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.
Is rebirth for real?
Hello, i'm a Buddhist who have believed in rebirth all long, but not really completely as obviously i've not personally experienced it.
Recently I've some doubts about whether rebirth actually exists.
The argument goes like this: there are more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 ants in this world, or 1 million ants to every human according to
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_ants_are_there_in_the_world
The total number of animals/insects would be even greater.
This means that the chances of one being reincarnated as an ant/animal is more than 1 million times those of being reborn as a human being.
Put in another way, the proportion of beings with bad karma to those of good karma is more than 1 million to 1.
Well, you could argue that there could be a lot of human-like beings beyond earth, but just like earth, there would be even more animal-like beings.
Hence the idea of rebirth doesn't seem very convincing - it's as if every one of us is more likely to be reborn as an animal than as a human being.
What am i missing here?
Recently I've some doubts about whether rebirth actually exists.
The argument goes like this: there are more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 ants in this world, or 1 million ants to every human according to
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_ants_are_there_in_the_world
The total number of animals/insects would be even greater.
This means that the chances of one being reincarnated as an ant/animal is more than 1 million times those of being reborn as a human being.
Put in another way, the proportion of beings with bad karma to those of good karma is more than 1 million to 1.
Well, you could argue that there could be a lot of human-like beings beyond earth, but just like earth, there would be even more animal-like beings.
Hence the idea of rebirth doesn't seem very convincing - it's as if every one of us is more likely to be reborn as an animal than as a human being.
What am i missing here?
0
Comments
Hi, I personally think you are missing much else that suggests rebirth isnt true. From science, philosophy, experience, history and well, wisdom.
Some things to consider to help you workld through this debate inside your mind:
1) Rebirth was totally the dominant notion for millennia before and fater the Buddha, its expected that there would be cultural contamination with Buddhims as with any religion. Why not in the case of Rebirth?
2) Rebirth is a key example of "The Great Later On Con" that all religions seem to use to control their followers. One should be very weary.
3) In many of the Suttras, especialy the "cardinal" ones its really not clear that Buddha isnt saying that rebirth is a part of the problem and, in fact, it must be renounced to start the path. This is my unorthodox reading, but do have a look for yourself.
Consider:
"When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
I read that as saying the holy, mystical life ends and this is it, there is no more rebirth as notion or actually.
Or
"I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
I read that as saying one cannot be bound for enlightenment until one has declared and knows that there is no future rebirth .
I may well be wrong, but there are lots of placed like tjhis in the suttras where its possible to read, consitently, that the buddha was teaching that we must escape THE IDEA of the cycle of rebirth:)
Food for thought for enquiring Buddhists, for sure:)
Mat
And forget "bad" kamma. There's just kamma. No good or bad.
Nios.
Does that mean you don't even entertain the possibility that a belief in rebirth is wrong view?
Does it mean that you consider there to be no existential difference between a life in which one is certain this is their last to one in which one is certain it is not? That difference seems HUGE to me, its just about the biggest distinction there is, isn't it?
These are not facile or "wrong view" questions, I believe!
I admit they they are questions that are politically and culturally awkward for buddhism:)
I've felt confused when imagining rebirth because I want to correctly understand the Buddhadharma.
I currently imagine rebirth as an attempt to point to the concept of Dependent Origination, which has missed the mark and led to confusion.
I imagine that if one wants to understand how rare human being (and all being) arises that studying, contemplating, and meditating upon Dependent Origination will be beneficial. I particularly like Thich Nhat Hanh's explication of this concept as 'Interbeing'.
Hey Bob
I think it is important to see that the point being asked here is about if "rebirth actually exists". So that is in the literal sense of there being something that is in some continuous sense reborn when someone dies that ijn some other sense can be identified with the person who died.
So its not about the "metaphor" or the "moral DNS" or the "candle flame" as I understand it but a simple question that has a yes or a no answer.
So with that in mind could you please try to explain a bit more what you mean, as I for one haven't heard anything that sounds like what you allude to, hence am curious:)
Thanks
Mat
Another thought
Thank You for the response.
Is it possible that rebirth may exist as a conventional conceptual provisional teaching, as I offered in my last post, which does not exist, in any way, as pointing to how we arise into 'being.'? ; especially upon rational analysis.
I think that is much more like it!
But I dont think it was a "motivational tool" as much as a "control tool" by the (zzzz..zzz sorry) masculine hegemony (I am at this moment writing a post about that).
We can see this has happened in all of the Abrahamic systems and we can see it happened in PreBuddhist China (This was perhaps the first masculine hegemony) and from, what I understand, in Hindu culture too, so we would need to explain away why it wouldn't have happened with Buddhism:)
Once you see this and ask yourself : If you look to these and ask yourself, which tool has emmerged as-the prime tool of control it is the idea of exchanging something in this life for a benefit in a future life, what I call The Great later On Con.
I don't think I am wrong with the case of the Non buddhist religions, and so the question remains, is rebirth yet another instance of the Great Later On Con?
Which prompts an even more interesting question: "Was the middle path originally a path between The Great later On Con and meaningless existence?"
Self-Mortification, being a prime example of pain in this life for a supposed benefit in a future life:)
Food for thought!
Salome
Mat
Why didn't Buddha himself write anything down, since he was educated?
How do you explain rebirth when 30 years ago, the world had half the population it does now? How can everyone have had a past life then?
Reincarnation is suggested by the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson, in that many cases suggest it. Consider the case of this boy who remembers a past life as a WWII pilot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
Or the case of this police captain who validated his past lives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qzRpSxHEk
Or the case of Mary Sutton, author of "Through Time and Death" and the book "Many Lives Many Masters" by Brian Weiss, which show compelling evidence for reincarnation.
Ask me that in another 5-10 years. Why make a dead certain decision now?
This reminds me of the creationists who believe that, if you believe in evolution, you will act like it (ie the strong shall concur the weak, leave disabled people to die, immoral etc) but we know this is wrong. Many many compassionate people believe in evolution (and many uncompassionate people believe in creation
I apply the same to your idea that, if people who believe in rebirth are more relaxed and less likely to live a decent and moral life because they can always try again. Rather than, if they believe this is their ONLY life they will work as hard as they can to be good and attain enlightenment.
However, we can easily flip this over and say, "those who believe this is their only life wont see the point in living a decent and moral life, because they just want to have fun. "
Now, I want to make this clear as possible, I don't believe either view is the case. There are some fantastically compassionate and moral people who believe this is their only life. And there are some fantastically compassionate and moral people who believe in rebirth.
You say that the belief in rebirth was done in order to control people. The same can be said for your view.
Like I have said to you before, it's not what you believe, but what you do with that belief. Your actions, your intentions.
If you read the suttas, rebirth is never catagorically stated as "right view", rather it is implied. So looking for a passage where it says "one must believe in rebirth to attain nirvana" is fruitless. And still, if you found one, I'm sure you'd believe it was added by the (what was it?) masculine hegemony of the culture.
You do not believe in rebirth, but you are living your life as best as you can following the bodhisattva path. I applaud you. And I applaud anyone else who does the same.
I believe in rebirth, but I am (trying to) living the best life I can following the bodhisattva path. I applaud anyone who does the same.
So why all this need to be proven wrong over anything?
Nios.
All tools can be used to control people. That doesn't make the view either right or wrong. Like I said, it's what you do with it, your actions, your intentions. Not what you believe.
The only way we can be sure of what tool has "emerged" from culture is to compare the suttas pre and post that culture. I can't see this is possible with the suttas until we find one that predates the ones we have. Otherwise, all of this is speculation.
I must though, question your idea that rebirth is a tool of control. No-where, in no text, no dharma talk, no teacher and no sangha that I have come across has rebirth ever been used as a tool of control. Where on earth are you getting this idea from?
The suttas are clear on what the middle path is, but, you pretty much reject the suttas, so no point giving quotes eh?
Buddha was against self mortification. It is clear in the suttas, but again, no point in giving a quote
Nios.
During the time of Buddha there were many religious gurus teaching different things. Some believed in rebirth, some didn't. The Samannaphala sutta is a wonderful example of this, as King Ajatasattu speaks about all the different gurus who have come and gone from his land.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
Well worth a read.
Nios.
Hey there Mundus.
Actually, I think you can only get full fruition of some methods, Lam Rim for instance, with a belief in rebirth.
It is not explained as a motivational tool.
>>The only way we can be sure of what tool has "emerged" from culture is to compare the suttas pre and post that culture.
Do you agree rebirth was the dominant cultural norm for the millennia before the time of the Buddha?
Do you agree that there is evidence that other religions have had their doctrine corrupted?
>>>I can't see this is possible with the suttas until we find one that predates the ones we have. Otherwise, all of this is speculation.
I am speculating one way, the Buddhist orthodoxy the other:) How can we know who is wrong?
>>>I must though, question your idea that rebirth is a tool of control.
Imagine the stark message of the Buddha as I see it. This is our your only life, live it enlightened. Imagine over the weeks and years as it is amalgamated into the Buddhas tale...And all along there is this hard thing to swallow: this is the only life. And this religion is growing and growing in power. it has temples and benefactors and polictial weight. And at its core this message that says that all of this is is all there is. Is it really that unreasonable that over the years the doctrine could change?
We know it happens elsewhere in other religions:)
It doesnt mean its a conspiracy, or that any single monk has ever been "bad". It means just that the proessess of transmission was, we know, highly sensitive to alteration. If you look at if from this way, does it not in fact seem that it would be expected?
>>No-where, in no text, no dharma talk, no teacher and no sangha that I have come across has rebirth ever been used as a tool of control.
It is in the very idea of rebirth. The idea that there is something more than this is the very tool of control! In all religions:) Do you really not see that?
>>>Where on earth are you getting this idea from?
Comparing the history of buddhism with other religions:)
>>The suttas are clear on what the middle path is, but, you pretty much reject the suttas, so no point giving quotes eh?
Please don't misrepresent me:) I do not reject the suttras that cohere with the Three Marks of Existence and the four noble truths:)
These are really the key suttras that I am sure we have read:) I don't see they support the view of rebirth, apart from the MP suttra which is acknowledged as a very variously compiled piece - you can see this in the way the style changes:)
>>Buddha was against self mortification. It is clear in the suttas, but again, no point in giving a quote
You know nios, I don't laugh at you when I disagree with you:) can we keep this polite please:)
I agree he was, and I think that he was also againt wthe whole mystical agenda he had just spent 7 years explorin:) Why pick on self mortifcation? He tried other practices during his time too? Why dont these get a mention?
Surely?
Thanks
Mat
Nios.[/QUOTE]
which is why there are different schools and paths to suit different people. Lam Rim isn't something I would suggest in this case. Here it would be beneficial to not focus on rebirth and cut to the chase. I mean we could sit and debate endlessly on rebirth or we could just our own ways and practice.
The religions at the time of the buddha were not the same as they are now. Please read some historical books that study the religions of ancient india and nepal before making such a bold statement.
Of course, and no where have I said that Buddhism was free from this
This does not answer my question at all and just illustrates how your ideas of Buddhism are based on your assumptions. Sorry
Ah, but like i said, the suttas are littered with references to rebirth, so what you are suggesting is, monks added these references to literally tens of thousands of suttas. Why? For control? Because that is what you believe rebirth is don't you? If was an accident, or because of culture, I'd agree if it popped up a handful of times, but there's just too many references.
Again, this is your view of rebirth. All I'm saying is, in all my expereince it has never ever been used to control anyone. :cool:
there are tens of thousands of suttas. Only a fraction of them have been translated to english. I'm sure hundreds, if not, thousands would fit your criteria
Please tell me you have based this on the original pali?
Please don't misunderstand my laugh gliffs. I laugh often. I'm not laughing at you.
They do many many times. I would have thought you'd have come across them by now.
Nios.
Hi
You seem to accusing me of committing a crime that I fully admit I admit. These are just my assumptions and beliefs! I am not at all saying they are true!
I am not the one being dogmatic here, I am simply doubting the dogma and that Dogma is the assumption of rebirth:)
And thats a controll tool.
If you dont think so, fine, I do.
I am not here to justify myself to you i am asking questions and proposing answer:)
Salome
mat
Thank you, I have just read that. I hadnt read it before. i may need to give it another more focussed read, but still, I am not sure of the relevance to our discussion?
I am pretty aware of the variety of practices he went through:) In gargaramaya temple there is a really wonderful "freeze" (I guess you would call it) of his various different processes in his wanderings, some of them seem very horrific!
They all rely on a compromise (taking pain, starvation etc etc) in exchange for some future benefit. We don't have to look far around modern day India to see many of the practices still in action:)
My point is that its these en mass, and their whole mystical agenda, that the buddha may have been inviting us to avoid with the middle path.
Thanks
Mat
Don't be stuck in the idea that rebirth must happen on this earth. Perhaps on another "earth" the humans outnumber the ants 1 million to 1
It is said in suttas that the population in lower realms are far more than the higher realms. Aka there are more humans than Gods, more animals than humans and more beings in lower states of deprivation (in apaya for example) than animals.
As for if rebirth is true, you just have to ask yourself this question. Either rebirth is true or rebirth is not true. If rebirth is not true then that means you die and then cease to exist after that. Just like the nihilists do, you believe you only live one life. What is the purpose of your practice then? You wouldn’t want to end suffering after all; it is just one life so why spend it meditating? The Buddha refused the nihilist point of view altogether in many suttas (Ex: - Brahmajala sutta).
It is likely that the Buddha used the concept of rebirth as a moral teaching to get people to follow the practice but that doesn’t mean he told a lie to get people to follow his teachings. The concept of rebirth is there all over the suttas so it is undeniably an integral part of Buddhist moral teachings.
Having said that I should also add that, as Mundus said, is it relevant to your practice in a day to day level? I doubt so. Rebirth is just a motivational factor for worldings to see the cycle of suffering they are in and the importance of getting rid of it. That’s all. It is not relevant to the here and now and quite possibly not mentioned in the core Buddhist teachings like the DO. So best thing is to concentrate on the here and now and let the rest take care of itself. Entertaining the idea of rebirth too much might even be a hindrance to your practice as I personally know a lot of people who do good in the hope of being born in higher realms after they are dead. They blindly are getting involved with the very thing they are running away from.
So yes, I believe rebirth exists and that’s what the suttas clearly state but I see it only as a motivation to practice the Dhamma. Aka it is only a morale teaching but the core practice is something for here and now, which when practiced will give you results here and now.
Last week one of my Sri Lankan friend's was astounded that I didn't believe in rebirth but claim to be a Buddhist. He wasn't a scholar but had been brought up therevadan all his life.
His main point of increadulaty was that if there is no rebirth then "why not just rob a bank, or do what you wanted?"
My answer was that that would be against dharma and thus wouldnt lead to a happy life for anyone. I'm not sure how good the answer was but I am not sure how good the question was, either:)
Yes, this is the view of most nonreligious people. In this important sense there is zero difference between rebirth, heaven, valhalla etc
Yes, just like nihilists, but the associated beliefs are different. Nihilists have no real option but to kill themselves, "jut live" or indulge in destructive hedonism.
Buddhists have this wonderful gift called the Eightfold Path that illuminates truth and cultivates peace and happiness not for the "individual" but for the world.
Don't forget, in the Buddhist view thee is no "this is my only life" at a spiritual level its more "there is only this moment".
To make this short and rare life the most full of joy and low on suffering?
To maximise the positive states of all connected systems?
To live a noble life rather than a life devoid of any purpose?
To cultivate peace and truth because it is clear to see from the four noble truths that they lead to happiness?
Don't forget if you have rebirth you are only shifting these existential questions under the carpet:)
What is the point of a cycle of rebirth?
If all is impermanent then i know the cycle of rebirth will end one day, so why not enjoy it?
I see it the opposite, because I believe this is my only life I am much more inclined to attack the causes of suffering in this life. The house really is burning when you know these are your last years, I can assure you!:)
Yes, but you make a mistake, I believe, to see the middle path as needing rebirth to not be Nihilist. I believe that that is exactly what the middle path is, the non nihilist non mystical path:)
Hmmm... if he didn't believe in Rebirth and he taught it, that seems close to a lie?
I personally don't think you can be agnostic about rebirth, its an is or an isnt thing in dharma. I have spent years trying to flesh out what it could mean as a metaphore or teaching aid, but i can get nowhere with that.
In this sense its a far "stronger" position to simply say "I believe The Buddha believed and taught the doctrine of rebirth" or "I believe The Buddha believed and taught the doctrine of no-rebirth." Again, just my beliefs.
I don't see this.
I used to think that it really doesn't matter, that the path is the path but i become less sure of this. As I see it the rebirth/norebirth issue is an issue that sits right in the middle of right View, both positions cannot be right.
Also, looking at how other religious use the idea of an afterlife (of which rebirth is a version) I think as inquiring buddhists it would seen starnge that we do not at least ask ourselves i these kind of influences could have altered Buddhism in its long and fractured lineage:)
Absilutly!:) nobody can know either way, its a personal cocie we must make ourselves. I made mine and I dont ever think about it in a hindering sense, there is no doubt to me in the same was as to a "monk on a mountaintop" there will be no doubt to him:)
I guess the issue comes when on internet forums people insist you are wrong when really, nobody can know either way. That is called dogma.
We dont know if there is heaven or hell. A cold quantum void, cyclical rebirth or the realm of the divine monkey gods, and we can never know with the kind of certainty required to be able to say to another "you are wrong". In this sense though our beliefs may be certain to ourselves we have no entitlement to say to others they should also be certain. That is called Dogma.
regards,
mat
when it comes to the "whose more Buddhist" scale, comments like that say a lot more than a lack of belief in rebirth ever could.
Which is why teachings of rebirth is probably a good way to make some of them practice the Dhamma. The concept of rebirth addresses people's morality.
I am sure you would be well to show him what a wrong Buddhist he was (Naughty Buddhist!) just as you do me!;)
But my point was, however, that he was brought up in the richest of therevadan cultures as a Buddhist from Birth (Unlike, I guess, most of us here) and this was his take on the issue.
I thought it interesting:)
My belief is that when people make such statements they do not quite see the dharmic truths as foundational. For such view suggest there is some other foundation to moral truths.... do you see that?
The dharmic morality isn't there as instruction in itself, its there for a reason.
What is that reason?
I think it is because when you see the simple nature of all systems, that is impermanence, emptiness and negativity how can you but fail to see that moral concepts like "me and them" and "me now acting for my future gain" become meaningless.
I believe that there is a reason positive moral concepts like compassion, honesty, love, equanimity are in Dharma, it isnt to control populaces but because they are determined by the foundational truths.
Think about this... ask yourself, from the Three Marks how can I arrive at claims like "Compassion should be cultivated" or "honesty is best."
The Buddha found the answers to these questions, maybe they got a bit lost in all the depth and mystery over the years?
Food for thoughts:)
I really don't know:) My reasons for not believing in rebirth can be divided up, in case you are interested:
Philosophy
Compared to the pristine beauty and selfevidence of Dharma rebirth seems like this tagged on carbuncle that just doenst fit.
Whatever dharmic concept you pick you can see how it all fits together so perfectly, even now it blows my mind. Its wonderful!
But then there is rebirth, and I cannot see how, nor can anyone explain to me , how rebirth connects (and I have spent a long time thinking and talking on this, its not a fleeting fancy of a notion for me)
So that's my main reason, the philosophical.
Science
My second reason is I guess best called scientific. There is simply no evidence that supports rebirth and (I have read books that try to do this) as a notion it seems deeply incompatible with the rational scientific universal view.
Sure sure, past life regressions and tales of Lammas recounting them etc... but frankly, that isnt evidence, that is hearsay.
And even if I experienced it myself what would be the most rational thing to assume:
a) That it was an illusion created within my mind (Lets not forget illusions cerated in ones mind play a huge part in Dharma!)
b) That these is this entire new reality that goes against science and reason, makes no sense really, and can only be expoerinced by what could always be an illusion.
Rebirth, like monkeys on the moon, has no scientific support.
History
For three thousands years, perhaps more, before the time of the Buddha, rebirth was one of the dominant notions and it remains so today in india, being a key aspect of hindu and sikh beliefs. (I mean a "more than this" concept)
We absolutly knwo without question that relisgions pick up cultural concepts, just loook at the diverse branches of the abrahamic religions. This raises a legitimate question:
Just how much cultural influence has Buddha picked up? Could that include the entire notion of rebirth?
Texts
There is simply no way to link what we have now in any shcool of Buddhism with the teachings of the Buddha. I think I show this pretty convincingly here but i now realise I was just scratching the surface.
To think that any lineage can be said with certainty to be the teachings of the Buddha is frankly irrational.
At best we must look for clues in the texts. When we look for these clues a curious thing can be seen:
The further we get from the earliest texts the more prominent rebirth becomes. So Tibetan Buddhism, which is a comparitavly recent form of Buddhism has these rich concepts of Rebirth, past lifes, realms and bardo etc that seem completely alien to the simple Dharma of the pali cannon suttras that I have read.
How can this be? How can rebirth go from being hardly mentioned in the four noble truths as presented in the first sermon to it being the dominant doctrine of later schools of Buddhism?
Something has changed, it seems. And why not extrapolite this back to before the pali cannon and the various councils when we are told, that the doctrine was clarified to avoid heresy? I think the answers are there:)
I invite you to stand back for a moment from what you know of Buddhism and with no preconception ask yourself this question:
Is it possible that the Buddha was teaching a path between the ancient mystical notions of rebirth and the pointless conclusions of nihilism and that his message, like the message of Jesus and Moses and I imagine all religious figures, got distorted?
What do you think?
Mat
I'm just saying that rebirth belief can be a detriment to practice as well. For people who feel rebirth is the only reason to not going around killing babies-well they have clearly not gained much understanding from their practice and the buddha's teachings. To me it's ironic that someone with such a belief in rebirth would suggest that those who don't believe in it at all are automatically less Buddhist.
Yes, got your point.
Totalah!:)
It is one of the few things I am certain of:)
OK:)
Now the question to you please, without recourse to Buddhsim, why would you believe in Rebirth?
Mat
I don't understand? I am speaking about whatever it is that's "reborn" in any sense. ie: When i die, that's it. However you want to wrap it up with obtuse meanings.
As I do not have direct realization to say whether it exists or not I have to go by what is there in the suttas. And rebirth is there in the suttas (maybe not in DO) Here are the suttas where it is mentioned so as I can remember but there are a lot more. I am sure you have gone through them yourself:
Gateekara sutta
Maha sudassana sutta
maha Govinda sutta
Vellama Sutta
I am looking for proper links to these as I read most of them from books
Would you elaborate please? I understand that it is probably not there in the DO so don't bring it up again pls
But that is the whole point Deshy:) Do you see how your belief in rebirth is circular?
To put it another way, you asked me why I am certain, and I gave some reasons outside of Buddhism, so I would like to know if you have any reasons from outside Buddhism?
mat
Rebirth concept appears in Buddhist suttas so I believe it with the assumption that the suttas are right until someone comes up with a valid explanation to point out that the suttas are wrong or that it is not about rebirth they talk about. Buddha has stated in the Brahmajala sutta (even if you drop out all the other suttas ) that it is wrong view to think that life ends at the time the body breaks (you die). I will quote the para of the specific sutta tomorrow as I am at work atm
Thats fine! I am not here to change anyones beliefs, I have a tremendous respect for the people I know that have given up their "lay" life for the mystical life. Just as I have a tremendous respect for a freind who is baptist minister.
We get on fine, we don't try and flatten the other's beliefs because, ultimately, we cannot, either way.
But if they were to come to me and say "Mat you are wrong about this! it says..." I would respond and I would keep responding being skeptcial and reasonable.
Dogma is pushing one's certain beliefs as if others think they should be certain. It is hard not to avoid, but we should always try to avoid it:)
>>>But as I always say we can sit down and argue about why you think you are right and why I think you are wrong and there will be no end to it.
In fairness, you havent argued:) That would require a counter-response or a new piece of information, neither of which you have provided, and for good reason, because its very hard to be rational about rebirth:)
>>So let's stick with the suttas not with our own philosophies. I am only interested in what the Buddha had to say you know
We do not know what the Buddha had to say in the same way as we do not know what Jesus or Moses had to say. All we have ton go on are fragments and echoes and opinions:)
>>>Rebirth concept appears in Buddhist suttas so I believe it with the assumption that the suttas are right until someone comes up with a valid explanation to point out that the suttas are wrong or that it is not about rebirth they talk about.
Can you tell me why my explantion that the buddha taught against rebirth and the mystical and that over the years the mystical has crept back into Buddhism, is invalid?
It may be wrong, but it is valid as an assumption, at least:)
>>>Buddha has stated in the Brahmajala sutta (even if you drop out all the other suttas ) that it is wrong view to think that life ends at the time the body breaks (you die). I will quote the para of the specific sutta tomorrow as I am at work atm[/QUOTE]
Again, let me restate: The fact that a suttra may say "Rebirth is absolutely true and you must believe it to be a Buddhist" has little weight with me. I am certain that the suttras have been altered and augmented and thus anything they contain I will initially doubt until it fits with the clear, perfect, simple and deep Dharmic system the Buddha discovered, but that we can all discover for ourselves:)
Lest not forget:
And
I reject rebirth for the above reasons:)
Thanks
Mat
I'm not sure what your second comment is about. In any event there's not much to elaborate on. You're both talking of consciousness/awareness as if it's the "self." And as if it either continues on or is illuminated after what we call death. It's all speculation. But we do know the body remains for a time. And it's just a constant chain of events where everything is interrelated. No rebirth, no nihilism, no self, just cause and effect.
I'm really not, you missunderstand if you think that.
I am simply talking about the two incomparable propositions:
When I die there is no sense in which I will continue.
When I die there is a sense in which I will continue.
The issue has no specific question to the nature of mind, its far simpler than that. Its either is, or is not.
Do you think, when you die, these is a sense in which you will continue? (Other than the trivial senses that everyone would agree on..)
Love is not rational.
I am not sure what you mean here, or the possible relevance?:)
To truly love another living being we must understand our nature and the other beings nature. Through this understanding we can come to recognize that all of our hopes and fears are coming from the same source and that they are ultimately insubstantial.
Genuine love comes from genuine compassion, and genuine authentic compassion comes from wisdom.