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
Let me ask a simple question. Is the body you have now the same as when you were a baby?
Similarly, is the body you have now the same as the one five minutes ago?
Is the body you had at your previous breath the same as the one at your current breath??
:smilec:
There is an I, me or mine implied in the above statements. This I is also a mental construct as is the world.
“Nothing is to be clung to as 'I,' 'me,' or 'mine.'”
What is it that you don't understand here? Belief in rebirth is irrelevant to the cessation of suffeirng. You can practice without believing in rebirth at all. The DO is a doctrine verifiable here and now. You do not have to blindly believe in anything to practice it.
However, the Buddha had spoken of rebirth in such and such ways to certain people who already had that belief deep-rooted so that their belief system was not challenged. That does not necessarily mean the Buddha himself believed it. I personally don't think the Buddha had a strong conviction of life after death because he had spoken of rebirth in different ways to different audiences merely for morality.
Actually the first sutta you quoted is from AN. The AN mostly has suttas with mundane teachings. It is meant to be short, light reading and mostly mundane.
Again, this is a moral teaching. Plus, it doesn't necessarily talk about rebirth. (note that some translations can be dodgy too) The hell the Buddha is talking about here, as I see it, is a mental state you experience here and now, not necessarily a place you go after death because you killed someone in this life. What sounds more logical to you? Hell is when you go through the fear, guilt, remorse and anger of killing someone.
The second sutta you quoted doesn't talk about physical birth.
Long course of birth and death is the long cycle of birth and death of the ego. Which is the real suffering. This is not physical birth
This is funny.
Ok
I hereby officially declare that whatever I state here is just my point of view.
I see the "cycle of birth and death" as the cycle of birth and death of the ego. Why would physical birth and death be suffering
I think we can fairly say that the physical processes of birth, old age, sickness, and death can cause anxiety and pain etc. that lead to what we refer to as suffering. I dont think thats much of a stretch. Also we can look at the general "suffering" of conditioned existence that is tied into impermanence. I feel that it can be quite instructive.
Rebirth is just a morality teaching - and sometimes its been used to scare people as if its some kind of punishment system. An example being something I once read somewhere (written by a "master") that if you speak against a master who's given you a teaching, you'll be reborn 500 times as a dog....truly a very nasty way of keeping people in line.
Do we sit in meditation dwelling on the past or speculating about the future? No. Our awareness is in the here and now.
When eventually meditation and post meditation begin to merge, our awareness is still in the here and now and hopefully not dwelling on the unconjecturable.
.
Good that you brought this up. Old age, sickness and death are suffeirng not because they are inherently suffeirng but because you have the attachment to the impermanent natural phenomena. Because you have the delusion of self created by the five aggregates. If you look at it from the surface old age and death seem like suffeirng but the core or the nucleus of this suffeirng is self-identification.
"Rebirth is just a morality teaching"
I feel that this statement is an over simplification. The teachings on rebirth certainly have tremendous moral significance but I find the designation that this is the only significance of them is a bit to hardened.
I think a middle-way approach is much more reasonable and accurate.
I have absolutely no problem with this. This a a perfectly fine interpretation of the basic internal/mental process of the "suffering of suffering".
The only middle way I can think of is that teaching rebirth is for morality and since hearing about rebirth makes the hearts of those who believe in it happy then it might be a way to end suffering to some extent. But this view is defiled and does not lead to liberation.
Other than that I see no significance in rebirth at all.
Thats not a middle way approach in my opinion since it completely disregards all other possibilities.
How would hearing about rebirth make those who believe in it happy?
Its supposed to be a bad thing.
If you see no significance in rebirth at all thats great. I dont see any reason for conflict there.
Thats your practice and your path.
What are the other possibilities? :crazy:
Being happy is a bad thing? Well if you believe in God and I tell you "God or your God is there for you" it will make your heart rejoice
I am in no position to propose a variety of possible outcomes. I am in a position to conclude that the exclusion of them is at the very least a rash conclusion.
I never said being happy was a bad thing. Anyone who gets a warm and fuzzy feeling after hearing about teachings on the endless rounds of suffering that are associated with samsaric rebirth should have their head examined.
Also if you told me that "God was there for me" I dont think it would make my heart rejoice.
It would most likely lead me to an attempt to refute the idea of a first cause.
So you are stating a conclusion that the exclusion of "something" which you are not in a position to conclude is a rash conclusion :crazy:
You are misinterpreting my statement. What you are describing might not cause happiness in people but telling someone who already believes in rebirth that "if you do good deeds you will be born in a heavenly realm" will make their hearts rejoice.
This is not about you. Christians for example take joy in the thought of the existence of God as they believe in God. Every time they hear something about God their hearts rejoice as their pre-existing belief is flattered.
I think its rash to make assumptions. I also think its rash to come to conclusions about that which cannot be verified. I also think its rash to conclude that certain interpretations of Buddhist scriptures are the only valuable ones.
I dont misinterpret your statement. I got it.
I think that if people hear something like "if you do good deeds you will be born is a heavenly realm" and lets out a sign of relief, that they are delusional and have a juvenile understanding of the concepts that are taught in relation to karma and rebirth based upon the interpretation that is relevant to that scenario.
If that makes people exhibit virtuous conduct thats fine but I am not a fan of hopes and fears being guides to personal spiritual progress.
Personally, I'm not concerned with my "rebirth" or if it even happens, but I am not willing to hang any hopes on it either way. I think that if people do they are making assumptions about that which cant be verified and are limiting and clinging to, their view.
No matter what it is.
:crazy:
I am not making assumptions. I am stating what is verifiable. The birth and death of the ego is verifiable in this moment.
However, it is an assumption or should I say speculation (unverifiable) to think that when we die we are born again in some "realm" based on kamma and that "samsaric" cycle of physical births and deaths turns and turns until you attain nibbana ...
Oh well, I'm off to bed
I dont think we are disagreeing.
sleep well.
That's too many questions altogether.
The Canon has undergone change, yes, but intentional change? It wound seem not, as the sources passed down these teachings through very superhuman memorization. It is debatable whether the Canon actually teaches rebirth or not, or if that is merely of the commentators, or if rebirth may have been added at the Canon's very conception (orally). It isn't a major issue, except if you make it one.
Not a fully enlightened being, no. I know of one that has gone beyond the stream-entry event that finds it unnecessary and misleading (to date). There is the possibility that rebirth does occur literally, yet this concept does not "mesh" with the rest of the teachings and can seemingly only be proven by death or seeing "past lives". If you find those who have claimed to see their past lives, at least consider such information along your journey. Yet, unverified teachings are not what Buddhism is about.
I'm not going to touch that one. My conception of core Buddhism may differ from that of others, and a definitive answer is not forthcoming. Some may actually find belief in rebirth helpful, while others have difficulty coping with it either as a truth or as a falsehood. There is no Buddhism that teaches rebirth that all people will agree with, and all forms teach something of this concept. Paradox. If Buddhism were to become a world-religion (religion used loosely), spreading to all of humanity like super-Christianity (lol sorry), how would all be united? What would be the solution to that which is so clearly divisive? Time will tell.
~
Regarding anicca I was referring to the physical death as could I had hoped be understood by reading the quote.
Everything is a mental construct and all those are impermenant I agree. When you think of them they are there and when not they are gone. But Death of the person, the illusory self was specifically what I was asking for. Lets stick with mundus quote in this one:
MN 141
And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
This state described above, that the former living thing enters, that which is not seperable from the state of paranibbana according to an earlier post of DD. When does that state end?
That was my question.
Regarding the interpretation of the suttas in different ways. I still find it confusing.
Could you perhaps guide me to some book or resource from which I can learn how to recongize which sutta is lokauttara and which is lokiya?
@DD and Mundus.
Yes I can see that the body is changing from second to second. But I think it's change is continuous. The Perception of its change is discrete.
So when you say Break up of the body it is a figure of speach to denote this change and the body does not in reality break up, only change.
@Deshy your personal view was exactly what I was asking for so keep it coming!
@Stephen Is there any way to contact the master who has gone beyond sotapanna? I would like to ask him/her some questions about anatta.
Be well, and good luck. You have a lot of material in this thread to digest, and who knows what may be the case?
Gone in the sense, gone from your sensual contacts. But just because you don't think about your cat doesn't make it non-existent. Whether or not I call my mum, mum, aunt, by her name or do not label her in anyway doesn't deny her existence. Denying existence is probably nihilism. Buddhism is about identifying that, whatever exists is just impermanent natural phenomena bound to change and ego-less.
I don't understand your question. Would you care to elaborate more?
If you are asking the state after physical death in everyday language then all we know is, the body remains for a while and slowly decays adding its elements back to the nature.
The Buddha has not told about how a link can be created between this life and the next if there is one. He never told about the beginning and the end of the universe either. My advice is to stay away from speculations. What he taught was the cessation of suffering and rebirth is not really relevant to that just like the beginning and end of the world is not. I hope you understated that by now
Forget my question about death and anicca. I am posing my question wrong sorry for the confusion.
If I ever get my head straight about this one I will get back to you.
For now I would be grateful if you could direct me to some resource which explaines how to pick out a worldly sutta from a supermundane sutta.
/Victor
I don't know any such guide. I would also like to see one though. Generally the suttas in AN are focused on lay followers thus it has short suttas mostly with moral teachings, rebirth and the like. I wouldn't rely on the suttas in DN. Some of them seem like later additions. So I would suggest the suttas in MN and SN. However, it is better to send a PM to some sutta expert and ask (try DD or Mundus)
Also, as I already did, I would recommend you BB's essays. They will help you get an idea of the essence of the Buddha's teachings in simple language. Without that background knowledge it will be hard to comprehend half of what the Buddha is talking about in the suttas, mundane or otherwise.
Thanks Deshy. My question was for everyone so I hope they will find the time to answer. I guess it is not as easy as "taking a course" or reading one book. But any hint to get started is appreciated. BB it is. Thanks again.
/Victor
Yet, some people believe it is an important integral part of Buddhist teachings due to misinterpreted later additions like "rebirth linking consciousness”, "seed consciousness" etc.
(Apologies if I've said this already, I'm in a hurry and haven't time to look back through the topic!:))
.
Buddha taught rebirth which means he believed it and found it important enough to teach. Why would he do that if it was mere speculation or it did not matter? And I am not referring to "misinterpreted later additions" to the suttas.
Anything is just speculation until you have validated it for yourself.
For instance can you prove to me that the world is round right now? Or is it in fact only speculation on your part?
It will not matter to you in the daily life or any fantastic thing you want to do on earth right up to de moment you want to leave the planet. Then it will matter.
In anology, as I understand it the Buddha only first related seeing past lifes the very night he attained Enlightenment. So maybe it will not really matter until then.
On the third hand I find rebirth to be a pretty good motivational argument to cultivate. But that is of course a personal issue.
Existance of rebirth or nonexistance of rebirth makes a huge difference in understanding Buddhism and its goal Nibbana.
Howdy
/Victor
We have been through this before and this question has been answered
Of Course
It has already been proven that the world is not flat.
It has been referred in this very thread before that this is not past life recollection but past dwellings.
Of course it is. Which is why it is a moral teaching taught for cultivating good and morality in people. No more, no less
Really?
First of all Deshy that which you are answering is my answer to armando. I.e. it is my opinion.
That "question" has not at all been answered very satisfactorily.
All the answer I have got so far is "Yes Buddha did teach rebirth but he did not believe it":-/ in different nuances which would make the Buddha a liar or a deciever. I refuse to believe that. And frankly I would not buy a car from anyone argueing that point.:D
Yes as I have explained several times in this thread it is. The Buddha himself verified it and the method to verify it is still there in Buddhism for the person who needs it.
That was not the issue. The question is can you prove it or are you leaning against some authority who says that the world is round? If you can't then you are merely speculating that the world is round. If you are taking some scientists word for it then it should not be a big step for you to take the Buddhas word that rebirth exsits.
What is a past dwelling? Which sutta are you talking about where he recollects past dwellings and how would recollection of past dwellings be monumental in Buddhas enlightenment?
But it has also been argued that belief in rebirth is a hindrence to cultivate!? Which do you really believe?
You have a translation where it is not? Which one?
For instance whether nirvana is a state not much differentiable from death (in the case of no rebirth) or if it is the salvation from countless kalpas of misery (in case of rebirth) makes a pretty obvious difference to me. Would you not say?
Kindly
Victor
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble1.htm
I am not sure what you are getting at. Being mindful does not require belief in rebirth but understanding the four noble truths requires at least that you believe that the buddha believed in rebirth. Because the concept is used in that which is called Right View in the four noble truths.
But good luck in any case.
/Victor
If you have difficulty being mindful in everyday events. That is fully understandable. I have the same problem. What I do is take five minute breaks from time to time to reestabilish my mindfulness. Set your watch on alarm every (or every other) hour to remind you.
Also when you have time of like on weekends then you you should practise the more.
Do not give up and good luck
/Victor
thanks for sharing about mindfulness. it's helpful.
i don't know if i agree with your understanding of right view, though. what do you think of this perception?
armando
Please read the references. You have been referred to relevant texts a few times.
You stated that the Buddha remembered his past lives the first night he attained nibbana. These are not "past life" memories but past dwellings. Past dwelling is any memory of the past and it can certainly be of this life. Why do you think they are of previous "lives"?
The actual pali-English translation for "pubbenivasa"would mean
pubbenivasa would mean to remember someone's previous existence or abode. That does not necessarily mean a pre-birth existence in another life.
Actually, a person's past memories of different births are those instances that he recalls different self identifications in this life. For instances I remember a lot of my previous births as
1) A lover
2) A school kid
3) An advisor
The Buddha, in the night of his enlightenment, saw how these self views came up in his mind in the past; millions of different births (Not physical births) and he saw how these self views are just grasping of the five aggregates as me and mine. He saw how we grasp at any one of the five aggregates as me and mine and how the self view arise in the mind (a single birth).
Having seen thus, he saw the cause of all duhhka aka mental clinging to the five aggregates as me and mine. Thus, seeing the cause of dukkha he eradicated the cause and attained nibbana.
The "recollection of past births" have been greatly misunderstood by certain people