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
In the beginning of cultivation a lot of belief is required. To begin with even before you become a buddhist you have to believe Buddhism is worth investigating and later you have to trust and believe that your teachors understands enough to lead you right.
But the beauty of Buddhism is that all claims are verifiable through excersizes to obtain direct knowleadge about them.
The only belief you have to at least partly uphold until Enlightenment is the belief in Nibbana. It is only partly verifieable through direct knowleadge until you acctually become an Arahant.
That is my view on it.
And when I say that there are exercises to verify everything relevant I also include the practises to verify by direct knowleadge past lifes and and the existance of heavenly beings.
/Victor
The Buddha did not teach that "Something" transmigrates from life to life. He did not teach that consciousness transmigrates from life to life either. He also never said consciousness can exist without a physical body, independent of a physical sense base. Eye-consciousness cannot arise without an eye. He did not teach how rebirth happens anywhere.
He has said that the rebirth view is defiled and is not a factor of the path to enlightenment. Thus his teachings on rebirth were merely for morality in those specific audiences who already believed in rebirth and showed no interest in the super mundane level of teaching. As in this case:
The Buddha has said that it is not for the purpose of deceiving people that he teaches rebirth but merely for the purpose of "directing their minds to morality and arouse interest in them". I personally do not feel that the Buddha strongly believed in rebirth. If so he did not have to make comments like "it is not for the purpose of deceiving people". That is just my personal opinion.
If you have "no doubt in your mind that there is rebirth" why did you feel the need to ask questions about it? Anyway good for you for getting enough personal experience of rebirth and life after death in this life.
I see
I guess
I believe the Buddha did not withold anything including rebirth, only it was not helpful in gaining relief from dukkha. There can be no transcendence by clinging to any object/dhamma.
Here is a quote by Ajahn Lee, one of the foremost teachers in the Thai forest ascetic tradition of meditation founded by his teacher,Ajaan Mun .
The Art of Letting Go
Say, for example, that a vision arises and you get hooked: You gain knowledge of your past lives and get all excited. Things you never knew before, now you can know. Things you never saw before, now you see — and they can make you overly pleased or upset. Why? Because you take them all too seriously. You may see a vision of yourself prospering as a lord or master, a great emperor or king, wealthy and influential. If you let yourself feel pleased, that's indulgence in pleasure. You've strayed from the Middle Path. Or you may see yourself as something you wouldn't care to be: a pig or a dog, a bird or a rat, crippled or deformed. If you let yourself get upset, that's indulgence in self-affliction — and again, you've strayed from the path. Some people really let themselves get carried away: As soon as they start seeing things, they begin to think that they're special, somehow better than other people. They let themselves become proud and conceited — and the right path has disappeared without their even knowing it. If you're not careful, this is where mundane knowledge can lead you.
But if you keep one principle firmly in mind, you can stay right on the path: Whatever appears, good or bad, true or false, don't let yourself feel pleased, don't let yourself get upset. Keep the mind balanced and neutral, and discernment will arise. You'll see that the vision or sign displays the truth of stress: it arises (is born), fades (ages), and disappears (dies).
If you get hooked on your intuitions, you're asking for trouble. Knowledge that proves false can hurt you. Knowledge that proves true can really hurt you. If what you know is true, and you go telling other people, you're bragging. If it turns out to be false, it can backfire on you. This is why those who truly know say that knowledge is the essence of stress: It can hurt you. Knowledge is part of the flood of views and opinions (ditthi-ogha) over which we have to cross. If you hang onto knowledge, you've gone wrong. If you know, simply know, and let it go at that. You don't have to be excited or pleased. You don't have to go telling other people.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html#method2
Please could you share these experiences with us, Victor?
Kind regards,
Dazzle
.
Cool
Already quoted so many time in this thread itself but here you go again
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta
That sutta states that right view is "There are spontaneously reborn beings". Is that sutta correctly translated? Or did you mean to quote a different sutta?
Cheers
Nios.
To which I gave you the sutta reference. Defilement is asava. The belief in rebirth (this world and the next world) is defiled and is not quoted in the sutta as the noble right view but right view that sides with merit and morality
So it's not saying that belief in rebirth is a defilement (Kilesa). Correct?
Nios.
Yes. Noone is saying otherwise. Rebirth is a teaching for morality
Correct because ultimately this asava is a mental defilement associated with becoming.
Well kilesa is translated as defilement but I think asava is ultimately mental clinging associated with becoming. I see defilement as anything associated with clinging to I and mine
I never said anyone did
Thanks for the clarification.
Nios.
I looked up the pali dictionary and they have translated kilesa as "stain, soil, impurity, affliction; in a moral sense, depravity, lust"
I guess it's fine to take both as mental defilement
On side note, there are sanskrit words in filipino
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html
Like I said, whose to say that this translation is correct!
Most learned buddhist would say that
but "taints" is also a good word because it explains how ignorance taints or colours consciousness in the dependent origination
but one really needs to explore these dhammas by meditation
the outflows taint the mind
it is "birth" (jati)
thanissaro does not translate jati as "rebirth"
in other contexts however, rebirth is the correct term
but most of the time it is "reappearance"
there are about five or six Pali words that the translators deem "rebirth" but only one of these literally is "rebirth"
i have a list of these words on my other computer (at work) (recently swapped computers)
What did you mean by this then, if not that the translation was wrong?
the most generic or broad term is kilesa or defilement
defilement is basically greed, hatred and delusion and all defilements fall into one of these three classes
eg. lust is greed, worry is delusion, fear is delusion, ill-will is hatred, etc
there are many other pali words for defilement categories, such as anusaya (latent tendency), asava (outflow) and nirvarana (hindrances)
if we think of the dependent origination, the most basic or root is anusaya (part of ignorance)
these (sub-conscious) anusaya 'flow out' (asava) due to internal pressure in the form of the five hindrances (consciousness but internal defilement without a sense object)
then when the hindrances push the mind to engage with external sense objects, stronger more powerful defilement (kilesa) starts (at craving)
so a practical sequences to investigate is tendency > outflow > hindrance > defilement
anusaya > asava > nirvarana > kilesa
but if we must choose one word, all of these phenomena are kilesa (defilement)
kind regards
I guess it is fine to take asava as defilement then
The sutta states the following things have asava (hindrance/defilement)
Right view Right resolve Right speech Right action
So, is it correct to say that all the above are defiled and needs to be abandoned just like rebirth? :dunce:
Are there other suttas that say this/make this definition?
I appreciate your time
Nios.
I would say 'no'.
The Buddha is saying here this mundane right view sides with goodness or morality.
However, it will not completely extinguish the asava.
It cannot because there is still 'self view'.
Whilst there is still asava, one practising on this level would not have gross & nasty defilements.
Just subtle ones.
Kind regards
Ah, then in that regard, I couldn't agree more. This is also part of my practice
Thanks again,
Nios.
This type of teaching reminds me of my zen days and zen philosophy. I wonder whether it's possible that the zen school was inspired by this sutta :hrm:
Nios.
What do you mean by nasty and subtle DD? Do you mean the murderous type of defilement as nasty like killing others, stealing etc?
From my personal experience the way folks (the ones that I know) practice while still having belief in rebirth is quite nasty too. They constantly worry about their future births in so and so realms and do good deeds in the hope of good kamma. They are uneasy and agitated, mostly driven by fears of rebirth in lower realms.
While it's true that they are people who would refrain from bad doings, I wonder if internally they really have the peace they are looking for...
How about this?
Ani Sutta
I didn't read it myself but picked it from this tread
Certainly that could be an interpretation. But if you would ask my opinion then I would tell you to study the context of the sutta and specially the two phrases.
"without wasting time, before you die, be born in something higher" and
"born in faith".
What does that remind you of? Ever heard of a religion called Christianity?
These are almost exactly to the word the phrases they use for people newly embracing their faith.
My understanding is this: Buddha is adopting an baptizing ritual to make some new converts feel at home.
The phrase "Anuruddha, for what purpose does the Thus Gone One tell the disciples, without wasting time, before you die, be born in something higher. Stating one is born there, another there" is a rethorical question to still the other wondering ascetics. Why is the Buddha using the word born in an different context unfamiliar to them?
Then he gives the answer:
"there are sons of clansmen who are born in faith and are pleased, to hear it..."
These clansmen were of such a faith that held such a baptizing kind of ritual.
First of all if I call a grey car black just to please someone and then defend myself with:
It was not to decieve but to make you comfortable.
It is still deception whatever I might say. No?
Second of all the Buddha is free from all illusion. He has the right View. He knows if there is rebirth or not. He cannot be two minded about anything.
But of course I am a fanatic Buddhist so I would say that...;).
Deshy please. You do not have to search for places in the suttas where the Buddha renounces rebirth on my account. Without being as learned as you in the suttas I can safely say you will not find such a place. It is mere pragmatic deduction. But thanks all the same.
Matt asked me the same question early in the thread. And the answer was that I am looking to find someone who totally denies rebirth who has a case for it. Because in my book it is a selfcontradiction to do that out of pure scientific reasons. I was curious to see what footing such a standing could have.
Also I wanted to see the implications of such a view on the dhamma. And if it could in anyway be a rational view despite what science says.
You asked for my view on the DO.
Here it is.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
Btw do you have a better text of Buddhadasa? It is infuriating to read the one you gave me because he omits the references in many places. I can not check his sources.
Can I get a book somewhere maybe?
/Victor
EDIT:
In my view of the DO (Maha nidana sutta) birth is birth of the individual and aging and death are aging and death of the individual and becoming is for humans Nine months of pregnancy.
Speaking of which. The article on fertilization of the egg in the fallopian tube was an attempt to show an plausible interpretation of the phrase "descent of the embryo" (was it you were discussing in an earlier post?).
Because the article states that that is exactly what happens in the normal case of Conception. The Egg gets fertilized in the Fallopian tube and the resulting potential human then decends into the womb where it (normally) attaches to the womb.
/Victor
Thank you if that was aimed at me?
My thought is different people need different basis to build their faith and understanding. I might be a person who needs to verify the exsistence of previous lifes to be able to develop on the path. You might not be.
So if that was particularly aimed at me then thank you for your concern. I will watch out not to get carried away.
/Victor
That would not serve any purpose. So kindly no thanks.
Regards
Victor
Yes. These are the more subtle defilements. What is translated as "acquisitions" (upadi = burdens). Here, there is still heaviness rather than liberation.
Are they actually looking for inner peace?
Kind regards
I guess not
Which is what I am telling you. Everywhere he has talked about rebirth, the context is important. He has not taught rebirth as an absolute truth but used it in a way to make it better for the people being addressed/the audience.
In this case he has taught it to keep their minds in merit and make them feel good as this belief makes their hearts rejoice. They are a group of people already believing in rebirth and results of good action.
In the kalama sutta he taught it in a more democratic way as the kalamas have already heard dhamma from numerous others with contradicting views and they were confused what to believe. Thus the Buddha taught as
So as to address all beliefs.
As I see it, the Buddha taught rebirth for morality in people depending on the audience not as an "absolute truth beyond any doubt". If it makes your heart rejoice to believe it then go ahead
I already quoted two suttas where the Buddha taught rebirth not as an absolute truth but as he seemed fit to the audience.
You "totally" accept rebirth? If so please tell us how and what is reborn. If you are looking for someone who denies rebirth "with a case" you better have a case of your won too.
Else just say that you cannot prove it but you believe it. That is fine.
I understand, BB's essay lacks references. Unfortunately this is the best essay I have so far found on DO out there. When I started reading it (with a heart full of strong belief in rebirth) I also started reading the suttas and cross referenced his essay with the suttas. I will quote a few here:
Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta
Madhupindika Sutta
Culavedalla Sutta - MN 44
Rahogata Sutta
Madhupindika Sutta: MN 18
It will take some time to completely digest his essay. I would also suggest that you read his other essays too.
As DD already said, the mahanidana sutta is one sutta which people believe is a later addition because of its obvious hindu influences. It contradicts the other suttas in the pali canon. It is not a good choice to study DO.
Huh?
.
Not quite what I was refering to, but thanks, still a great sutta.
I think this occurs when anyone clings to anything. I know DD will disagree with me here. But from my experience on these forums (this one and others) from time to time you'll get a member who clings to the idea of no-rebirth, just as you get members who cling to rebirth.
The way I read the sutta (and the way I practice) is that one needs to transend right view with effluents (rebirth) and wrong view (no rebirth)
Nios.
The whole question of rebirth is irrelevant and useless to someone who practices a Dhamma which has its core or nucleus as "abandoning self". Questions like "where will I go? where have I come from?" do not apply to the core Buddhist teachings of not-self. If noone is born here (just the five aggregates creating the delusion of self) how can "anyone" die and be reborn? Rebirth is irrelevant to the core Buddhist teachings and the Buddha himself did not teach it as an absolute truth IMO. However, rebirth is relevant to someone who practices morality.
The sutta just says that belief in rebirth is fruitful for morality, sides with merit, encourages defilement and not a factor of the path to enlightenment.
Calm down Deshy. I NEVER ever said that rebirth was relevant. I NEVER asked "where will I go?" I NEVER said "where have I come from". Please read carefully what I said before jumping. It's a shame how both you and DD twist what i say and jump in defence of an idea that i have not stated, nor believe :nonono:
The question "where will I go, where have I come from" are not directed at you specifically but I merely stated that as they are questions commonly asked related to rebirth. My comments are not personally directed at you but to the post you made.
That's ok then.
For the record, I am not pushing rebirth but neither am I pushing no-rebirth.
I do not think you understand me. When saying "It is not to deceive..." the Buddha is talking about the adopted baptizing ritual because he is calling it "to be born into something higher". He is not explaining away rebirth. He is explaining why he is using the word birth/rebirth for this inaugatation ritual he has adopted.
Still in western countires buddhist baptism is common. I was baptized that way myself despite me not being a westerner.
A deception or lie is a double lie if it is denied. The Buddha would not make such a mistake.
There is only one absolute truth in buddhism and that is the truth about Nibbana. The suttas above does not in anyway explain away that the Buddha believed in rebirth.
There is no way you can convince me that the Buddha on one hand taught Rebirth and then on the other hand said it is a false teaching. That would make the Buddha a deceiver which is impossible.
You might doubt it as is your right according to the Buddha but the Buddha did not.
There goes my fanaticism again.
Why? I already told you that I have no idea.
I do have a case that is totally convincing for me. Unfortunately if you want to know for real then you will have to walk the whole nine yards yourself.
That is the meaning of the kalama sutta. Sorry.
I can not prove it to you but I am totally convinced. That is the meaning of direct knowleadge.
Never mind Deshy I totally accept you are not convinced about rebirth. Thanks for sharing your view and your effort to explain it to me. Lets just for now agree that we do not agree and move on?
Kind regards
Victor