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.
rebirth is happening all the time for worldlings in the ultimate sense
in other words, a concisousness arises and ceaces everymoment and each such moment is a rebirth
but in conventional terms we consider 'a person/animal (being) born' into this world is a rebirth if we believe buddhism or hundusim?
key is to understand (not the knowledge but experience) the dependent orighnation or the cause and effect theory
there are of course different views and understandings based upon conventional and ultimate truths. I think everyone can agree that "rebirth" however we want to define it is a conventional "reality".
there are of course different views and understandings based upon conventional and ultimate truths. I think everyone can agree that "rebirth" however we want to define it is a conventional "reality".
I certainly don't agree, nor to many others:)
I think it is Right View to investigate these possibilities, both rationally or intuitively through meditation:)
I think it is Right View to investigate these possibilities, both rationally or intuitively through meditation:)
Mat
then you must not know what i am referring to.
The two truths, conventional and ultimate.
Rebirth, no matter how one feels about it or interprets it, it falls into the realm of conventional rather than ultimate. If we are having a discussion about rebirth and its functionality or definition, that is a conversation of the conventional or relative level, rather than the ultimate level.
The ultimate truth is emptiness beyond extremes of existence and non-existence. Physical rebirth is conventional in that it is considered by many to be a conventional "valid cognition".
The ultimate truth is of course that these "valid cognitions" are none other than composites that lack any enduring identity or "truth" and are therefore ultimately "empty".
I can only go by what you say. If you allude to some truths and feel you experience them when deep in meditation, then who am I to say otherwise?:)
If you try to tell me I am wrong, or that you know I am wrong and then you are write, ye olde emperors clothes replies wont convince me, though I note they do convince others:)
>>Rebirth, no matter how one feels about it or interprets it, it falls into the realm of conventional rather than ultimate.
Some people, my self included, would simply say it is a false doctrine:)
>>If we are having a discussion about rebirth and its functionality or definition, that is a conversation of the conventional or relative level, rather than the ultimate level.
This post is about "is rebirth necessary" That is what I disuss:)
>>>The ultimate truth is emptiness beyond extremes of existence and non-existence.
How do you know this?
>>>>The ultimate truth is of course that these "valid cognitions" are none other than composites that lack any enduring identity or "truth" and are therefore ultimately "empty".
How do you know this?
I hope you can show me how you know what I have tried to see but think isnt there without authority to the Suttra's which, as you may know, I reject:)
I can only go by what you say. If you allude to some truths and feel you experience them when deep in meditation, then who am I to say otherwise?:)
If you try to tell me I am wrong, or that you know I am wrong and then you are write, ye olde emperors clothes replies wont convince me, though I note they do convince others:)
>>Rebirth, no matter how one feels about it or interprets it, it falls into the realm of conventional rather than ultimate.
Some people, my self included, would simply say it is a false doctrine:)
>>If we are having a discussion about rebirth and its functionality or definition, that is a conversation of the conventional or relative level, rather than the ultimate level.
This post is about "is rebirth necessary" That is what I disuss:)
>>>The ultimate truth is emptiness beyond extremes of existence and non-existence.
How do you know this?
>>>>The ultimate truth is of course that these "valid cognitions" are none other than composites that lack any enduring identity or "truth" and are therefore ultimately "empty".
How do you know this?
I hope you can show me how you know what I have tried to see but think isnt there without authority to the Suttra's which, as you may know, I reject:)
Thanks
Mat
Since you reject the entire process of teaching in Buddhism I dont see much point in taking the time to tell you about the teachings on the two truths.
If you want to discuss whether or not rebirth is necessary, I think the question itself is off the mark. Rebirth isnt necessary, it either is or is not a conventional truth that leads to beings experiencing uncontrolled rebirth and suffering. To ask whether or not an axiom of the Buddhist world view is necessary is a bit absurd. It either happens or it doesnt.
Ultimately if it happens and one doesnt think it does but still lives a virtuous life it shouldnt matter and if it doesnt happen then there is nothing to worry about either way.
Personally I dont really care whether it happens or not but I do feel that the idea of a single life theory is too simplistic.
Since you reject the entire process of teaching in Buddhism I dont see much point in taking the time to tell you about the teachings on the two truths.
Please dont tell me what I think, believe or reject. That can never be fruitful
Also, please dont assume that I don't know about these two truths or how they fit into the Buddhist practice:)
If you can not be gracious in either of those aspects then there is little point talking to me, I agree. I which case, simply dont:)
Also, I have not asked you to explain anything, rtaher I have just asked you how you know tehse things you are so sure about:) Do you see that?
Again, How do you know the things you claim that i am wrong or pointless upon?
>>If you want to discuss whether or not rebirth is necessary, I think the question itself is off the mark.
In that case you shouldn't engage in such discussions as this entire thread is about, as clearly stated:) Many people do feel this is not off the mark. I think you shouldnt really care about their discussions. Especially not enough to tell them they are wrong. Do you see how unbuddhist that may come over?
>>>To ask whether or not an axiom of the Buddhist world view is necessary is a bit absurd.
My belief is that the Buddha catageorically thought that Rebidth was one of the illusions that causes dukka. Can you tell me why you think that is absurd?
A simple question, a simple answer?
>>Ultimately if it happens and one doesnt think it does but still lives a virtuous life it shouldnt matter and if it doesnt happen then there is nothing to worry about either way.
I agree. This is a philosohical point not a moral point:)
I look forwards to your answers to my simple questions:)
Please dont tell me what I think, believe or reject. That can never be fruitful
Also, please dont assume that I don't know about these two truths or how they fit into the Buddhist practice:)
If you can not be gracious in either of those aspects then there is little point talking to me, I agree. I which case, simply dont:)
Also, I have not asked you to explain anything, rtaher I have just asked you how you know tehse things you are so sure about:) Do you see that?
Again, How do you know the things you claim that i am wrong or pointless upon?
>>If you want to discuss whether or not rebirth is necessary, I think the question itself is off the mark.
In that case you shouldn't engage in such discussions as this entire thread is about, as clearly stated:) Many people do feel this is not off the mark. I think you shouldnt really care about their discussions. Especially not enough to tell them they are wrong. Do you see how unbuddhist that may come over?
>>>To ask whether or not an axiom of the Buddhist world view is necessary is a bit absurd.
My belief is that the Buddha catageorically thought that Rebidth was one of the illusions that causes dukka. Can you tell me why you think that is absurd?
A simple question, a simple answer?
>>Ultimately if it happens and one doesnt think it does but still lives a virtuous life it shouldnt matter and if it doesnt happen then there is nothing to worry about either way.
I agree. This is a philosohical point not a moral point:)
I look forwards to your answers to my simple questions:)
I've been watching you guys go back and forth and have simply absorbed and not given back for a while now.
It may be possible that the structure of the Buddha's teachings is solid (the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, dependent arising, selflessness and impermanence), but that some of the details are incorrect, such as when a scientific theory is in accord with the facts but doesn't have the process down right. That is, of course, if you can believe the Buddha was not perfect.
The belief in rebirth has no negative consequence, unless it turns out in the end to be ignorance. If you believe all animal lifeforms and other humans around you have lived countless lives in various states of existence and that how you affect them also affects their future existences, then you have a greater respect for life. I'd honestly like to believe this is the case, but only with realization will that happen.
The Buddha exhorted his adherents not to believe because of respect for the teacher or his teachings. I do respect the Buddha more than words can say, but it would directly contradict his teachings to not reflect upon them thoroughly.
Paste from another post of mine:
The concept of rebirth can have different importance to different people. It can be a driving force if you believe you have been suffering for countless eons and will only be free from countless future suffering by becoming unbound to it. It can also be a comfort if you believe you have an infinite number of chances to finally get it right and attain Nibbana. Myself, not knowing what the truth is, I choose to simply practice due diligence and get done in this life everything I can. Perhaps later I'll progress further and attain Nibbana, but I'm content now to strive toward the welfare of others as best I can, and to always keep an open mind.
Thats 100% fine, I respect that totally. Equally, can you respect that of others views and not tell them they are wrong:)
We should all aim to get rid of the dogma in Buddhism! The Buddha would certainly have wanted that:)
Mat
Well Mat, I think you're completely misreading my posts, thats fine.
I dont really care about your views or opinions but I will certainly continue to inform people when their statements are inaccurate, I actually think that is quite respectful and appropriate. :):)
I've been watching you guys go back and forth and have simply absorbed and not given back for a while now.
It may be possible that the structure of the Buddha's teachings is solid (the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, dependent arising, selflessness and impermanence), but that some of the details are incorrect, such as when a scientific theory is in accord with the facts but doesn't have the process down right. That is, of course, if you can believe the Buddha was not perfect.
The belief in rebirth has no negative consequence, unless it turns out in the end to be ignorance. If you believe all animal lifeforms and other humans around you have lived countless lives in various states of existence and that how you affect them also affects their future existences, then you have a greater respect for life. I'd honestly like to believe this is the case, but only with realization will that happen.
The Buddha exhorted his adherents not to believe because of respect for the teacher or his teachings. I do respect the Buddha more than words can say, but it would directly contradict his teachings to not reflect upon them thoroughly.
Paste from another post of mine:
The concept of rebirth can have different importance to different people. It can be a driving force if you believe you have been suffering for countless eons and will only be free from countless future suffering by becoming unbound to it. It can also be a comfort if you believe you have an infinite number of chances to finally get it right and attain Nibbana. Myself, not knowing what the truth is, I choose to simply practice due diligence and get done in this life everything I can. Perhaps later I'll progress further and attain Nibbana, but I'm content now to strive toward the welfare of others as best I can, and to always keep an open mind.
I think this is an excellent way to approach the study and practice of dharma.
I dont see the respect when you tell someone wrong then stick your fingers in your ears when they try to discuss:)
Be well
Mat
listen, I didnt tell you you were "wrong".
You made an argument that clearly reflected that you didnt know what I was referring to so i clarified. After my clarification you came back with a series of questions that were condescending, off-topic, weird and to be frank pretty trolly.
I am not going to participate in that kind of discussion with you nor am I going to continue this one.
The belief in rebirth has no negative consequence, unless it turns out in the end to be ignorance.
Which is what some belive:)
>>>The Buddha exhorted his adherents not to believe because of respect for the teacher or his teachings. I do respect the Buddha more than words can say, but it would directly contradict his teachings to not reflect upon them thoroughly.
Absolutly! I couldnt agree more. Yet sometimes Buddhists tell other Buddhists off, patronise them or accuse them of wrong view for even doubting that the buddha said as you highlight above:)
Like water rolling off your back should the aversion of others be to you. How intelligent we believe others to be often is to be measured by how closely their thinking matches our own. It's in human nature to believe that others who do not think as we do must be wrong. Often it takes a great deal of persuasion from the bearers of truth for us to change our minds. Try changing the mind of someone who has put all of their belief in one religion (no, don't do that, it's unBuddhist lol).
Like water rolling off your back should the aversion of others be to you. How intelligent we believe others to be often is to be measured by how closely their thinking matches our own. It is never a measure of truth.
Like water rolling off your back should the aversion of others be to you. How intelligent we believe others to be often is to be measured by how closely their thinking matches our own. It's in human nature to believe that others who do not think as we do must be wrong. Often it takes a great deal of persuasion from the bearers of truth for us to change our minds. Try changing the mind of someone who has put all of their belief in one religion (no, don't do that, it's unBuddhist lol).
I think the ability to disagree and vocalize that disagreement are actually signs of intelligence. If we disagree and talk about it thats a clear indication that people are actively thinking about the topics they debate.
Without divergences in thinking there would be no Buddhism to discuss.
I wasn't referring to not disagreeing, but the way we speak to one another. For a disagreement to be blameless, it can have no thought of aversion; selfless. Otherwise, it is done in a hurtful way and both parties, if the negative kamma is reflected rather than deflected or absorbed, end up losing.
I wasn't referring to not disagreeing, but the way we speak to one another. For a disagreement to be blameless, it can have no thought of aversion; selfless. Otherwise, it is done in a hurtful way and both parties, if the negative kamma is reflected rather than deflected or absorbed, end up losing.
i was only adding more to the point you made which was a good one,
My bad. I was commenting on my perception of the underlying meaning of your post rather than on its words. I thought you took my post to Mat about the measure of intelligence to mean that I somehow thought you were not intelligent or less intelligent than him, which I neither meant nor believe. I perceived that in that context your post about disagreements actually being intelligent was a natural defensiveness.
I apologize if I got you wrong, and I hope you understand that I never intend to give any kind of offense.
My bad. I was commenting on my perception of the underlying meaning of your post rather than on its words. I thought you took my post to Mat about the measure of intelligence to mean that I somehow thought you were not intelligent or less intelligent than him, which I neither meant nor believe. I perceived that in that context your post about disagreements actually being intelligent was a natural defensiveness.
I apologize if I got you wrong, and I hope you understand that I never intend to give any kind of offense.
"We are a group of seekers and ponderers who share our lives with one another as friends. We do not assume to be authorities on Buddhism nor preach a particular sect of Buddhism."
That is what I would like to be the case here:)
Mat
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I agree. The idea of rebirth does seem ultimately selfish and egobased.
But equally nobody can say "there is no rebirth". How could anyone be certain of that. I am very very very sure there isn't, But I may be wrong. Whats important to me is what you say, the path is important, the the unanswerable realm that is its foundation:)
Thanks:)
mat
What evidence do you have? I don't know I've always been fearful, once I tried to investigate it when high and found the earliest memory, the deepest part of me, was fear, fear of annihilation. And then I was given security by my parents and what not, and that gave me gratefulness, which was apparently the reason why I have love for everyone.
Meh I "believe" in reincarnation b/c it makes sense, how could this amazing state of awareness just "go away" with the body. It seems to be something more. Its observing things, but its not simply the voluntary mind, it doesn't even have complete control of that, if it has any control at all...
But like everything, I don't KNOW that's the case until I have investigated it myself. "believe nothing"
I would personally think buddhism falls apart w/out reincarnation, karma has no affect obviously, and death in and of itself would be a nirvana.
Lots that satisfies me, though that doesn't mean it satisfies you:) Have a think abut these questions and you may see the kind of evidence I have:)
Why is rebirth not clear in the four noble truths?
Why is rebirth at odds with Anica and Anataman and the only explanation uses metaphor or mystery?
Rebirth was the cultural norm for millennia before Buddhism, how come it has such an uneasy place within Buddhism, unless rebirth was Wrong View from the start?
>>>the deepest part of me, was fear, fear of annihilation.
I think the Buddha clearly explains the nature of that fear, its cause and the solution to the cause. But that is very different to an explanation of Rebirth:)
>>>Meh I "believe" in reincarnation b/c it makes sense, how could this amazing state of awareness just "go away" with the body.
How could the snowflake melt? Always ask yourself with such questions, "Am I smuggling my ego into this question?" I think you may be with your belief in reincarnation.
>>>It seems to be something more.
yes it does. The key word there is "seems":) Seems implies illusion:)
>>>I would personally think buddhism falls apart w/out reincarnation, karma has no affect obviously, and death in and of itself would be a nirvana.
I think you are mistaken on your belief there:)
Without anything "more than this" then this life suddenly becomes much more valuable. Each moment can be seen as more special. This is all there is, this is my only life, i must live it well.. these kinds of thoughts. Impermanence, interconnectedness, these all profoundly change ones world view. You mention karma, but thats very compatible with no rebirth if you see it as I believe the Buddha saw it; as moral/mental many to many causation in a vast complex network over time space and possibility.
Nibana doesn't need to be seen as death or some majical change. It is perhaps mundane, the realisation of Dharma and especially the noble eightfold path:)
>>>>The ultimate truth is of course that these "valid cognitions" are none other than composites that lack any enduring identity or "truth" and are therefore ultimately "empty".
How do you know this?
I hope you can show me how you know what I have tried to see but think isnt there without authority to the Suttra's which, as you may know, I reject:)
The lack of any enduring truth is explained through logic, by the Madhyamaka school (methinks :-P). I have read some things about it but I tend to disagree (although I wasn't going directly to the source).
Basically they treat concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth as relative, just as a man being tall in relation to a short man, and being short in relation to a third man.
Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none. This is also true of the three divisions of
time – past, present, and future. (This is taken from a book called The Tree of Enlightenment, freely available at buddhanet, although I am putting it in my own words mixing with quotes and jumping some parts, so you might check the source x-P).
The Madhyamaka also goes on about the way we acquire knowledge. The way we accept something as reality is in the basis of our perception, not of the thing itself. Than they ask "How do we prove that a perception is true?" It would be through other perception (in a neverending line of perceptions), or you would have to say that perception proves itself, which is unacceptable (the author says its because you can't accept something without proof).
There is a lot more to it, really, I am just posting the tip of the iceberg because you showed interest.
The lack of any enduring truth is explained through logic, by the Madhyamaka school (methinks :-P). I have read some things about it but I tend to disagree (although I wasn't going directly to the source).
I dont buy the explanation, to me it seems sophisty. Its like counjouruing up new universes to explain quantum contradictions; it might offer something that seems to solve the problem but there is little reason to belive that it is the case. It shiofts the lump under the carpet:)
In a sense its worth with the dualism of identity because that forums a big slab of the denity of reason. If something is unreasonable it is not a solution to change reason:) You might like to see my writings on this here: http://goo.gl/EZjF I talk about identity, change and differnce within this Dharmic context:)
>>>Basically they treat concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth as relative, just as a man being tall in relation to a short man, and being short in relation to a third man.
Tallness is a relative concep, the same is not true of difference or existance.
For example: "A exists and A does not exist" is a contradiction as is "A and B are different and A is B." We cannot imagine any change external to A or B that could make those statements not a contradiction. They are logically neccesarily true, without them we have no reason.
>>>Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none.
That implies that without that difficulty we could make sense of dualistic existence or identity. Existence is weird, at the bottom level and all the way up, its weird to Buddhists and scientists and Christians and all. Saying something is weird is actually weirder for no reason other than to hide a problem doesn't solve the problem.
Whatver existence is, I think it is simple and consistent. Thats about all I can say on the matter.
>>>This is also true of the three divisions of time – past, present, and future. (This is taken from a book called The Tree of Enlightenment, freely available at buddhanet, although I am putting it in my own words mixing with quotes and jumping some parts, so you might check the source x-P).
I haven't read that. Im not actually that interested in what people think about Buddhism if they base their belief on the Ahibdharma and later additions. In the same way,I guess, as a Jew might not be that interested in debates on The New Testament.
(Incidentally! Those TomeRaider files on Buddha.net I made with my own hands many years ago! I had forgotten about them.)
>>>The Madhyamaka also goes on about the way we acquire knowledge. The way we accept something as reality is in the basis of our perception, not of the thing itself.
OK, but for the record, this text came nearly 1 millennia after the time of the Buddha, its on the fringe of what I personally consider plausibly accurate to the teachings:)
>>>Than they ask "How do we prove that a perception is true?" It would be through other perception (in a neverending line of perceptions), or you would have to say that perception proves itself, which is unacceptable (the author says its because you can't accept something without proof).
I would say that the notion of a perception being true is Wrong View. A perception can accurately represent something outsive of its experience and instantiation, or not. Perceptions can only ever be more or less accurate, not true or false:)
I believe it is important to understand which kind of philsospical questions can be true or false and which have no real meaning.
I don't know I've always been fearful, once I tried to investigate it when high and found the earliest memory, the deepest part of me, was fear, fear of annihilation. And then I was given security by my parents and what not, and that gave me gratefulness, which was apparently the reason why I have love for everyone.
Without annihilation there cannot be any possibility of becoming. To think that there is an end is to dream that we become stuck forever. Death is a condition of life; part of the baggage of being alive. This does not work the other way around. There has to be a thinker in place to image this condition.
This is the same as saying there are beings 'out there' who will never exist, which is patently absurd. Your being was inevitable; it was never a maybe or possibility.
Does this sound anything at all like a necessity? You don't need to be, you are.
I haven't read that. Im not actually that interested in what people think about Buddhism if they base their belief on the Ahibdharma and later additions.
Why not?
For example: "A exists and A does not exist" is a contradiction as is "A and B are different and A is B." We cannot imagine any change external to A or B that could make those statements not a contradiction. They are logically neccesarily true, without them we have no reason.
I think the author meant that you can only talk about identity when you have a concept of difference. Identity\Difference are like twin concepts, one supporting the other, conditioning one another. There is no idea of what identity is without the idea of what difference is. I am walking on thin ice though, I don't know this very well so I won't go further. It is a shame though, this would be a fun debate
Mat, I dunno why bother with this buddhism stuff if enlightenment was something mundane. Its definition is annihilation of suffering, isn't that basically death then if there is no reincarnation?
Mat, I dunno why bother with this buddhism stuff if enlightenment was something mundane. Its definition is annihilation of suffering, isn't that basically death then if there is no reincarnation?
Why to bother?
My Beliefs on this:
Enlightenment is mundane. It is the middle path between nihilism and mysticism. It is the path of science and reason and wisdom and knowledge. It is that path that leads from the mundane to the wondrous arisings and explanations of compassion, love and empathy.
These are our only lives. What should we do?
We should live the life that maximises truth and happiness and peace for all sentient beings and minimises suffering, conflict and delusions for all.
The three marks are mundane, simple, clear, self evident.
In the same was as scientists see how from 100 odd atoms all of this is possible, life and art and humor and more. The buddha saw how from three simple truths the great joys and sufferings of these short lifes of ours are conditioned.
Complexity takes the simple and mundane and from it all else arises, from skyscrapers to spiritual experiences.
Emmergence is the only majic, I believe the Buddha knew this.
How about this for an idea that may propagate benefical connextsion between Buddhist with divergent views. (ie, stop the frankly waistfull and futile squabbles that I and otehrs have been engaging in here)
Let's divide the buddhist world into two types of Buddhist:
The Scientific Buddhist who believes that Dharma and the universe operate according to closed and connected principles that start from simple truths which emerge into more complex truths which in tern condition human experience.
The Mystical Buddhist who believes that there are truths that are innacessable to the scientific heirachy of reality and these also condition human experience.
These two views can never ultimately engage in meaningful debate about which view is right; they both contain assumptions external to the views themselves.
One view has a faith that there is more than this. The other view has a faith that there is not more than this. Neither faith can refute the other. Trying is wasting time and bound only to make more negativity.
Comments
I certainly don't agree, nor to many others:)
I think it is Right View to investigate these possibilities, both rationally or intuitively through meditation:)
Mat
The two truths, conventional and ultimate.
Rebirth, no matter how one feels about it or interprets it, it falls into the realm of conventional rather than ultimate. If we are having a discussion about rebirth and its functionality or definition, that is a conversation of the conventional or relative level, rather than the ultimate level.
The ultimate truth is emptiness beyond extremes of existence and non-existence. Physical rebirth is conventional in that it is considered by many to be a conventional "valid cognition".
The ultimate truth is of course that these "valid cognitions" are none other than composites that lack any enduring identity or "truth" and are therefore ultimately "empty".
It may be possible that the structure of the Buddha's teachings is solid (the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, dependent arising, selflessness and impermanence), but that some of the details are incorrect, such as when a scientific theory is in accord with the facts but doesn't have the process down right. That is, of course, if you can believe the Buddha was not perfect.
The belief in rebirth has no negative consequence, unless it turns out in the end to be ignorance. If you believe all animal lifeforms and other humans around you have lived countless lives in various states of existence and that how you affect them also affects their future existences, then you have a greater respect for life. I'd honestly like to believe this is the case, but only with realization will that happen.
The Buddha exhorted his adherents not to believe because of respect for the teacher or his teachings. I do respect the Buddha more than words can say, but it would directly contradict his teachings to not reflect upon them thoroughly.
Paste from another post of mine:
The concept of rebirth can have different importance to different people. It can be a driving force if you believe you have been suffering for countless eons and will only be free from countless future suffering by becoming unbound to it. It can also be a comfort if you believe you have an infinite number of chances to finally get it right and attain Nibbana. Myself, not knowing what the truth is, I choose to simply practice due diligence and get done in this life everything I can. Perhaps later I'll progress further and attain Nibbana, but I'm content now to strive toward the welfare of others as best I can, and to always keep an open mind.
I dont see the respect when you tell someone wrong then stick your fingers in your ears when they try to discuss:)
Be well
Mat
You made an argument that clearly reflected that you didnt know what I was referring to so i clarified. After my clarification you came back with a series of questions that were condescending, off-topic, weird and to be frank pretty trolly.
I am not going to participate in that kind of discussion with you nor am I going to continue this one.
Which is what some belive:)
>>>The Buddha exhorted his adherents not to believe because of respect for the teacher or his teachings. I do respect the Buddha more than words can say, but it would directly contradict his teachings to not reflect upon them thoroughly.
Absolutly! I couldnt agree more. Yet sometimes Buddhists tell other Buddhists off, patronise them or accuse them of wrong view for even doubting that the buddha said as you highlight above:)
Mat
That is very wise, methinks:)
I think the ability to disagree and vocalize that disagreement are actually signs of intelligence. If we disagree and talk about it thats a clear indication that people are actively thinking about the topics they debate.
Without divergences in thinking there would be no Buddhism to discuss.
I apologize if I got you wrong, and I hope you understand that I never intend to give any kind of offense.
I'm not offended at all.
"We are a group of seekers and ponderers who share our lives with one another as friends. We do not assume to be authorities on Buddhism nor preach a particular sect of Buddhism."
That is what I would like to be the case here:)
Mat
Meh I "believe" in reincarnation b/c it makes sense, how could this amazing state of awareness just "go away" with the body. It seems to be something more. Its observing things, but its not simply the voluntary mind, it doesn't even have complete control of that, if it has any control at all...
But like everything, I don't KNOW that's the case until I have investigated it myself. "believe nothing"
I would personally think buddhism falls apart w/out reincarnation, karma has no affect obviously, and death in and of itself would be a nirvana.
Lots that satisfies me, though that doesn't mean it satisfies you:) Have a think abut these questions and you may see the kind of evidence I have:)
Why is rebirth not clear in the four noble truths?
Why is rebirth at odds with Anica and Anataman and the only explanation uses metaphor or mystery?
Rebirth was the cultural norm for millennia before Buddhism, how come it has such an uneasy place within Buddhism, unless rebirth was Wrong View from the start?
>>>the deepest part of me, was fear, fear of annihilation.
I think the Buddha clearly explains the nature of that fear, its cause and the solution to the cause. But that is very different to an explanation of Rebirth:)
>>>Meh I "believe" in reincarnation b/c it makes sense, how could this amazing state of awareness just "go away" with the body.
How could the snowflake melt? Always ask yourself with such questions, "Am I smuggling my ego into this question?" I think you may be with your belief in reincarnation.
>>>It seems to be something more.
yes it does. The key word there is "seems":) Seems implies illusion:)
>>>I would personally think buddhism falls apart w/out reincarnation, karma has no affect obviously, and death in and of itself would be a nirvana.
I think you are mistaken on your belief there:)
Without anything "more than this" then this life suddenly becomes much more valuable. Each moment can be seen as more special. This is all there is, this is my only life, i must live it well.. these kinds of thoughts. Impermanence, interconnectedness, these all profoundly change ones world view. You mention karma, but thats very compatible with no rebirth if you see it as I believe the Buddha saw it; as moral/mental many to many causation in a vast complex network over time space and possibility.
Nibana doesn't need to be seen as death or some majical change. It is perhaps mundane, the realisation of Dharma and especially the noble eightfold path:)
There need be no magic to have wonder:)
Mat
The lack of any enduring truth is explained through logic, by the Madhyamaka school (methinks :-P). I have read some things about it but I tend to disagree (although I wasn't going directly to the source).
Basically they treat concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth as relative, just as a man being tall in relation to a short man, and being short in relation to a third man.
Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none. This is also true of the three divisions of
time – past, present, and future. (This is taken from a book called The Tree of Enlightenment, freely available at buddhanet, although I am putting it in my own words mixing with quotes and jumping some parts, so you might check the source x-P).
The Madhyamaka also goes on about the way we acquire knowledge. The way we accept something as reality is in the basis of our perception, not of the thing itself. Than they ask "How do we prove that a perception is true?" It would be through other perception (in a neverending line of perceptions), or you would have to say that perception proves itself, which is unacceptable (the author says its because you can't accept something without proof).
There is a lot more to it, really, I am just posting the tip of the iceberg because you showed interest.
I dont buy the explanation, to me it seems sophisty. Its like counjouruing up new universes to explain quantum contradictions; it might offer something that seems to solve the problem but there is little reason to belive that it is the case. It shiofts the lump under the carpet:)
In a sense its worth with the dualism of identity because that forums a big slab of the denity of reason. If something is unreasonable it is not a solution to change reason:) You might like to see my writings on this here: http://goo.gl/EZjF I talk about identity, change and differnce within this Dharmic context:)
>>>Basically they treat concepts of identity and difference, existence and nonexistence, and so forth as relative, just as a man being tall in relation to a short man, and being short in relation to a third man.
Tallness is a relative concep, the same is not true of difference or existance.
For example: "A exists and A does not exist" is a contradiction as is "A and B are different and A is B." We cannot imagine any change external to A or B that could make those statements not a contradiction. They are logically neccesarily true, without them we have no reason.
>>>Without the idea of existence, nonexistence has no meaning, and without nonexistence, existence has none.
That implies that without that difficulty we could make sense of dualistic existence or identity. Existence is weird, at the bottom level and all the way up, its weird to Buddhists and scientists and Christians and all. Saying something is weird is actually weirder for no reason other than to hide a problem doesn't solve the problem.
Whatver existence is, I think it is simple and consistent. Thats about all I can say on the matter.
>>>This is also true of the three divisions of time – past, present, and future. (This is taken from a book called The Tree of Enlightenment, freely available at buddhanet, although I am putting it in my own words mixing with quotes and jumping some parts, so you might check the source x-P).
I haven't read that. Im not actually that interested in what people think about Buddhism if they base their belief on the Ahibdharma and later additions. In the same way,I guess, as a Jew might not be that interested in debates on The New Testament.
(Incidentally! Those TomeRaider files on Buddha.net I made with my own hands many years ago!
>>>The Madhyamaka also goes on about the way we acquire knowledge. The way we accept something as reality is in the basis of our perception, not of the thing itself.
OK, but for the record, this text came nearly 1 millennia after the time of the Buddha, its on the fringe of what I personally consider plausibly accurate to the teachings:)
>>>Than they ask "How do we prove that a perception is true?" It would be through other perception (in a neverending line of perceptions), or you would have to say that perception proves itself, which is unacceptable (the author says its because you can't accept something without proof).
I would say that the notion of a perception being true is Wrong View. A perception can accurately represent something outsive of its experience and instantiation, or not. Perceptions can only ever be more or less accurate, not true or false:)
I believe it is important to understand which kind of philsospical questions can be true or false and which have no real meaning.
Be well:)
Mat
Without annihilation there cannot be any possibility of becoming. To think that there is an end is to dream that we become stuck forever. Death is a condition of life; part of the baggage of being alive. This does not work the other way around. There has to be a thinker in place to image this condition.
This is the same as saying there are beings 'out there' who will never exist, which is patently absurd. Your being was inevitable; it was never a maybe or possibility.
Does this sound anything at all like a necessity? You don't need to be, you are.
I think the author meant that you can only talk about identity when you have a concept of difference. Identity\Difference are like twin concepts, one supporting the other, conditioning one another. There is no idea of what identity is without the idea of what difference is. I am walking on thin ice though, I don't know this very well so I won't go further. It is a shame though, this would be a fun debate
I have tried and failed:) For me most of Buddhism is in the first sermon and the kalama suttra:)
>>I am walking on thin ice though, I don't know this very well so I won't go further. It is a shame though, this would be a fun debate
So debate:) How bad can it be:)
Do you believe absolutely in the Three marks of exisitance?
Why to bother?
My Beliefs on this:
Enlightenment is mundane. It is the middle path between nihilism and mysticism. It is the path of science and reason and wisdom and knowledge. It is that path that leads from the mundane to the wondrous arisings and explanations of compassion, love and empathy.
These are our only lives. What should we do?
We should live the life that maximises truth and happiness and peace for all sentient beings and minimises suffering, conflict and delusions for all.
The three marks are mundane, simple, clear, self evident.
In the same was as scientists see how from 100 odd atoms all of this is possible, life and art and humor and more. The buddha saw how from three simple truths the great joys and sufferings of these short lifes of ours are conditioned.
Complexity takes the simple and mundane and from it all else arises, from skyscrapers to spiritual experiences.
Emmergence is the only majic, I believe the Buddha knew this.
Peace:)
Mat
Let's divide the buddhist world into two types of Buddhist:
The Scientific Buddhist who believes that Dharma and the universe operate according to closed and connected principles that start from simple truths which emerge into more complex truths which in tern condition human experience.
The Mystical Buddhist who believes that there are truths that are innacessable to the scientific heirachy of reality and these also condition human experience.
These two views can never ultimately engage in meaningful debate about which view is right; they both contain assumptions external to the views themselves.
One view has a faith that there is more than this. The other view has a faith that there is not more than this. Neither faith can refute the other. Trying is wasting time and bound only to make more negativity.
How does that sound as a notion?:)
Peace
Mat