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
As the Buddha stated (already quoted) belief in rebirth is a hindrance to enlightenment because strong belief in it is actually coming from a desire for continued existence. This view is defiled. It veils the ultimate truth from you. It entertains ego-clinging. It promotes clinging to self and things belonging to self. It is favorable to let go of these beliefs and focus on the here and now.
But, belief in rebirth is favorable to encourage someone to cultivate morality and goodwill. Just cultivating morality and goodwill, while being a right view is not the noble rightful path to enlightenment.
You are welcome. Did you try the alarm trick?
That is alright. It is important that you make up your own mind in how you want to cultivate and what you believe in. I can only refer you to the scriptures. Here is one about right view already quoted in this thread, read the highlighted part about belief in the next world.
MN 117
"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path."
Well I think this part of the text is just fine. But I also think there is something missing. This text takes away something without giving something back.
It says do not think like this but on the point of telling you what to think it is very vauge. "see things simply, as they are" it states. As long as you are not enlightened this is a very subjective thing so this advice ends up giving you nothing concrete to stand on in place of what it took away. Which is: "Wrong view occurs when we impose our expectations onto things; expectations about how we hope things will be, or about how we are afraid things might be."
This is the normal way to view the world so if I should not view the world the normal way then how should I view it? The text does not give a good answer.
Therefore you should be careful in applying it until you find out more about right view.
Thats my opinion.
Regards
/Victor
I have read them a couple of times without finding in them what you say is there.
That is because your understanding of them comes from your interpretation of them. Which is fine because that is what I asked for in the first place. But in this conversation with armando I am expressing my opinion and my interpretation because he asked for it if you do not mind.
It does not have to mean but it probably does. See here is a explanation of of pubbenivasa abhinna from MN 119:
He recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction & expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes & details.
From this sutta it is obviuos that he meant recollection of past lives and not memories of this life. Why would he bother about reremebering his name otherwise?
Now you are going to say as you have said before that. MN suttas are for worldlings and to be understood as lokiya suttas mostly.
And to that my response (if you would care for it) would be: Exactly! For those of us still stuck in samsara this is the right way to view the world.
/Victor
Hmm my belief in rebirth was never an issue Deshy.
Why would I buy anything without knowing what is sold? As I already said it is not the same thing to achive a state of release from misery included only in this life as to achive realease from countless aeons of misery. This is not a hard thing to understand if you think about it.
In that case I have a third option for you Deshy. I find it encouraging to cultivate in the supermundane way because the threat of countless aeons of rebirth is too overwhelming. Plus that I know that if I do not reach at least Sotapanna state now in this life it might be forever before I have a chance to cultivate dhamma again.
That is what I mean by motivation to cultivate.:)
/Victor
Perhaps you could find something about rebirth for me in this explanation of The Four Noble Truths, please Victor.
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
Kind regards,
Dazzle
.
You asked "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?"
Every time "past lives" comes up in the suttas, it comes from the Pali word pubbenivasa. This does not mean "past lives," but "past dwellings." If he had wanted to say "lives," he would have. If you refer to this sutta [SN 22.79], you'll see the Buddha explain what it means. It means as Deshy explained, past recollections of "self," that is, clinging to the aggregates. While this could theoretically extend to past lives, that's not specifically what it's referring to. As the Buddha said, he teaches only suffering and its end, which has to do with clinging to the aggregates as self/mine. What exactly can you not "find"?
The above states:
1. Cultivate gratitude.
2. Cultivate good karma.
3. Cultivate blind faith in priests.
This leads to effluents (mental pollution) and acquisitions (burdens).
:smilec:
In fact, this kind of reasoning makes practising the supermundane way next to impossible.
The supramundane way starts with the sotapanna insight: "all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation".
The sotapannas Kondanna, Sariputta & Upali each had this realisation.
There aren't many interpretations to the Dhamma as your one, her one, his one etc. There is only one right view and only one interpretation. If you wish to pursue unverifiable stories of past lives and rebirth that is your choice.
Huh? Why not? Your memories of previous self views can be of different bodies, with different names in different places. For example, you can imagine yourself as a handsome prince, having a different name, marrying a beautiful princess living in a palace. Why does it have to be of a past life memory? Or you might be born (another self view) as a hard working student who wins the first place in some competition. All these self views can be of this life as different individuals in different places. It does not have to be of past lives.
For the record Victor, I am not saying there is no rebirth. But it is pretty futile to find evidence for it in the Dhamma. Because, other than the places where the Buddha has taught rebirth for morality, most of his Dhamma is based on verifiable facts. Else Buddhism will be just another religion people follow on blind faith. You know like "he said it so we believe it but I don't know what is reborn and how"
Please read this closely. Forget about rebirth for a minute. Let's assume there is rebirth. Still you got to look at this closely.
As DD already highlighted in your post, it is pretty obvious that you are highly entertaining the idea of a self (the me and the mine). The right way to cultivate the super mundane teaching is not by fearing many countless numbers of physical births in "samsara". That is for those who cultivate morality and the mundane dhamma.
You are trying to achieve some kind of certificated assurance in the sothapanna state in this lifetime because you don't know when you will get the chance again. In the meantime you do good deeds in the hope of a favorable future rebirth in a place where you have access to dhamma. You sound like a man desperately trying to find some security in your future because you are harboring self clinging. Look closely and see where this fear is really coming from. The "me" and the "mine" right? That's exactly what you have to eradicate.
Noble right view is to abandon the self view altogether and thereby achieving Nibbana here and now. The solution to your suffering is here and now; it's a pity you look around but don't see it
No and that is mostly because this guy lacks right view in that aspect. He believes in something that is not verifiable here and now. Namely that there is no rebirth.
/Victor
EDIT:
Sorry he does not believe in reincarnation (I should have said) but he belives in the rebirth of the self.
What I can not find is any real base to validate your understanding and translations of the suttas.
You say:
If he had wanted to say "lives," he would have
Well let me counter the same to you:
If he would have wanted to say past recollections of "self," and not clinging to the aggregates or past dwellings he would have.
If he would have wanted to say birth of the self and not just birth he would have.
But he didnt now did he? That should make you think now shouldnt it?
/Victor
Why so bitter? I feel for you. I really do.
Cultivation is based on Right View. But also Right View can be cultivated. But not in the manner you taunt me in this post.
/Victor
The sotapanna insight and the reason to cultivate are for most people seperate and has nothing to do with each other. Why are you trying to mix them up?
/Victor
I thought you already, earlier in this thread agreed that all you say here is your own personal opinion. And now you claim to have monopoly on the thruth? Or is that just your personal opinion? Well your personal opinion is really up to you and mine is up to me.
Exactly how do you know that I persue unverifiable stories of past lives and rebirth? How can you verify that they are in fact unverifiable
I am pretty sure my name has been pretty much the same since I was named. Well I did add one name once. And I am also pretty sure I am my own individual most of my life and that (and you can take my word on this one) goes for all people I know. I asked around yesterday just in case.
Seriously please read the text I quoted in my reply to you and explain to me how that text fits with your explanation?
I know you say that but you are indeed bending over backwards to run around ever believing that there could be rebirth.
Again I say to you rebirth is verifyable according to the Dhamma just for the record.
Think about the text you have quoted yourself to me. MN 117
And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
Think about this: Were does it say in MN 117 that believing in the next world is false?
Answer me this question does it not in fact say that right view with asava is still right view. Please stop and think about it. This is simple logic.
/Victor
Please Deshy. Because I refer to myself as I in everyday language does not mean I do not understand the anatta doctrine.
And yet I who ciltivate Dhamma to reach nibbana as fast as I can still find this a good motivation. Actually the best motivation.
I do not do good deeds in hope of a favorable future rebirth. I do them because it is good manners.
It is not the good deeds that ascertain a future rebirth is a place where you have access to dhamma. But the devotion in cultivation. So there are no shortcuts Deshy.
I see my goal fine Deshy. And I know what to do to get there. But thank you for your concearn.
If you promise to mail me when you reach Arahantship I will promise to do the same to you if it is in any way possible. Then we will know.:winkc:
/Victor
"Rebirth" is never mentioned in the 4NTs, anywhere. Find me a sutta which includes it in its definition.
And you mean he lacks right view with effluents (asava). If you read it as a whole, you'll see that it doesn't say it's right view with effluents because it's the truth of reality, because there really is rebirth; it's right view because it sides with merit, morality, etc.
Right below that definition is the definition of Noble Right View, the Right View the Buddha's own teachings were founded in. No mention of rebirth. The path he taught is not concerned with anything to do with afterlife speculation; it's unrelated to dukkha.
Clinging to the aggregates is synonymous with "self-concept" or "self-identification":
Also see MN 148. You'll notice that the format is precisely the same as many other suttas, but "self-identification" is in the place of what normally would be "the whole mass of suffering (dukkha)":
Likewise, in MN 8 we see the same format, but with "asava" or "taints/effluents" in place of self-identification/dukkha:
Note the "opposite" of Nibbana is self-identification. It is self-identification which is dukkha, which is samsara.
He said Jati. Jati means birth. Just as in the English language, birth doesn't only apply to the physical birth of a sentient being. You are assuming he is referring to physical birth. Instead, look up "birth" in the suttas and you'll see him define it himself in the context of his teachings.
I've backed up my position with plenty of sutta references. Please do the same for your claims:
Thanks.
I think i just did. MN 117.
But it is still right view. You can not disregard that because it says so right there.
Where does or does not "the truth of reality" figure in that? Whose truth would that be?
I was not referring to the supermundane right view. Stop ducking the issue.
Yeah sorry I miswrote, It should have been;
"If he would have wanted to say past recollections of "self," and not past dwelling he would have."
But thanks for the lengthy explanation anyway. I think you can have the couple of these back.
And you are assuming it does not referr to physical birth. Your point being?
Sure I think I did that in this thread a while back in a post to Matt. You might want to read that entire exchange. Hold on I will get back to you with those references.
It is post #275 These are the places where the Buddha referrs to Rebirth in various ways. There are others. This is how he defines/describes it.
As to the question why the Buddha believed in rebirth. It is simple. Again read MN 117. He said it is right view to think that there is a next world.
Since the Buddha can not lie he believed in the next world himself. Otherwise why would he teach that it exist?
/Victor
- Rebirth view is considered asava and not a factor of the path the Buddha taught to Nibbana. [MN 117]
- Abandoning the taints (asava) is "arriving at the Dhamma [which the Buddha taught.] [MN 8]
- Noble Right View "which is a factor of the path" does not contain rebirth-view.
Ducking what issue? The supramundane teachings are the Buddha's own teachings which lead to Nibbana. This kind of is the issue.Perhaps pay closer attention next time.
Once again my "lengthy explanation" is still applicable. From that same sutta (it's no wonder Deshy keeps requesting that you look at prior references...): Thus recollections of the "self" is synonymous with pubbenivasa.
No, I'm not. I was really hoping you'd bother to look things up yourself, but all right... please refer to MN 26:
In short, as all things are anicca, they are also anatta (not fit to be clung to as I/self/mine.) All things are subject to birth/aging/decay/death. This is the Buddha's definition of birth/aging/decay/death. Naturally, when we cling to these things as "self," when they inevitably age, decay, die, disappear... this leads to dukkha. When things are clung to as "self," the "self" is born.
This is just pure idolization and idealization with no basis in logic or reality. Someone once said something to the effect, "if a child was in a burning house and refused to come out, would the Buddha lie to the child if it would save them from the fire, and it was his only option?" - like, what, do you think it's physically impossible for a buddha to speak something untrue? Lying is not inherently bad or wrong.
Deshy, aMatt, and myself have already explained this a million times and you're forcing the discussion in circles. What I said just above this quote applies. I'm not explaining it again.
Your opinion is yours. Mine is mine. But the truth is the truth. It doesn't have different flavors.
They are not unverifiable? Noone has ever told me how to verify rebirth in this lifetime so far.
This is not about the name in your birth certificate or the name you used to name your conventional self. I already told you how the text fits the explanation. You can sit down and contemplate how self views arise about thousand times each day. Each self view can be of a different perspective to the other. These are different births. When you recollect previous births, you only recollect these self views not necessarily memories of past lives.
Why would the Buddha, who taught not-self, tell his disciples that he was born as such and such in different past lives without even explaining what it is that is reborn? However, it is highly likely that he would teach his disciples how faulty self identifications of the five aggregates arise in the mind and how, by seeing that, you see the Dhamma. Besides, as Mundus already said, the pali translation is not "past lives" but "past dwellings". If the Buddha wanted to say lives he would have said so rather than saying "past dwellings".
I am not running around. There could be rebirth. There could not be. Why should I believe something I cannot verify for myself? :crazy: That would be just downright blind faith born out of desire and ignorance.
Belief in the next world is right view for morality. That's what it says. It doesn't mean rebirth is a sure guarantee and the next world is a sure thing comming. But that view is right for morality; it sides with merit.
Anyway, is this your "verification according to Dhamma"? Are you going to go by this text and just blindly believe it? Shouldn't your faith be verifiable to yourself by directly applying it and seeing its truth for yourself? The Dhamma in super mundane teachings is such.
I was referring to the underlying sense of self in your post. Referring to yourself as "I" is perfectly fine. Even the Buddha did that.
You try to cultivate the mundane Dhamma to reach Nibbana as fast as you can?
You believe that devotion in cultivation will "ascertain a future rebirth". Thus you are motivated to devote yourself to Buddhist cultivation. This is not much different than those Christians who are devoted to God in the hope of going to heaven after death.
This is not about me or you. This is about the belief in rebirth and how it is NOT a factor of the path to enlightenment.
Summing up, I have told you just about everything that can be said at this point.
1) We gave you references why belief in rebirth is not leading to Nibbana
2) We showed you how rebirth is not talked about in super mundane teachings by the Buddha
3) We showed you that wherever rebirth has been talked about it has been talked about for morality only not necessarily as a definite truth
4) We pointed out misinterpretations in pali translations
5) We showed you that the Buddha never considered rebirth as anything important for the ultimate goal
6) Finally, all of the "evidence" you are finding in the suttas for rebirth are highly debatable in the very least.
There is nothing else I can tell at this point.
<a href='http://www.mysmiley.net' title='free smileys'><img src='http://serve.mysmiley.net/happy/happy0142.gif' alt='free smileys' border='0'></a>
1. Cultivate gratitude. (Confucianism)
2. Cultivate good karma. (Hinduism)
3. Cultivate blind faith in priests. (Catholicism)
The Buddha advised these practices lead to morality, effluents (mental pollution) and acquisitions (burdens).
Why? Because they are not free from self-view. They are not samatha-vipassana. They do not result in enlightenment & liberation.
Many human beings do not believe they receive benefaction from others, such as from their mother, father, teachers, society, environment, etc. Therefore they lack gratitude. In lacking gratitude, their minds do not have the spiritual joy & mundane wisdom of gratitute.
I have corrected the translation here. The Pali does not state "the next world". It states the "other world" or "other worlds". The other worlds are the godly, hungry ghost, hell & animal worlds. This world is the human world.
Many people to not believe in the other worlds. For example, they get excited & go to war to kill, only to return with various mental disorders & even commit suicide. Or people steal, not aware there is prison. Or they get excited about sex, only to sow the fruit of woundedness & heart brreak. Or they take drugs, which results in problems. Or they do not believe in doing good.
paraloka, paraŋ and paro. -- (b) another, other, adj. as well as n., pl. others
A vimāna arises in the "other world" (paraloka) at the instant of somebody doing good (even during the lifetime of the doer)
Here, some have wrong view they have no benefactors, thus no gratitude and no right action to reciprocate correctly what they have received. So right view here is understanding interconnectedness or interbeing.
Again, the translation here is corrected to 'spontaneously born'. This means simply by doing one act of good or bad karma, one can sow immediate fruit.
This is blind faith for laypeople, to take refuge in any priest that teaches about karma & its destinations. We can notice here it does not say "bhikkhus". Here, the Buddha wished that ordinary people take refuge in their own religion.
Funny how Lincoln removed much extraneous programs which clutter the forum with pointless formatting, but overlooked great big, nightmare-inducing smileys with the potential to eyeball overload...... little
Wrong view = There is no this world, no next world and no spontaneously reborn beings.
Right view with defilements (asava) = There is this world and the next and there are spontaneously reborn beings
Right view with no defilements (asava) = ... doesn't mention the above, but says it is without asava, and transendant.
So, is the wrong view (no rebirth) the right view??
This has been discussed here
Nios.
I suggest you read DD's last comment please
I did read it Deshy. It does not answer my question. The link I gave, answers the question. This is why I gave it.
Not everyone believes that DD has the answers
I don't have access to that link. The MN seems to me to be talking directly about karma.
"There is no planting in this moment, no resulting fruit in the next moment and no spontaneously arising experiences" (Ie stuck in emptiness or aestheticism)
"There is planting in this moment, resulting fruit in the next moment, but there are independently arising experiences not connected to this moment's planting." (ie, seeing the wheel of karma, but thinking there are exceptions)
This seems to make the right view:
"There is planting in this moment, harvesting the fruit in the next moment, and absolutely no exception to the wheel."
I know I'm making some liberties in the translation, but I just shake my head at the kind of thinking that describes this as talking about different incarnations. It seems this is referring very directly to how different the body is from moment to moment, and how it links to karma.
With warmth,
Matt
No probs. I'm seeking permission to quote one of the monastics. It may take a while.
Para definitely means "others" in my native language which is sinhala. But that is not commonly used nowadays.
It's not Deshy's fault. The image resizing feature here doesn't work.
I'll be off to bed soon but can have a look at it tomorrow
:coffee:
Bhikkhu Bodhi translates:
:type:
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa states:
:hiding:
The Pali Dictionary states: </I>
And there you go again ducking it.
Yes that might be your interpretation but on the other hand, using your own argument:
If he wanted to say recollection of past self (or the like) then why did he say past dwelling?
I find the best answer to be that he never meant them as synonyms. Past Dwelling is referring to something other than the self-view.
Yes you are.
Or you could just say that the self appears or emerges or materializes (or condense or descends (if you like to spice things up a bit)).:)
And you do realize the word used in the sutta you quoted is birth and not birth of self or any other of the words I used?
The Buddha does not lie to entrap you into the dhamma. He entraps you using the truth.
I do not know about Deshy and aMatt but I find your sense of morality somewhat lacking. And there is absolutly no need for you to flaunt it at me again.
/Victor
Thanks! I never thought of that. So the Buddha did plainly state not believing in the here after is wrong view.
/Victor
All learned Buddhists translate paraloka as "other world", "another world" or "other worlds".
The Buddha defined the worlds as the hungry ghosts, hell, animal, human & godly worlds.
It is therefore not the "next world" but "other worlds".
These are the results of kamma.
If you are basing my sense of morality on my discussion with you in this Thread then it is clear to me that you do not know what the word "morality" means.
Then there's nothing more to talk about. The Buddha's transcendant teachings, those which lead to the quenching of dukkha, are not to be found in the lokiya teachings. His own teachings were described as supramundane, transcendant, and concerned solely with dukkha.
You asked about Buddhism without rebirth. So I don't know why you're interested in discussing mundane views on morality.
Your initial post suggested you were simply seeking others' views of Buddhism. You asked these questions:
...but had no real interest in our answers.
Take care.
But it is not a factor of the path.
MN 117 states explicitedly mundane right view is not a factor of the path to liberation.
Why?
Because each factor of the path has mundane & supramundane level.
Those practising the path on the supramundane level are practising right karma but in a non-attached way.
I never asked you to. I asked you to verify that there is no rebirth. Anyway it was a rethorical question. It is not possible to prove that there is no rebirth in the here and now.:)
Says who?
The error in your argument is that the Buddha did not teach not-self. In fact that is one of the views he refuted as wrong view or "Unwise considerations". I think I quoted a relavant text in this thread. Tell me if you want it again.
Please read my reply to Valtiel
That is a totally correct standing. I can not disagree with you there.
No but it does say that the Buddha believed it was.
But it is still right view.
Yeah I have been Dying to use that comment ever since you used it the first time.
Thank you Nios.
/Victor
The mundane path you are discussing does not lead to Nibbana.
The Buddha has made that clear.