet when someone has just inquired about the construction of a jet engine. Rebirth is not even buddhist it's a worldly knowledge, is another general perspective to consider.
In regard to the lineages, I believe what aaki is saying is that all the major traditions of buddhism regard rebirth as a literal teaching. I think you making more out of his argument than there is. And just to head off a rebuttal at the pass, while there are certainly advanced practitioners who may not regard the literal teaching of rebirth to be accurate or necessary, I do not have any knowledge of any schools of Buddhism that actually teach that rebirth is not literal.
Ok, the head honchos of the major schools of Buddhism present literal rebirth as what was taught, as aaki suggests, so therefore the statement "The major schools of Buddhism hold the literal interpretation to be true" is indeed legitimate. While at the same time, certain teachers within these traditions hold differing views and teach these views. Therefore the statement "There are lineages that hold a non-literal view" is also true. That settles it then. We're on the same page.
Ok, the head honchos of the major schools of Buddhism present literal rebirth as what was taught, as aaki suggests, so therefore the statement "The major schools of Buddhism hold the literal interpretation to be true" is indeed legitimate. While at the same time, certain teachers within these traditions hold differing views and teach these views. That settles it then. We're on the same page.
Here's my 2 cents: I'm agnostic when it comes to rebirth. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching. Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening:
...instead of an empirical proof for his teaching on karma, the Buddha offered a pragmatic proof: If you believe in his teachings on causality, karma, rebirth, and the four noble truths, how will you act? What kind of life will you lead? Won't you tend to be more responsible and compassionate?
But luckily you don't have to believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist. As far as I know, there's no sort of Buddhist excommunication if you don't. You can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth, or you can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they want. The teachings are open to either interpretation.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally "action") deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that does not necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience.
This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).
Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they’re placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding the mental processes by which we construct our sense of self, as well as how to utilize those processes in more skillful ways.
However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view one holds because the actual practice is still the same. What truly matters is what you do with the teachings, not what you believe about them. That's why I think the Buddha likened his teachings to a raft in MN 22:
...I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas.
I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it. I know that you probably read it somewhere and that you are bring this to us in good faith, so I do not see this as your bad. But…
I am under the impression that Ananda was not finally enlightened until sometime after the death of Buddha. If we are depending upon him to relay what the Buddha said, than we are probably hearing about how he misunderstood what the Buddha said over many years.
Plus, I am not buying that he recited the Buddha’s words, word for word. This sounds a lot like those religious stories, that you hear now and again, which are used to merely to lend authority to what is being said. It is a little too miraculous for my taste.
Has anyone else heard about Ananda’s great memory, that is before it so conveniently manifested at this council for the first time, when they sure could use it? Doesn’t seem like a gift like that wouldn’t have been mentioned often.
Whoa, doggies! Calm down, everyone. Let me just say that to have blind faith in anything is simply and plainly stupid. That's Xian thinking, not Buddhist.
But I would like to remind everyone about the proper way to receive Dharma teachings. One should hold one's mind like a bowl, open and pure, and receive the teachings just as they are given, like pouring pure milk into a bowl. Putting your own spin on the teachings is like putting poison in the bowl. The teachings then become poison and are of no benefit. Coming into the teaching with a closed mind is like turning the bowl over, so that anything poured into it simply runs off and again is of no benefit. Or if you sit through the teaching without paying attention, letting your mind wander all over the place, then it is like a bowl with holes. The teaching just pours right through. Once again, no benefit.
So when receiving a teaching or reading a sutra, the proper attitude is to be attentive and respectful, to not prejudge what you hear, and to keep an open mind. Only then can the Dharma be effective. Thus when the Buddha speaks of rebirth, one should simply take in his words as they are given, without any spin. You don't have to believe or disbelieve, just take them in and contemplate them. That's all. This is the way as taught by all the great masters.
I am reminded of the scene in Little Buddha when Lama Norbu has a discussion with Jesse's father about the whole rebirth thing. The father says that he just can't buy it. Lama Norbu laughs and says, "Why should you?" It's not part of the Western mindset. No one would expect anyone to just say, OK, I believe it! Hallelujah! It takes time and contemplation and lots of practice to get to a place where you can see the truth of the teaching. The same goes for the teachings on karma. It's not part of the Western belief system, so of course it's difficult for us to get.
At the same time, the technology that the Buddha taught makes no sense whatsoever without those very basic teachings. So it is worthwhile, even vital, that one studies them and contemplates them with diligence.
I have to admit that the idea of rebirth was an easy sell to me as I'd already pretty much come to the same conclusion on my own. Karma, however, was another matter because it strikes much closer to home, you might say. The basic meaning of karma is that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions and the results of those actions. There's nobody to blame, no one doing anything to you. It all comes home to roost. That's a much more difficult and bitter pill to swallow, at least until you realize that the other side of that is that you, and you alone, are in control of your life, which is ultimately extraordinarily liberating.
I wonder if you could take a minute out of your day, and explain to us if you would, in your own humble opinion, why or how the understanding of reincarnation would or might be helpful to us on our path towards Awakening.
And: What is Xian thinking? Obviously, I could go to Google, well maybe, and find this out, but I am trying to understand your point of view.
It's not part of the Western mindset. No one would expect anyone to just say, OK, I believe it! Hallelujah!
Everyone assumes this. But I did blindly believe it at first. And for 7 years I believed it. I have a pretty good understanding of what it means from a Buddhist perspective after those 7 years. It's not that I have a "western mindset." I was absolutely open to the idea, and even clung to it when someone close to me died. My opinion that it's not necessary to Buddha Dhamma is not a result of not understanding the concept.
So when receiving a teaching or reading a sutra, the proper attitude is to be attentive and respectful, to not prejudge what you hear, and to keep an open mind. Only then can the Dharma be effective. Thus when the Buddha speaks of rebirth, one should simply take in his words as they are given, without any spin.
Indeed. That also means without bias favouring the literal interpretation. There are certainly instances of both usages appearing in the suttas.
But to say that in the case of rebirth we should take it literally, word-for-word, every time without exception, seems biased in and of itself. Because the Buddha frequently used metaphors and such to explain the true heart of his teachings. Surely the Dhamma isn't a literal, physical raft?
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
...
I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth.Being subject myself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, I sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
...
The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.
...
Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeking the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, reached the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Being subject themselves to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeking the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, they reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke:Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in them: 'Unprovoked is our release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.
...
But any priests or contemplatives not tied to these five strings of sensuality — uninfatuated with them, having not totally fallen for them, consuming them seeing their drawbacks and discerning the escape from them — should be known as not having met with misfortune, not having met with ruin; Mara cannot do with them as he will.Just as if a wild deer were to lie unbound on a heap of snares: it should be known as not having met with misfortune, not having met with ruin; the hunter cannot do with it as he will. When the hunter comes, it will get away as it would like. In the same way, any priests or contemplatives not tied to these five strings of sensuality — uninfatuated with them, having not totally fallen for them, consuming them seeing their drawbacks and discerning the escape from them — should be known as not having met with misfortune, not having met with ruin; Mara cannot do with them as he will.
...
Suppose that a wild deer is living in wilderness glen. Carefree it walks, carefree it stands, carefree it sits, carefree it lies down. Why is that? Because it has gone beyond the hunter's range. 5 In the same way, a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One.
Then again the monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One.Having crossed over, he is unattached in the world. Carefree he walks, carefree he stands, carefree he sits, carefree he lies down. Why is that? Because he has gone beyond the Evil One's range."
-MN26
The Buddha, Awakened, still subject to aging, illness, and death as we see in the suttas, declares aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less. The ego is gone. Suffering is gone.
'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself.
-SN 21.1
The cycle of Samsara, of birth, aging, death... within the understanding of D.O. has ended through Awakening; the Buddha was already free, here and now.
This is where I see significance to the understanding of rebirth. For me, I don't see how a belief in anything after death is necessary on the path to the cessation of suffering. I don't see what need or desire an Awakened one would have to be "free" of these things, because to them, they already are. If one attains Nibbana and is thereby "freed" from the literal cycle, then w00t. If one attains Nibbana and there is no cycle of literal rebirth to be freed from, then w00t. One can attain Nibbana either way, regardless of beliefs here. But that's just me and again, everyone should do what works for them.
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Alara Kalama suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.'
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.'
The Buddha was in a search for those he would teach the Dhamma to first, looking for those who would understand it quickly. Is there no urgency to the Dhamma if there is no literal rebirth? Is there not perhaps more urgency to the Dhamma and teaching of it if there is no literal rebirth? Through sharing the Dhamma there can be peace right here, right now. Is that not urgent?
Are you saying, my understanding here is absolutely useless, and I should only read it all to refer to literal rebirth? As I said, you can read it in whatever way is helpful to you and your path to the cessation of suffering.
Are you saying, my understanding here is absolutely useless, and I should only read it all to refer to literal rebirth? As I said, you can read it in whatever way is helpful to you and your path to the cessation of suffering.
Those assertions are yours and yours alone.
"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
S9, Xian is simply my shorthand for Christian (like Xmas?), specifically what I would term pseudo-Christianity (aka fundamentalism) that misses the whole point of Christ's teachings in exchange for their own version of hatred and bigotry.
As for why rebirth (NOT reincarnation, two very different things) is necessary to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's really quite simple. If you believe that it doesn't matter what you do in this life because when you die, that'll be it, the end, then why bother? Just go out and do what you want. That's nihilism, which the Buddha specifically taught against. Same with karma. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter. If you say it's better to not do those things but you still don't believe in karma or rebirth, then I would say, why is it better to not do those things? There is no rationale left.
Mundus, you really should start observing the "bowl rules" and just listen to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them.
I'm incredibly confused. Your post is identical to Traveller's, yet from what I gather you seem to feel literal rebirth is not essential to Buddhism. I can't tell which side of the debate you're on. :P
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
Kalama Sutta
Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Palzang,
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
As for why rebirth (NOT reincarnation, two very different things) is necessary to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's really quite simple. If you believe that it doesn't matter what you do in this life because when you die, that'll be it, the end, then why bother? Just go out and do what you want. That's nihilism, which the Buddha specifically taught against. Same with karma. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter. If you say it's better to not do those things but you still don't believe in karma or rebirth, then I would say, why is it better to not do those things? There is no rationale left.
This logic is flawed.
Anything, including the Buddhist concept of rebirth, can be turned into Nihilism:
"If this "me" is not the "me" of the next life, and I don't recall the suffering of past lives, then why don't I just go out and do whatever I want right now? What I perceive to be "me" isn't going to be the one paying for what I do here in this life."
The answer is:
If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter.
Kamma exists with or without rebirth, and on various levels. If I do those things, it still leads to suffering, for others and myself as well. Mental suffering. Suffering in that I will be punished by society for my actions. Etc. There is suffering right here and now. Kamma is here and now.
To suggest that the belief in rebirth is required to have morals is farfetched. Did you run around doing those things when you didn't believe in it? Is the only reason you don't do those things because you believe in literal rebirth (and Kamma manifesting in your next life)? Is there not a much more significant reason not to do those things: beyond causing suffering to ourselves, it would cause suffering to others?
In fact, this idea is the result of clinging to self. It's all about the idea of "me." "*I* don't want to suffer in my next life." This is contrary to everything the Buddha teaches, no?
In fact, just refer to the Kalama Sutta quote that I have above, posted by Pegembara. "If there is no world after death..."
Beyond aiding some people in being more mindful and moral, how else is it NECESSARY to the Dhamma?
It's funny to me that people who believe in rebirth call my view nihilistic. If you cannot see how true freedom of dukkha comes from ending the constant rebirth of the delusion of "self," and feel that the only freedom from dukkha comes through being released from the literal cycle of rebirth, then that suggests you view living as inherently dukkha, without the possibility of true peace and happiness here and now. If there was no rebirth, would you just throw yourself off a bridge right this moment to end your suffering? I mean, that's what you're basically talking about, isn't it? Throwing yourself off the proverbial bridge of Samsara?
Mundus, you really should start observing the "bowl rules" and just listen to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them.
Here we go again. :rolleyes:
It's funny that it's "Teh Real Buddhists" who keep making these rude, arrogant, personal attacks. Palzang, you were right: this truly is another e-sangha. Try having a debate without making it personal. Point out the flaws in my logic in my previous post, rip my logic apart with your own logic, PLEASE - I am begging you to. I see how the literal interpretation can be of great benefit to people, and I am not here to argue their understandings of the Dhamma. My understandings are useful to me, though, more-so that the literal interpretations. Please attack my logic and arguments, not me, and with actual counter-arguments. Thank you.
Coming into the teaching with a closed mind is like turning the bowl over, so that anything poured into it simply runs off and again is of no benefit.
It seems this is true with simple conversation with people on internet forums as well! To be honest I'm surprised that Buddhists on a Buddhist site so often end up trying to assert their beliefs instead of asking why their belief is wrong with an open mind. Isn't one of the basic concepts that we live in a world of delusion? This not only seems like a case of the blind leading the blind, but the blind arguing with the blind over something which they don't see.
Perhaps you don't see it but have faith in it - perhaps when someone says something contrary to your faith it raises insecurities, which causes you to re assert your belief? If this is what's happening there will be no resolution, no agreement, and well perhaps its not a very helpful conversation?
Haha here I am asserting a belief, yeah, call me a hypocrite. Perhaps take it as an observation of a blind man, who may be wrong. Well if you say I'm wrong I promise I will try to understand why you think that, and will not cast your thoughts aside because I don't 'believe' them.
S9, Xian is simply my shorthand for Christian (like Xmas?), specifically what I would term pseudo-Christianity (aka fundamentalism) that misses the whole point of Christ's teachings in exchange for their own version of hatred and bigotry.
If you believe that it doesn't matter what you do in this life because when you die, that'll be it, the end, then why bother? Just go out and do what you want. That's nihilism, which the Buddha specifically taught against. Same with karma. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter. If you say it's better to not do those things but you still don't believe in karma or rebirth, then I would say, why is it better to not do those things? There is no rationale left.
Speaking of missing the point of Christ's teachings...
I realize I'm beating a dead horse by analogizing to Christianity once again, but... "If there's no judgment day from God coming, just go out and do what you want. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want -- kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter."
Seriously. How's your argument any different from the many -- the "Xians," if you will -- whose religious beliefs are fueled only by a desire to be rewarded/not punished by God in the afterlife?
Mundus, you really should start observing the "bowl rules" and just listen to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them.
Dude, what's with the ad hominems? It's one thing if the other person is throwing them at you, but someone shared their opinion with you respectfully and apparently wished to discuss it with civility.
Dude, what's with the ad hominems? It's one thing if the other person is throwing them at you, but someone shared their opinion with you respectfully and apparently wished to discuss it with civility.
He is just trying to say (in different words, but the result is similar) that sometimes we are inclined to take the teachings coated with interpretations who stray a bit far from the original. They come with delusions in other words. He is not saying the other guy is delusional or anything like that.
Think of when you were a kid: did you always obey your parents? Probably not (I know I didn't :P). Did your parents have a point in what they told you to do? Probably yes. Why is that? They had a broader perception than you. The Buddha has a broader perception than us, so we just have to admit certain parts of the teaching are outside of our scope of understanding for the time being. We have a desire to immediately understand things, fitting them to what we already know in order for them to make sense, but in this case it might just not be possible.
BTW I am still waiting for aaki to share with us some of his background. He is quoting a lot of people, I would like to know, if possible, where his knowledge comes from.
As for why rebirth (NOT reincarnation, two very different things) is necessary to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's really quite simple. If you believe that it doesn't matter what you do in this life because when you die, that'll be it, the end, then why bother? Just go out and do what you want. That's nihilism, which the Buddha specifically taught against. Same with karma. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter. If you say it's better to not do those things but you still don't believe in karma or rebirth, then I would say, why is it better to not do those things? There is no rationale left.
This is a common misunderstanding. "If you don't have the fear of something bad, why do good?" I detest this argument, as it assumes human nature is essentially evil, and people--at their core--would prefer to kill, rob, and rape. I say hogwash!
When you awaken and recognize yourself in everything around you, compassion arises naturally. When the ego is destroyed, there is no craving or compulsion for doing ill-deeds. Causing harm to another is to cause harm to oneself. The awakened individual is mindful of her impact on the world around her.
What we understand as "evil" is created by a damaged, poisoned ego. Do you think such a damaged creature will be sufficiently frightened by the prospect of Hell that he will do no harm? Doubtful. Fear-based discipline is only useful for controlling and shaping undeveloped minds. Once one has learned prudent self-control, such practice should be discarded.
I believe humans to be inherently peaceful, compassionate creatures. The harm we do, and the suffering we cause, stems from sickness. It is not in our nature to do evil things, it is a symptom of disease. Cure the symptoms, and the disease continues, unseen. Cure the disease, and the symptoms cease forever.
This is true whether you believe in karma and rebirth or not. Fear of an unfavorable rebirth is no different than the Christian fear of Hell. Certainly it may motivate people to try to be "good," at least outwardly, but we all know this is not ultimately effective. As long as the compulsion to do "bad" still exists, it will manifest in one way or another.
The suggestion that belief in karma is necessary to keep people from doing evil deeds is faulty. It is not necessary, and is only effective to a point. Compassion is the cure, and it is nurtured through developing awareness.
He is just trying to say (in different words, but the result is similar) that sometimes we are inclined to take the teachings coated with interpretations who stray a bit far from the original. They come with delusions in other words. He is not saying the other guy is delusional or anything like that.
I can say the same thing to him: "Palzang, you really should start listening to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them."
See, anyone can do it. But it doesn't make for a very productive conversation.
So, instead of these absolutely counterproductive comments, SHOW me where my logic is flawed. If it is, it should be fairly simple for him to point this out and counter it with his own logic. If this post is full of delusion, then point it out to me. I am more than happy to hear. Pick it apart. Tear it to pieces. Show me where I understood wrong and how my understandings are useless. I am sincerely asking this.
That comment is doing precisely what aaki has done all along: "I have all of these 'proofs' that you are wrong, but you can't access to them, and I refuse to summarize it for you and would rather just tell you that you/your understandings are deluded than actually help you understand."
buddhism as i've experienced it has been mostly great so far, but two theoretical problems i have with it are the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
since there is no rational or scientific evidence for those things AFAIK, isn't accepting these concepts just about the same as the abrahamic religions' heavy reliance on belief & faith?
why do we have such heavy reliance on belief and faith in the system of western empirical science?
That comment is doing precisely what aaki has done all along: "I have all of these 'proofs' that you are wrong, but you can't access to them, and I refuse to summarize it for you and would rather argue that you are deluded than actually help you understand."
Sorry if I offended you. I don't think your understanding in necessarily flawed. It is a question of hermeneutics: the way we interpret a text can be taken from many different points of view. We can take it literally, explore the different meanings the words can have, research the historical background of its origin, compare it to the corpus of the doctrine, and so on. When you go over a text from many different points of view, you can get the main idea of what it means.
Let me try to get into the details: If we go past literal reading and into the vocabulary used, the pali word for birth is jati, and it means, as far as I know, the literal birth. This one is the link of the 12 nidanas that starts a new life form. The arising of the next moment of conciousness in this life, in a chain of "birth" from moment to moment, so to speak, would be bhava, or becoming, which is placed in a different place in the 12 nidanas.
If you tackle the whole corpus of the doctrine, I believe you will see places where reading bhava instead of jati, is possible. Altought sometimes it isn't. The point is, rebirth in english can be understood as a metaphor, but maybe in pali the meaning is quite clear. (You will have to double check this with someone more knowlegeable than me).
As far as aaki quoting obscure texts go, it would be nice if he would also acknowledge that some of these are diametrically opposed in the understanding of certain passages. An example would be the take on Nimitta by the Visuddhimagga and the Vimuttimagga. Also, as far as lineages go, they aren't even recognized by the Vinaya.
You didn't offend me, Nameless. I'm just trying to explain that if Palzang wishes to have a productive conversation, I am interested in taking part.
A friend pointed out this quote from Ajahn Chah just a moment ago:
Therefore the Buddha didn’t discriminate between laymen and monks,
he taught all people to practise to know the truth of the san˙kha¯ras. When
we know this truth, we let them go. If we know the truth there will be no
more becoming or birth. How is there no more birth? There is no way
for birth to take place because we fully know the truth of san˙kha¯ras. If
we fully know the truth, then there is peace. Having or not having, it’s
all the same. Gain and loss are one. The Buddha taught us to know
this. This is peace; peace from happiness, unhappiness, gladness and
sorrow.
We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it. If there is no clinging to that gladness there is no birth; if there is
clinging, this is called ‘birth’. So if we get something, we aren’t born
(into gladness). If we lose, then we aren’t born (into sorrow). This
is the birthless and the deathless. Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san˙kha¯ras.
So the Buddha said. “There is no more becoming for me, finished
is the holy life, this is my last birth.” There! He knew the birthless and
the deathless. This is what the Buddha constantly exhorted his disciples
to know. This is the right practice. If you don’t reach it, if you don’t
reach the Middle Way, then you won’t transcend suffering
Let me try to get into the details: If we go past literal reading and into the vocabulary used, the pali word for birth is jati, and it means, as far as I know, the literal birth.
Jati actually refers to birth in all the ways we understand it in our own language. Note in MN26:
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth.
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver
Here, inanimate objects are included. To me, this passage refers to the impermanence and therefore the birth, life, and death, of absolutely everything in the Universe.
Monks, everything is of the nature of being born. Monks, what things are of the nature of being born?
Monks, the eye, forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact, those too are of the nature of being born.
Repeat for the ear and nose.
Monks, the tongue, tastes, tongue-consciousness, tongue-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of tongue-contact, those too are of the nature of being born.
Repeat for the body.
Monks, the mind, ideas, mind-consciousness, mind-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, those too are of the nature of being born.
Monks, the learned, noble disciple seeing it thus turns from the eye and forms, eye-consciousness, eye-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact, he turns from them too re He turns from the mind and ideas, mind-consciousness, mind-contact and whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, he turns from them too. Turning loses interest. Losing interest is released. Released knowledge arises, `I am released, birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done, I have nothing more to wish'
34. 4. 2. (34) Jara - Decay Monks, every thing is of the nature of decaying. Repeat Sutta 33 with necessary changes.
34. 4. 3. (35) Vyàdhi - Ailing Monks, every thing is of the nature of ailing. Repeat Sutta 33 with necessary changes.
34. 4. 4. (36) Marana - Dying Monks, every thing is of the nature of dying. Repeat Sutta 33 with necessary changes.
Let me try to get into the details: If we go past literal reading and into the vocabulary used, the pali word for birth is jati, and it means, as far as I know, the literal birth. This one is the link of the 12 nidanas that starts a new life form. The arising of the next moment of conciousness in this life, in a chain of "birth" from moment to moment, so to speak, would be bhava, or becoming, which is placed in a different place in the 12 nidanas.
I just want to clarify quick: are you saying that jati within the 12 nidanas only refers to literal birth? Because it's extremely relevent within the context of Dependent Origination. Does it extend to literal rebirth? Possibly. (If I misread I apologize)
The Twelve Nidānas (Pali/Sanskrit nidāna "cause, foundation, source or origin") are the best-known application of the Buddhist concept of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), identifying the origins of suffering to be in craving and ignorance.[1] The Twelve Nidānas are employed in the analysis of phenomena according to the principle of Pratītyasamutpāda.
So, I am still not denying that literal rebirth shows up. Palzang seems to say that it's nothing more than a teaching on morality. I don't disagree. If it's something more, necessary to the attainment of Nibbana, I hope he will explain this to me. But I see other meanings coming up as well, such as this, and for me, these are what are most relevent. Are my understandings of the passages I cite deluded, unproductive? If Palzang thinks so and wishes to explain, I'm happy to hear.
Are you telling me that, if tomorrow you found out (perhaps they found some old scroll by the Buddha, written in his own hand), and you found out that it didn’t matter if you killed someone; that you would never be punished in any way, are you saying that you in fact would run right out and start killing indiscriminatingly?
I know what your answer is to this, of course, gentle person, but… Lets take a close look at this anyway Isn’t there more to us, than that the only reason we don’t cause harm, or even kill people, is because we are afraid of punishment?
Let me just say, for myself, that I have often found that hurting others, very often hurts me. Just the act of hurting makes me unhappy. This self/hurting may not be right when it is taking place for the other, because the passions like a whirlwind may confuse the mind momentarily. But, I find pretty quickly that I do not like me, for being hurtful. Not liking yourself is a form of suffering. And the person who doesn’t like me, myself, doesn’t seem to be easily gotten away from.
I just want to clarify quick: are you saying that jati within the 12 nidanas only refers to literal birth? Because it's extremely relevent within the context of Dependent Origination. Does it extend to literal rebirth? Possibly. (If I misread I apologize)
That is how I understand it, it wouldn't make sense (for me) to put bhava originating jati if they were to be understood as being part of the same lifetime. In the beggining of the 12 nidanas series there is arising of conciousness and nama-rupa and the six sense base, which could be the beggining of this life. For me the 12 nidanas explain how suffering arises in the context of many lives. If you take the transcendental order it goes on to explain how it ceases. So its pretty much the basis of everything.
It puts together karma (volitional actions would represent it I guess) originating consciousness (a new life, hence bad karma leads to bad rebirth and vice versa, the realms enter here), rebirth, the dynamic process of the realization of the four noble truths (how suffering arises and ceases). In the end, it all fits together tightly
The way that I see birth (Rebirth, aside for a minute) is that we are imprisoned in birth through “Wrongful Identification.” In other words, we are actually never born unless we wrongfully identify our selves as being the body and the mind within this temporary dream state called earthly life.
Going further, if we are never born and never die, because of not wrongfully identifying, what than is all this about rebirth?
Just for fun, let me interpret this little passage of yours by my light.
M: “We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it.”
S9: By wrongfully identifying with this gladness, attaching ourselves to it, we re-define ourselves as the "glad me." In this way, we are born into gladness, and must consequently go through the process of dying to that same gladness in order to escape and even end up mourning its loss. This is suffering. Relinquishing this suffering, or this attachment to gladness is the same thing as relinquishing our own self from the "glad self." We are no long inprisoned in that definition of the mind. Does that make sense?
M: “Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san˙kha¯ras.”
S9: Whenever we cling to anything, we redefine ourselves with whatever we cling to, and it becomes a part of ourselves. Do this too often, and who we are becomes a cumbersome thing always suffering either the fear of loss or later within the mourning state from having lost this thing or part of our selves. It is inevitable in the land of impermanence. So, it is best to stand naked of such definitions, such attachments, and therefore such suffering, don’t you agree.
I'm curious about your take on this, my learned friend,
S9
I must say, I find it surprising that you applaud Thought’s behavior. Saying stuff like ‘garbage’ seems so rude and unproductive of any civilized discussion.
I don't know what his response is refering to at all, or whose post it's refering to, to be honest. I don't know what the "Garbage" comment is talking about although I'm sure it's something I said.
You can't believe in not-self and reincarnation [rebirth] at the same time.
From his other posts, he seems to believe in anatta and literal rebirth, so this comment seems contradictory to his own beliefs, hence my comment of "You said it, not me. "
Maybe I missed something obvious and Thought Of Thought will clarify.
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints without grasping. Then the Lord, having instructed Bahiya with this brief instruction, went away.
Not long after the Lord's departure a cow with a young calf attacked Bahiya of the Bark-cloth and killed him. When the Lord, having walked for almsfood in Savatthi, was returning from the alms round with a number of bhikkhus, on departing from the town he saw that Bahiya of the Bark-cloth had died.
Seeing this he said to the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, take Bahiya's body, put it on a litter, carry it away and burn it, and make a stupa for it. Your companion in the holy life has died."
"Very well, revered sir," those bhikkhus replied to the Lord.
Taking Bahiya's body, they put it upon a litter, carried it away and burnt it, and made a stupa for it. Then they went to the Lord, prostrated themselves, and sat down to one side. Sitting there those bhikkhus said to the Lord: "Bahiya's body has been burnt revered sir, and a stupa has been made for it. What is his destiny, what is his future birth?"
"Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana."
Comments
Well sure. And thanks
best wishes
_/\_
However this STILL doesn't mean that sutras are open to interpretation, because all the translations use the same general definitions for the pali terms and they all translate to the same essential meaning - assuming we look at just the knowledgeable translators.
If we look at a christian translation of a sutra which uses their own interpretation of the definitions, or if we use an anti-rebirth interpretation of the defintions then THIS is reinterpretation of the sutras, whereas the mere variance of syntax and choice of words is not.
Well you don't need to ask this question. You already have all the answers. Even though you don't know who Dharmakirti or Vasubhandu are, and you have never heard the ancient debates proving past and future lives, I'm so certain you can explain why different lineages exist. Such a ridiculous joke, speaking about lineages, when you know nothing about them.
Ok I'll buy that. I'll reread some of your stuff.
I've heard of them now. Unfortunately, it doesn't change my opinion on anything. I didn't take part in them. I guess I'm an inferior Buddhist because I hadn't heard of these debates that are not part of the tradition I practice.
Putting words in my mouth again.
And again.
My god you are arrogant and presumptuous.
You never answered, by the way, if you yourself have taken part in these debates, and studied the 10,000+ pages of these mysterious texts you refer to?
Why would you claim that god doesn't exist without first hearing their definition of god? It's meaningless to do so. Would you pick up a bible and based on reading it for a little while say that you know more than all the scholars combined? Just because they differ a little on translations?
But this is a little different with buddhism because buddhism is based on direct cognition meaning every assertion is verifiable. Other systems like christianity contain many things which are by definition unverifiable. This allows for greater confusion, inconsistency, fundamental disagreements about the implications of the unverifiable things, to grow over time. In buddhism however, things like gross and subtle selflessnes haven't changed in any of the 4 main systems since buddhism began, nor will they ever. Because all of the same types of Aryas realize the same thing.
Please keep in mind that aggressiveness occurs often when someone decides that the other side isn't listening. A lot of times it's poor communication that makes us decide this. So, I think the best response to an attack is to better explain our position rather than just respond in kind. I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of doing this, but I'm aware of the fact that I do it in frustration 9 times out of 10. And frustration is not really a good justification for aggressiveness.
1. Nobody should blindly accept any teaching as fact, but rather we should fully investigate the arguments proposed and evaluate them as objectively as possible.
2. Nobody here has sufficient personal experience to assess the accuracy of the claims of Buddhism with authority
3. It is possible to practice Buddhism sincerely with agnosticism and even skepticism towards metaphysical claims
Would anyone like to add to this list?
It would be like saying you're really good at maths but then disagreeing with every advancement of maths in the past 500 years. It doesn't make sense because they're the same thing..
Why? You're the one debating something which hasn't ever been an issue. The lineages since the time of the buddha never understood rebirth to be anything other than literal - or as you say "really literal" or something. Why am I arrogant for pointing this out and by saying that you think you can correctly assess ALL the lineages so easily? Understanding Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory in depth alone takes 10 years.
Awesome idea. I'd want to say "4. selflessness, karma, rebirth, mental consciousness". Somehow, though, I feel a little uneasy doing so.
I am just curious about your background. How did you get that information? I mean, it is not something that you come across in Dalai Lama books, as far as I know. How do you study Buddhism? Do you have a teacher?
While I take your point that the sutras are not absolute proof of anything, I don't think anyone here is saying that they are. Also, I would like to point out that the process of sutra transcription was more well documented and less nebulous than Christianity, so this comparison is not necessarily as good as you are making it out to be. From what I have read, the Agamas (buddhist canon that made it to China, etc) and the Tripitaka (Theravadan canon) are very consistent with each other, so we know that these suttas are about as close to authentic as we can hope for. And we know a lot about the process of transcribing them:
http://buddhism.about.com/od/thetripitaka/a/tripitakahistor.htm
Now, I'm not arguing that this proves the truth of the scriptures or anything of the sort. I'm simply saying that we have more reason to be confident in them as representative of what the Buddha actually taught than we have to be confident in the Christian scriptures as representative of what Christ actually taught. Not final proof, just arguably better documentation.
It would be best if you left implications of how Buddhist/non-Buddhist his position is out of this discussion, otherwise you will just put him on the defensive and encourage an aggressive exchange. The ideal purpose of debate is not to win, but to arrive at truth.
You put words in my mouth yet again, aaki.
What is your lineage, aaki? Who do you study under? Have you read those 10k+ pages of texts you keep citing, that we have no access to, as proof? No, I'm not really asking, because it's irrelevant to me.
And if you ever feel like providing me with the lectures/texts that you said were available online, I would be more than happy to read them still...
not1not2,
I'm sorry. I've looked back and I still don't see where you originally asked that. But, yes, sure.
Stephen Bachelor, one of the men in the debate I linked to, holds this view, and was ordained within the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism (but also has experience in Theravada and Zen).
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Theravada)
Likewise, Santikaro holds similar views. Stuka introduced me to his Yahoo! group (buddhadasa) where you might be able to get in touch with him directly, even.
And I believe Ken McLeod (Fivebells, correct me if I'm wrong) does not not accept the literal interpretation, or at least does not hold it to have relevance to Buddha Dharma(Shangpa-Kagyu tradition).
Obviously these people are well beyond any of us, and yet they question these things as well. These few examples off the top of my head are enough to show that even on this level, there is debate and multiple interpretations within the various lineages and traditions. Do most teachers teach the literal meaning? Yes. Does that prove anything? No. Am I asking anyone to change their bliefs? No. The purpose of me bringing this up, at all, was to show the OP that his views can fit in perfectly well with Buddhism.
There are also many members of this very forum who are much more experienced than all of us, who hold these views as well. To assume they aren't "proper Buddhists" or that they haven't "studied properly" is unfair. I know of a few in particular who are more formally educated within Buddhism than any of us.
Again, the three links I provided go explain these sorts of beliefs in depth. No one has to read them, but I hope that someone will before claiming it's all "lunacy" and "fantasy" and "absurd" again. I feel all our beliefs and interpretations are legitimate if they're working for us. Many paths, same destination.
Sounds good to me. This is what I've been trying to get at for a good while now.
Chess is easy too because I don't have that much attachment or association with any of the particular pieces or moves (perhaps until I win a big game I guess), but in life, my mind and logic process are drawn towards or away from facts by my ego, so its intrinsically flawed (selection bias).
And I too am wrong until we can all agree.
So may we all attain Enlightenment.
I challenge your claim to know what the "lineages since the time of Buddha" understood. Were you there? What are your credentials?
I'm with NamelessRiver on this one. What is your background with this? Are you putting forth that you understand Sautrantika's ideas about perceptual theory, in depth? In the spirit of productive conversation, why don't you summarize your understanding of these ideas and how they apply to the subject at hand?
In regard to the lineages, I believe what aaki is saying is that all the major traditions of buddhism regard rebirth as a literal teaching. I think you making more out of his argument than there is. And just to head off a rebuttal at the pass, while there are certainly advanced practitioners who may not regard the literal teaching of rebirth to be accurate or necessary, I do not have any knowledge of any schools of Buddhism that actually teach that rebirth is not literal.
So the idea is to be aware of all of that and to critically analyze it. Furthermore direct cognition of past lives is not the only valid form of knowing. Logic is a valid way of knowing things as well (we say). Another is meditating on the nature of mind and understanding its qualities without explicitly cognizing a past or future life neccesarily.
One problem is that any meditator can directly cognize many past lives. It's a particular training of particular concentration levels. It's not something difficult or impressive. Even if we ignore the fact that instructions on how to reach these concentrations are given and have been tested over and over again, if a lot of history and testimonials are to be believed, these kinds of meditators were basically commonplace 500+ BC.
Another problem is that buddha decimated hinduism and every other system. They are all at deadly odds with selflessness and emptiness because everyone grasps to a self / true existence. Denying rebirth is a minor matter compared to denying selfhood. It would be like worrying about having to explain how to build a fancy wooden cabinet when someone has just inquired about the construction of a jet engine. Rebirth is not even buddhist it's a worldly knowledge, is another general perspective to consider.
Ok, the head honchos of the major schools of Buddhism present literal rebirth as what was taught, as aaki suggests, so therefore the statement "The major schools of Buddhism hold the literal interpretation to be true" is indeed legitimate. While at the same time, certain teachers within these traditions hold differing views and teach these views. Therefore the statement "There are lineages that hold a non-literal view" is also true. That settles it then. We're on the same page.
works for me
_/\_
But luckily you don't have to believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist. As far as I know, there's no sort of Buddhist excommunication if you don't. You can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth, or you can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they want. The teachings are open to either interpretation.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally "action") deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that does not necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience.
This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).
Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they’re placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding the mental processes by which we construct our sense of self, as well as how to utilize those processes in more skillful ways.
However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view one holds because the actual practice is still the same. What truly matters is what you do with the teachings, not what you believe about them. That's why I think the Buddha likened his teachings to a raft in MN 22:
I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it. I know that you probably read it somewhere and that you are bring this to us in good faith, so I do not see this as your bad. But…
I am under the impression that Ananda was not finally enlightened until sometime after the death of Buddha. If we are depending upon him to relay what the Buddha said, than we are probably hearing about how he misunderstood what the Buddha said over many years.
Plus, I am not buying that he recited the Buddha’s words, word for word. This sounds a lot like those religious stories, that you hear now and again, which are used to merely to lend authority to what is being said. It is a little too miraculous for my taste.
Has anyone else heard about Ananda’s great memory, that is before it so conveniently manifested at this council for the first time, when they sure could use it? Doesn’t seem like a gift like that wouldn’t have been mentioned often.
S9
But I would like to remind everyone about the proper way to receive Dharma teachings. One should hold one's mind like a bowl, open and pure, and receive the teachings just as they are given, like pouring pure milk into a bowl. Putting your own spin on the teachings is like putting poison in the bowl. The teachings then become poison and are of no benefit. Coming into the teaching with a closed mind is like turning the bowl over, so that anything poured into it simply runs off and again is of no benefit. Or if you sit through the teaching without paying attention, letting your mind wander all over the place, then it is like a bowl with holes. The teaching just pours right through. Once again, no benefit.
So when receiving a teaching or reading a sutra, the proper attitude is to be attentive and respectful, to not prejudge what you hear, and to keep an open mind. Only then can the Dharma be effective. Thus when the Buddha speaks of rebirth, one should simply take in his words as they are given, without any spin. You don't have to believe or disbelieve, just take them in and contemplate them. That's all. This is the way as taught by all the great masters.
I am reminded of the scene in Little Buddha when Lama Norbu has a discussion with Jesse's father about the whole rebirth thing. The father says that he just can't buy it. Lama Norbu laughs and says, "Why should you?" It's not part of the Western mindset. No one would expect anyone to just say, OK, I believe it! Hallelujah! It takes time and contemplation and lots of practice to get to a place where you can see the truth of the teaching. The same goes for the teachings on karma. It's not part of the Western belief system, so of course it's difficult for us to get.
At the same time, the technology that the Buddha taught makes no sense whatsoever without those very basic teachings. So it is worthwhile, even vital, that one studies them and contemplates them with diligence.
I have to admit that the idea of rebirth was an easy sell to me as I'd already pretty much come to the same conclusion on my own. Karma, however, was another matter because it strikes much closer to home, you might say. The basic meaning of karma is that you, and you alone, are responsible for your actions and the results of those actions. There's nobody to blame, no one doing anything to you. It all comes home to roost. That's a much more difficult and bitter pill to swallow, at least until you realize that the other side of that is that you, and you alone, are in control of your life, which is ultimately extraordinarily liberating.
Palzang
I wonder if you could take a minute out of your day, and explain to us if you would, in your own humble opinion, why or how the understanding of reincarnation would or might be helpful to us on our path towards Awakening.
And: What is Xian thinking? Obviously, I could go to Google, well maybe, and find this out, but I am trying to understand your point of view.
S9
Everyone assumes this. But I did blindly believe it at first. And for 7 years I believed it. I have a pretty good understanding of what it means from a Buddhist perspective after those 7 years. It's not that I have a "western mindset." I was absolutely open to the idea, and even clung to it when someone close to me died. My opinion that it's not necessary to Buddha Dhamma is not a result of not understanding the concept.
Indeed. That also means without bias favouring the literal interpretation. There are certainly instances of both usages appearing in the suttas.
But to say that in the case of rebirth we should take it literally, word-for-word, every time without exception, seems biased in and of itself. Because the Buddha frequently used metaphors and such to explain the true heart of his teachings. Surely the Dhamma isn't a literal, physical raft?
The Buddha, Awakened, still subject to aging, illness, and death as we see in the suttas, declares aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less. The ego is gone. Suffering is gone.
The cycle of Samsara, of birth, aging, death... within the understanding of D.O. has ended through Awakening; the Buddha was already free, here and now.
This is where I see significance to the understanding of rebirth. For me, I don't see how a belief in anything after death is necessary on the path to the cessation of suffering. I don't see what need or desire an Awakened one would have to be "free" of these things, because to them, they already are. If one attains Nibbana and is thereby "freed" from the literal cycle, then w00t. If one attains Nibbana and there is no cycle of literal rebirth to be freed from, then w00t. One can attain Nibbana either way, regardless of beliefs here. But that's just me and again, everyone should do what works for them.
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly understood it.'
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search MN26
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html
Why did the Buddha say this as both Alara and Uddaka have already died?
Why the urgency to teach them? Does it matter?
Do you go by "Traveller" as well?
The Buddha was in a search for those he would teach the Dhamma to first, looking for those who would understand it quickly. Is there no urgency to the Dhamma if there is no literal rebirth? Is there not perhaps more urgency to the Dhamma and teaching of it if there is no literal rebirth? Through sharing the Dhamma there can be peace right here, right now. Is that not urgent?
Are you saying, my understanding here is absolutely useless, and I should only read it all to refer to literal rebirth?
Those assertions are yours and yours alone.
"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
Kalama Sutta
With Metta
As for why rebirth (NOT reincarnation, two very different things) is necessary to understand the Buddha's teachings, it's really quite simple. If you believe that it doesn't matter what you do in this life because when you die, that'll be it, the end, then why bother? Just go out and do what you want. That's nihilism, which the Buddha specifically taught against. Same with karma. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want, kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter. If you say it's better to not do those things but you still don't believe in karma or rebirth, then I would say, why is it better to not do those things? There is no rationale left.
Mundus, you really should start observing the "bowl rules" and just listen to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them.
Palzang
I'm incredibly confused.
Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Palzang,
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
This logic is flawed.
Anything, including the Buddhist concept of rebirth, can be turned into Nihilism:
"If this "me" is not the "me" of the next life, and I don't recall the suffering of past lives, then why don't I just go out and do whatever I want right now? What I perceive to be "me" isn't going to be the one paying for what I do here in this life."
The answer is:
Kamma exists with or without rebirth, and on various levels. If I do those things, it still leads to suffering, for others and myself as well. Mental suffering. Suffering in that I will be punished by society for my actions. Etc. There is suffering right here and now. Kamma is here and now.
To suggest that the belief in rebirth is required to have morals is farfetched. Did you run around doing those things when you didn't believe in it? Is the only reason you don't do those things because you believe in literal rebirth (and Kamma manifesting in your next life)? Is there not a much more significant reason not to do those things: beyond causing suffering to ourselves, it would cause suffering to others?
In fact, this idea is the result of clinging to self. It's all about the idea of "me." "*I* don't want to suffer in my next life." This is contrary to everything the Buddha teaches, no?
In fact, just refer to the Kalama Sutta quote that I have above, posted by Pegembara. "If there is no world after death..."
Beyond aiding some people in being more mindful and moral, how else is it NECESSARY to the Dhamma?
It's funny to me that people who believe in rebirth call my view nihilistic. If you cannot see how true freedom of dukkha comes from ending the constant rebirth of the delusion of "self," and feel that the only freedom from dukkha comes through being released from the literal cycle of rebirth, then that suggests you view living as inherently dukkha, without the possibility of true peace and happiness here and now. If there was no rebirth, would you just throw yourself off a bridge right this moment to end your suffering? I mean, that's what you're basically talking about, isn't it? Throwing yourself off the proverbial bridge of Samsara?
Here we go again. :rolleyes:
It's funny that it's "Teh Real Buddhists" who keep making these rude, arrogant, personal attacks. Palzang, you were right: this truly is another e-sangha. Try having a debate without making it personal. Point out the flaws in my logic in my previous post, rip my logic apart with your own logic, PLEASE - I am begging you to. I see how the literal interpretation can be of great benefit to people, and I am not here to argue their understandings of the Dhamma. My understandings are useful to me, though, more-so that the literal interpretations. Please attack my logic and arguments, not me, and with actual counter-arguments. Thank you.
It seems this is true with simple conversation with people on internet forums as well! To be honest I'm surprised that Buddhists on a Buddhist site so often end up trying to assert their beliefs instead of asking why their belief is wrong with an open mind. Isn't one of the basic concepts that we live in a world of delusion? This not only seems like a case of the blind leading the blind, but the blind arguing with the blind over something which they don't see.
Perhaps you don't see it but have faith in it - perhaps when someone says something contrary to your faith it raises insecurities, which causes you to re assert your belief? If this is what's happening there will be no resolution, no agreement, and well perhaps its not a very helpful conversation?
Haha here I am asserting a belief, yeah, call me a hypocrite. Perhaps take it as an observation of a blind man, who may be wrong. Well if you say I'm wrong I promise I will try to understand why you think that, and will not cast your thoughts aside because I don't 'believe' them.
Speaking of missing the point of Christ's teachings...
I realize I'm beating a dead horse by analogizing to Christianity once again, but... "If there's no judgment day from God coming, just go out and do what you want. If you don't believe in it, then you can go out and do anything you want -- kill, rob, rape, whatever, and it doesn't really matter."
Seriously. How's your argument any different from the many -- the "Xians," if you will -- whose religious beliefs are fueled only by a desire to be rewarded/not punished by God in the afterlife?
Dude, what's with the ad hominems? It's one thing if the other person is throwing them at you, but someone shared their opinion with you respectfully and apparently wished to discuss it with civility.
Think of when you were a kid: did you always obey your parents? Probably not (I know I didn't :P). Did your parents have a point in what they told you to do? Probably yes. Why is that? They had a broader perception than you. The Buddha has a broader perception than us, so we just have to admit certain parts of the teaching are outside of our scope of understanding for the time being. We have a desire to immediately understand things, fitting them to what we already know in order for them to make sense, but in this case it might just not be possible.
BTW I am still waiting for aaki to share with us some of his background. He is quoting a lot of people, I would like to know, if possible, where his knowledge comes from.
When you awaken and recognize yourself in everything around you, compassion arises naturally. When the ego is destroyed, there is no craving or compulsion for doing ill-deeds. Causing harm to another is to cause harm to oneself. The awakened individual is mindful of her impact on the world around her.
What we understand as "evil" is created by a damaged, poisoned ego. Do you think such a damaged creature will be sufficiently frightened by the prospect of Hell that he will do no harm? Doubtful. Fear-based discipline is only useful for controlling and shaping undeveloped minds. Once one has learned prudent self-control, such practice should be discarded.
I believe humans to be inherently peaceful, compassionate creatures. The harm we do, and the suffering we cause, stems from sickness. It is not in our nature to do evil things, it is a symptom of disease. Cure the symptoms, and the disease continues, unseen. Cure the disease, and the symptoms cease forever.
This is true whether you believe in karma and rebirth or not. Fear of an unfavorable rebirth is no different than the Christian fear of Hell. Certainly it may motivate people to try to be "good," at least outwardly, but we all know this is not ultimately effective. As long as the compulsion to do "bad" still exists, it will manifest in one way or another.
The suggestion that belief in karma is necessary to keep people from doing evil deeds is faulty. It is not necessary, and is only effective to a point. Compassion is the cure, and it is nurtured through developing awareness.
I can say the same thing to him: "Palzang, you really should start listening to the teachings rather than attaching all your delusions to them."
See, anyone can do it.
So, instead of these absolutely counterproductive comments, SHOW me where my logic is flawed. If it is, it should be fairly simple for him to point this out and counter it with his own logic. If this post is full of delusion, then point it out to me. I am more than happy to hear. Pick it apart. Tear it to pieces. Show me where I understood wrong and how my understandings are useless. I am sincerely asking this.
That comment is doing precisely what aaki has done all along: "I have all of these 'proofs' that you are wrong, but you can't access to them, and I refuse to summarize it for you and would rather just tell you that you/your understandings are deluded than actually help you understand."
why do we have such heavy reliance on belief and faith in the system of western empirical science?
Sorry if I offended you. I don't think your understanding in necessarily flawed. It is a question of hermeneutics: the way we interpret a text can be taken from many different points of view. We can take it literally, explore the different meanings the words can have, research the historical background of its origin, compare it to the corpus of the doctrine, and so on. When you go over a text from many different points of view, you can get the main idea of what it means.
Let me try to get into the details: If we go past literal reading and into the vocabulary used, the pali word for birth is jati, and it means, as far as I know, the literal birth. This one is the link of the 12 nidanas that starts a new life form. The arising of the next moment of conciousness in this life, in a chain of "birth" from moment to moment, so to speak, would be bhava, or becoming, which is placed in a different place in the 12 nidanas.
If you tackle the whole corpus of the doctrine, I believe you will see places where reading bhava instead of jati, is possible. Altought sometimes it isn't. The point is, rebirth in english can be understood as a metaphor, but maybe in pali the meaning is quite clear. (You will have to double check this with someone more knowlegeable than me).
As far as aaki quoting obscure texts go, it would be nice if he would also acknowledge that some of these are diametrically opposed in the understanding of certain passages. An example would be the take on Nimitta by the Visuddhimagga and the Vimuttimagga. Also, as far as lineages go, they aren't even recognized by the Vinaya.
A friend pointed out this quote from Ajahn Chah just a moment ago:
Jati actually refers to birth in all the ways we understand it in our own language. Note in MN26:
You can see the original Pali here: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/026-ariyapariyesana-p.html
Here, inanimate objects are included. To me, this passage refers to the impermanence and therefore the birth, life, and death, of absolutely everything in the Universe.
Another interesting sutta:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta4/34-Salayatana-Samyutta/04-Jatidhammavaggo-e.html
I just want to clarify quick: are you saying that jati within the 12 nidanas only refers to literal birth? Because it's extremely relevent within the context of Dependent Origination. Does it extend to literal rebirth? Possibly. (If I misread I apologize)
So, I am still not denying that literal rebirth shows up. Palzang seems to say that it's nothing more than a teaching on morality. I don't disagree.
Lets bring this home, shall we?
Are you telling me that, if tomorrow you found out (perhaps they found some old scroll by the Buddha, written in his own hand), and you found out that it didn’t matter if you killed someone; that you would never be punished in any way, are you saying that you in fact would run right out and start killing indiscriminatingly?
I know what your answer is to this, of course, gentle person, but… Lets take a close look at this anyway Isn’t there more to us, than that the only reason we don’t cause harm, or even kill people, is because we are afraid of punishment?
Let me just say, for myself, that I have often found that hurting others, very often hurts me. Just the act of hurting makes me unhappy. This self/hurting may not be right when it is taking place for the other, because the passions like a whirlwind may confuse the mind momentarily. But, I find pretty quickly that I do not like me, for being hurtful. Not liking yourself is a form of suffering. And the person who doesn’t like me, myself, doesn’t seem to be easily gotten away from.
Instant karma.
S9
It puts together karma (volitional actions would represent it I guess) originating consciousness (a new life, hence bad karma leads to bad rebirth and vice versa, the realms enter here), rebirth, the dynamic process of the realization of the four noble truths (how suffering arises and ceases). In the end, it all fits together tightly
The way that I see birth (Rebirth, aside for a minute) is that we are imprisoned in birth through “Wrongful Identification.” In other words, we are actually never born unless we wrongfully identify our selves as being the body and the mind within this temporary dream state called earthly life.
Going further, if we are never born and never die, because of not wrongfully identifying, what than is all this about rebirth?
Just for fun, let me interpret this little passage of yours by my light.
M: “We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it.”
S9: By wrongfully identifying with this gladness, attaching ourselves to it, we re-define ourselves as the "glad me." In this way, we are born into gladness, and must consequently go through the process of dying to that same gladness in order to escape and even end up mourning its loss. This is suffering. Relinquishing this suffering, or this attachment to gladness is the same thing as relinquishing our own self from the "glad self." We are no long inprisoned in that definition of the mind. Does that make sense?
M: “Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san˙kha¯ras.”
S9: Whenever we cling to anything, we redefine ourselves with whatever we cling to, and it becomes a part of ourselves. Do this too often, and who we are becomes a cumbersome thing always suffering either the fear of loss or later within the mourning state from having lost this thing or part of our selves. It is inevitable in the land of impermanence. So, it is best to stand naked of such definitions, such attachments, and therefore such suffering, don’t you agree.
I'm curious about your take on this, my learned friend,
S9
?
You said it, not me.
(Aren't you the one who believes in these two things?)
To be fair, I believe in rebirth. To the extent of...
"From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity." -Edvard Munch
You're right, we're all interlinked, everything arises and ceases without beginning or end.
Edit -
Subjectivity/Nameless, I'll respond tomorrow. Good night.
What makes you think that I believe in reincarnation? Or are you talking to someone else?
I believe you see yourself as being quite Zen, if not profound.
But, all I see is rude behavior. Are you going to continue to show off, like this, or can we talk like adults?
S9
I must say, I find it surprising that you applaud Thought’s behavior. Saying stuff like ‘garbage’ seems so rude and unproductive of any civilized discussion.
Am I misunderstanding something here?
S9
From his other posts, he seems to believe in anatta and literal rebirth, so this comment seems contradictory to his own beliefs, hence my comment of "You said it, not me.
Maybe I missed something obvious and Thought Of Thought will clarify.
the person Thought is vague. I even got confused about who he was talking to. But, the rudeness is obvious,
S9
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints without grasping. Then the Lord, having instructed Bahiya with this brief instruction, went away.
Not long after the Lord's departure a cow with a young calf attacked Bahiya of the Bark-cloth and killed him. When the Lord, having walked for almsfood in Savatthi, was returning from the alms round with a number of bhikkhus, on departing from the town he saw that Bahiya of the Bark-cloth had died.
Seeing this he said to the bhikkhus: "Bhikkhus, take Bahiya's body, put it on a litter, carry it away and burn it, and make a stupa for it. Your companion in the holy life has died."
"Very well, revered sir," those bhikkhus replied to the Lord.
Taking Bahiya's body, they put it upon a litter, carried it away and burnt it, and made a stupa for it. Then they went to the Lord, prostrated themselves, and sat down to one side. Sitting there those bhikkhus said to the Lord: "Bahiya's body has been burnt revered sir, and a stupa has been made for it. What is his destiny, what is his future birth?"
"Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was a wise man. He practiced according to Dhamma and did not trouble me by disputing about Dhamma. Bhikkhus, Bahiya of the Bark-cloth has attained final Nibbana."
Bahiya Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html
Why did the Buddha not correct his bhikkhus?
What is final nibbana?