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.
Buddhism without Rebirth.- questions.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Good one DD.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12413/alaya-vijnana
http://www.buddhismtoday.com/english/philosophy/maha/032-Alayavijnana.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Buddhist-Unconscious-Alaya-Vijnana-Context-Thought/dp/0415406072
Furthermore, Thich Nhat Hanh and others discuss seed consciousness in their works.
You seem to be unaware of this significant teaching.
If you prefer wikipedia and numerious other texts to the suttas and think they are a more reliable source of Dhamma then so be it
One must take care to not misinterpret the (one) sutta above.
In short, there are two ways of learning about Buddhism, namely, from the commentators & gurus or from the Buddha & suttas.
When mind is still the process is easier to discern. One way is to watch the thoughts arising and fading without getting pulled into the mental stories by the senses. That's why part of the training is the restraint of one's senses.
In what way is it better? It seem to me as if the traditional explanation is more logical than the one I read in the article.
If good karma does not always yeild good results and the bad karma does not always yield bad results then is buddhist training possible at all?
Was that not one of the views that Gotama refuted?
Actually I can digest both. As I see it they do not contradict each other.
/Victor
Yes true. But that is not obvious to most. If I lead a mostly happy life and is satisfied with it I will not know that I am supposedly suffering according to Buddhist standards before I am dead.
Yes but that happiness constituetes giving up all sensory pleasure of this life. no? So try and convince the average Ivan Ivanovitch under those premises that he if truly suffering in his daly life and that he needs to read a dozen books on buddhism and mediatate every day to get rid of this suffering and he will just look at you silly.
If you explain about future lives you might just stand a chance.
That was bldy fast. I changed the word a minute after I wrote it:o.
Buddhism has only one true goal and that is to reach Nibbana. Buddhas exposition on Karma serves only one purpose and that is to aid the cultivation. Good karma is that karma that will not hinder you to reach the goal and bad karma is that wich will hinder you. Then there is karma which will stop you entirely. Do you not think at least that kind of karma is worth reflection?
I would say that it is wrong to say that there is someone who recieves karma ramifications, but, and here is the important part, it is also wrong to say that there is noone that recieves karma ramifications.
As I see it it is truly not skillful to ponder too much about karma results. As they are complex and not deterministic.
But if the Buddha did not wish for us to have some understanding of karma then why did he teach it?
And I would say yes in the way that Nibbana entail the end of all karma formations it is not relevant to ponder too much on karma. But until then there is a need to navigate this sea of karma formations. And at least know not to execute one of the five actions that will totally stop you from reaching tha Goal.
But then again that would not be your view on karma...
What you are saying here is that there are no volitional actions creating fruitions in the now or future? A DO without karma? What we need to do is end our ignorance and our suffering will stop?
10 minutes!? Shame on you! :nonono:
Caught you red handed. You are not a rebirth atheist! You are an agnostic. But it was kind of you to share your views all the same.:)
Yes Thanks. Ahahaha. Know there really is no doubt in my mind that you are a SL woman.
That depends on my personality and what I regard as valuble in life. That the world is as it is proof to me that most people value the yacht. No?
Did he really say that? If those ramifications are true already in this life then they should be scientifically measurable.
What is your view on Karma? Deshy does if I understand her correctly not believe in Karma per see. Is it the same with you?
/Victor
This is something that is empirically measurable in someone who practices generosity. Next time you're sad, go try giving 10 bucks to someone who really needs it. See what happens.
I reused the term from another post in this thread,
I preferr reading the suttas combined with insight meditation.
What is the division of the suttas you were referring to? I know there is a mundane and a supramundane way of understanding the texts. But you were dividing the suttas into mundane and supramundane?
What is that division?
/Victor
PS
I am not an idiot. Even if my woman tells me so from time to time she does not mean it I am sure.
Karma formations have been intrinsic in my understanding of the DO. since the traditional view is that the body and birth is preconditioned by the pre-this-life karma.
Aka without karma there can not be fabrications nor feelings.
DS
EDIT:
Thank you for the suttas. I too prefer reading the suttas to secondhand instruction.
But I have not gotten very far yet. I am working on it.
About your translation of Ghandabbas as scent-seed. In my and Deshys language the first word stem Ghanda means (bad) smell or odor rather than scent. Which might fit the bill better.
I was referring to strength, beauty and long life.:). But you knew that.
But of course I would not buy the yacht.
I am just saying that most people are not that way.
/Victor
are you sure?
how much?;)
Yes indeed; it is also possible to boil water & sand, hoping to get rice.
According to which tradition? I don't see kamma as cause and effect like the Newton's third law. It is reasonable to look at kamma as mere habitual tendencies. A person who develops his mind in hatred and anger towards someone will experience agitation and frustration which makes him suffer. That would be his bad kamma. A person who lied would feel guilty and not get enough sleep during the night. That would be his bad kamma. A person who lies constantly to others might gain a bad reputation in society and at work. That would be his bad kamma.
A person getting cancer might not be because of his bad kamma from past lives. But if he grieves endlessly in this life thinking "I must have done something terrible in my past life and I am going to die a horrible death now" and develops his mind in self clinging then that very grief and frustration will be his bad kamma. He will experience hell here and now. If he thinks "I have cancer that is fine. There is no need for mind to be sick because my body is sick" he would be at peace and harmony with the way things are. That would be his good kamma.
This, my friend, is how I see kamma. Then you would see the results of the way you direct your mind in this lifetime itself. Kamma to you won't be a cosmic account but mere habitual tendencies. You would keep in peace and live in merit without any effort.
I told you how before
Have you read both? If so how could you have failed to identify the obvious contradictions.
1) One version talks about a "seed or a continuum of consciousness". Other talks about consciousness as of six types arising based on the six sense bases as per the Buddha explained it in many suttas.
2) One relies on rebirth. The other doesn't talk about rebirth at all. Only birth and death of the ego
3) One says a cycle of DO happens over three lifetimes or at least two. The other says a cycle of the DO can happen many times within this lifetime itself
4) One version is not verifiable in this lifetime thus its use as a doctrine for cessation of suffering within this lifetime is almost nonexistent. The other is verifiable here and now and if rightly applied can get a taste of what Nibbana is like in this lifetime.
Not all people during the Buddha's days even followed the Buddhist path. Delusion is such that people do not easily identify that self clinging is causing suffering. If you feel that you don't mind the agitations, anger, sadness, frustrations, anxieties etc you go though day in and day out and you do not need the supreme satisfaction that surpasses all kinds of sensory pleasures then who am I to say you "should" follow the Buddhist path? It is not a mandatory thing everyone should do. It's your choice. Which is why I asked you to reflect on suffering bit by bit
You don't have to leave your social responsibilities to follow the Buddhist path. You can still be a good father and a husband in your domestic life, a good worker in your career and still follow the Buddhist path.
You don't have to read a dozen books. In fact I would advice you not to read every book and wiki page from every Ivan Ivanovitch.
If you think notions of future benefits in future lives give you the kicks necessary to start the practice then go by that. With time you will realize it is not important.
Yes. It is worth reflection as I explained two posts above
I deny speculations such as there is a constant entity as a self (continuum of consciousness) which receives kammic ramifications which is reborn based on kamma. The Buddha didn't teach such things.
Good. You are a step in the right direction
It is not necessary to think kamma is cause and effect and rebirth happens based on kamma etc to reflect on kamma as important to morality in this lifetime. In fact such reflections are harmful as it leads to more agitation as I already explained in two posts above about a person with cancer.
My view on kamma is explained above. It has no notions of rebirth in it. It is merely identifying that the way you direct your mind inevitably gets back to you causing suffeirng and thus develop a mind which lets go. That's the goal of kammic reflection to me. As I already said, belief in rebirth as per kamma is not necessary to a person who practices letting go.
Yeah shame on me
Ohh wow what a great finding. What was I thinking. Shame on me for letting myself be caught red handed in a public forum lol
... But wait a minute. You didn't get my joke and the sarcasm?
Thinking that good kamma is going to get you a favorable future rebirth and that will lead you to attaining nibbana is "boiling water & sand, hoping to get rice". Rebirth belief is defiled and entertains self clinging which is like walking south if the Nibbana is in north direction.
It's an archaic superstition inherited from brahmanism, propped up by dodgy adhidharmic arguments.
It's as useless as a creator god as a concept IMO.
Ditto karma.
This is because one set of teachings is for laypeople and the other set for monks and in the West most serious practitioners are laypeople. So it is something the ordained preachers avoid in the West.
The distinction is between lokiya (worldly) dhamma and lokuttara (transcendent) dhamma. Lokiya means 'of the world' and lokuttara means 'above the world'.
It is here:
Here:
Lets forget about my view on karma. But Natural laws are not deterministic. They are statistical a proffessor told me. Once in a very rare occasion the apple will fall upwards. But that almost never happens so we can disregard that possibility in every day life.
Thank you Deshy.
These are differences yes but not contradictions. There is nothing in one explanation that makes the other void or untrue.
/Victor
However, one must be careful here because the Mahayana tends to take this to an extreme of names & forms v nothingness.
The Buddha himself was not interested in such a nuance.
For the Buddha, certain teachings were strictly lokuttara or paramattha.
Other teachings were lokiya.
However, in these lokiya teachings, language was both saṃmuti (conventional) and paramattha (ultimate), dependent on the listener.
For example, Dependent Origination is lokuttara dhamma. The language in it is not intended to be saṃmuti.
But in teachings which are directly about rebirth, the language can be both saṃmuti and paramattha.
In Theravada, there is the verse:
<O:p</O:p
They are indeed both differences and contradictions.
It is best your explain your assertions rather than make baseless comments.
Thank you very much!!! That was indeed interesting! The Maha-cattarisaka Sutta I have read but only heard the Ani Sutta as a dhamma discourse by a monk. Now I understand better what you mean.
/Victor
DD, Deshy, Matt, Fivebells, pegembara, Daozen and others thank you for all the links and examples and most of all for your time so far.
I have tried to read and listen as best I can to understand your point of view. I have also learned a lot about the advanced cultivation. Thank you for that
Now I have some more questions if you have the time.
Summation
The summation of the thread so far would be that you do not view Karma and Rebirth belief to be central for your cultivation or core Buddhism.
Core Buddhism is defined as the doctrine of Dependent Origination as explained by Buddhadasa Bikkhu and in the suttas.
The reason you view Karma and Rebirth as irrelevant for your practise is because they were thaught to puttujhanas or worldlings and not to advanced practitioners.
So all such references loose validity for core practitioners. This division is thaught in Maha-cattarisaka Sutta.
Please feel free to correct me if I am doing wrong by you.
Questions
Then we arrive at my next tirade of questions. Sorry Matt but this is just how I like to ask questions...in parallell mode not in serial mode.
1.
Is there a place in the suttas where the Rebirth doctrine and/or the Karma doctrine, described through the suttas, is explicitly said to be false?
A reference would be nice.
If there is no such place then how is that view deducted by you? If in deed any of you support that view?
2.
Is there a place in the suttas Where the Rebirth doctrine and/or the Karma doctrine are said to be for the worldlings only?
Do you have a reference maybe?
If not then how do you deduce that the Rebirth doctrine and/or the Karma doctrine is for putthujhanas(worldings) only?
3.
Is there a place in the suttas where the Karma doctrine is said not to be valid in its entireity(rebirth karma and so on)? Reference...?
If not how do you deduce that it is true as a moral teaching only and not in its entirety?
With Metta
Victor
No. The sutras have nothing to do with it. You could present me with an authenticated tape of Gautama telling me that I'm going to hell if I don't believe in the cosmology of his time, and it wouldn't make a whit of difference. Karma and rebirth as you understand them don't come up in practice because they don't come up in practice. And Buddhist practice is a practice. Buddhist belief is a distraction from the practice, and frequently becomes a hindrance. (See the Access To Insight essay I linked to earlier.)
Alright I will try!:).
Starting from nr 1.
Why would a continuum of discrete consciousness moments contradict the arising of one consciousness moment out of six types if that can happen instantly and several times after each other?
nr 2.
The one relying on rebirth does not say that the one that does not rely on rebirth can not happen and vice versa.
nr 3. The one that happens over three life times does not invalidate the one that happens several times in a life time and vice versa.
nr 4. whether one or the other is verifiable or not does not make the other one invalid.
These theories are not mutually exclusive.
See?
Now how do you mean they contradict each other?
/Victor
If Jesus says "believe in me and you will be in heaven", its purpose is to relieve suffering. Whether it is true or not is irrelevent.
Therefore, in Buddhism, the teaching of rebirth is to relieve suffering and the teaching of impermanence is also to relieve suffering.
This question was addressed in the thread.
I would recommend you read the suttas yourself. However, MN 149 states:
By to whom various teachings were addressed to in the suttas.
For example, in his first three sermons, the Buddha did not mention rebirth. Yet after these sermons were spoken, there were many arahants.
In the Apannaka Sutta, the Buddha called the rebirth doctrine "a safe bet" or a "wise gamble".
This was stated in MN 117, which has been quoted at least twice.
If you took the time to read the suttas, you will see the suttas about rebirth are only about karma, as follows:
Point taken.
If you are talking about chances of getting cancer, I merely gave you an example. :-/ It applies to any similar scenario where you reflect as "it must be my past life's bad kamma that I am suffering now. I must do good kamma now so that I won't be in this situation in my next life". The moment you do that then it is not necessarily your past life's bad kamma that makes you suffer but your thinking pattern in this moment that makes you suffer. The cause of your suffering is here in this moment not in some past life and that is why you can change it. If you don't realize this truth you will never free yourself from suffering
Further, physical birth, sickness, death or any natural phenomena in itself is not suffering. It is the mental clinging that is the cause of the suffering.
I doubt whether you have really read both versions of the DO and done some study on them. Continuum/seed consciousness as described in the other verison of the DO states that this "Continuum/seed consciousness" receives kammic ramifications and is reborn based on kamma. The suttas do not state any such theories.
How can consciousness gain a footing in an embryo? How can consciousness leave one physical body and go to a womb when the Buddha repeatedly stated that consciousness arises based on the sense bases of a physical body? Ask yourself
There aren't different flavors and versions to the DO. DO is one teaching and only one interpretation is what the Buddha taught. Everything else is mere speculation which came up many years after the Buddha's death. Before you argue further on this I advice that you read this. It addresses some of the gray areas of the other version of the DO.
The Dhamma as the Buddha taught is verifiable in this moment for the wise to see in this moment. The Buddha's core teaching is for the cessation of suffering here in this lifetime. How can you do this if the causes of your suffering lie in the previous life and the results of your action come in the next life? Ask yourself.
Being directly verifiable in this lifetime is one of the most important aspects of the Dhamma and if you try to change that fact, many wise people will abandon this very important doctrine thinking it is merely a speculative theory of rebirth, kamma, floating souls etc.
Rather than speculation, i say stick to logic. Luckily, this supports your view on rebirth, a view i happen to share
I already said, it is not only because it is not there in the pali canon that I dismiss speculations. I dismiss speculations because it is not verifiable in this lifetime. Buddha Dhamma is not blindly believing in someone else's words such as "consciousness goes from here and there". It is for applying to your life in this moment and seeing its truth for yourself.
Not only that, I also dismiss theories which are not related to the extinction of Dukkha.
Stop guessing things Daozen.
Thanks for the advice
The scope of the Dhamma is not something large.
The entire canon can be understood in one sutta or even one sentence.
This is why on many occassions, the Buddha could describe the essence of his teaching in one sentence.
In short, one understands or one does not understand.
Maybe if you actually try, having some clarity about terms, you could discover the canon is not really something so nebulous and so complex.
Some folks regard it as intellectual.
But when one gets the hang of it, it is just ordinary plain language.
Sorry guys that I "missed" yesterdays "session" but I am in the process of switching jobs so I am a bit busy.
I will try to get back to you and answer your posts more in detail tonight if time allows.
Until then I will leave you with a question that occured to me from reading DD:s latest reply.
On numerous occations the Buddha spoke about rebirth. You say he did that to better explain it to the worldlings.
But do you think he decieved them or lied to them about rebirth or do you think that the Buddha himself truly believed in rebirth?
/Victor
EDIT:
Or are you saying that yes Buddha believed in Rebirth as decribed in the suttas for the worldlings but he did not think it important for the advanced practitioner?
the buddha was enlightened
he transmitted the teaching by words
no person can convince all beings there is rebirth and no person can convince all beings there is no rebirth
belief in rebirth depends on the individual
you began a thread asking certain kinds of questions, which were answered
personally, i have no goal to have you believe there is no rebirth
you are inclined to believe in rebirth therefore believe in it
but buddhas do not lie or deceive
it is not proper to try to blame the buddha for your own karma & choices
the teachings state:
with metta