Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

12345679»

Comments

  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited May 2010
    You have been physically dying in order to use that comment?
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    Thank you Nios.
    What Nios has quoted is incorrect.

    In Pali, it is called 'slandering the Tathagatha'.

    We should take care to not give thanks to slander.
    "Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

    Abhasita Sutta: What Was Not Said

    :)
  • patbbpatbb Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    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.
    can you give it to me please?

    it's kind of a long thread to search and I couldn't find your specific post.
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Deshy wrote: »
    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.
    The Buddha rarely taught about mundane practise and stream-entry together.

    But he did say believing in mundane right understanding is a safe bet or a sale gamble. He compared it to having a second throw of the dice.

    Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Originally Posted by Victorious viewpost.gif
    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.

    :eek2:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    patbb wrote: »
    can you give it to me please?

    there is a sutta (here) in which the buddha refuses to answer questions about 'self' to a certain wanderer

    his rationale was if he confirmed the 'self', he would be inconsistant with his own teachings

    if he denied the 'self' or taught 'not-self', the wanderer would misunderstand (due to his capacity) and this would lead to harm & confusion

    so the buddha remained silent in this one instance

    for many, the teaching of not-self is not suitable

    :smilec:
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited May 2010
    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.

    This is just absoultely bizarre. One of the core Buddhist doctrines is anatta (not-self). I believe you are thinking of the view of "NO self." Please read the Ananda Sutta and then just about every other sutta in existence. :lol:
  • patbbpatbb Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    there is a sutta (here) in which the buddha refuses to answer questions about 'self' to a certain wanderer

    his rationale was if he confirmed the 'self', he would be criticised as a hypocryte

    if he denied the 'self' or taught 'not-self', the wanderer would misunderstand (due to his capacity) and this would lead to harm

    so the buddha remained silent in this one instance

    for many, the teaching of not-self is not suitable

    :smilec:
    very fast, thank you! :)
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    According to Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

    :coffee:

    Not at all what i was refering to.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    If it is different to what Dhamma Dhatu said, it is incorrect & not warranting recommendation.

    What an ego trip :-/
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    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.

    :)

    Again, not what I was refering to, and not what the link was refering to. I wonder whether you bothered reading it at all or just want to disagree with me :-/
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Deshy wrote: »
    Sorry, I can't access it Nios. Maybe you can layout the important points here? Just a suggestion :)

    I would, but I fear the wrath of DD. :(

    For that reason I'm leaving this thread, before he accuses me of slander again.
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Hi DD.
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    The Pali is as follows:

    ‘‘Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi? Sammādiṭṭhiṃpahaṃ, bhikkhave, dvāyaṃ [two sorts] vadāmi – atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā; atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi ariyā anāsavā lokuttarā maggaṅgā.

    Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā ?

    ‘Atthi dinnaṃ, atthi yiṭṭhaṃ, atthi hutaṃ, atthi sukatadukkaṭānaṃ kammānaṃ phalaṃ vipāko, atthi ayaṃ loko, atthi paro loko, atthi mātā, atthi pitā, atthi sattā opapātikā, atthi loke samaṇabrāhmaṇā sammaggatā sammāpaṭipannā ye imañca lokaṃ parañca lokaṃ sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedentī’ti – ayaṃ, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā.

    http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/

    :)

    Funny thing just happened. I used your highlighted quotation "paro loko" and looked it up in the Pali Text Society Dict that you referenced.

    And I found this translation.
    http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.2:1:1753.pali

    Please read the highlighted text:

    Para (adv. -- adj.) [fr. Idg. *per, *peri (cp. pari); Ved. para, parā, paraŋ; Lat. per through, Gr. <at>pe/ra & pe/ran</at> beyond; see Walde,     Lat. Wtb. under per & also pari, pubba, pura, purāṇa] 1. (adv. & prep.) beyond, on the further side of (with abl. or loc.), over PvA 168 (para Gangāya, v. l. ˚āyaŋ). See in same meaning & application paraŋ, paro and parā & cp. cpds. like paraloka. -- 2. (adj.) para follows the pron. declension; cases: sg. nom. paro Sn 879, acc. paraŋ Sn 132, 185, gen. dat. parassa Sn 634; Pv <smallcaps>ii.</smallcaps>9<superscript>19</superscript>, instr. parena PvA 116, loc. paramhi Sn 634, and pare Pv <smallcaps>ii.</smallcaps>9<superscript>43</superscript>; pl. nom. pare Dh 6, acc. pare Dh 257; PvA 15, gen. dat. paresaŋ D <smallcaps>i.</smallcaps>3; Th 1, 743; J <smallcaps>i.</smallcaps>256; Sn 818, instr. parehi Sn 240, 255; PvA 17. -- Meanings: (a) beyond, i. e. "higher" in space (like Ved. para as opp. to avara lower), as well as "further" in time (i. e. future, to come, or also remote, past: see loc. pare under c.), freq. in phrase paro loko the world beyond, the world (i. e. life) to come, the beyond or future life (opp. ayaŋ loko)


    I am no good at pali. What am I missing?


    /Victor
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    patbb wrote: »
    very fast, thank you! :)

    Fast but incorrect!:)

    This is the sutta I meant MN 22:
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html


    "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.


    /Victor
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »
    This is just absoultely bizarre. One of the core Buddhist doctrines is anatta (not-self). I believe you are thinking of the view of "NO self." Please read the Ananda Sutta and then just about every other sutta in existence. :lol:

    Read how Deshy is using the concept not-self in her argument.

    EDIT:
    The translation of anatta is not not-self according to the Pali text society. It is rather unreality.

    The 3 properties (tilakkhaṇaŋ) of existing things or of the phenomenal world are anicca, dukkha, anatta, or impermanence, suffering, unreality

    /Victor
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Valtiel wrote: »



    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. :)

    I was as you say I was simply seeking others views. I was not trying to adopt them. Neither was I in it from the begining to try and disprove it but my questions were to understand it.

    This latest discussion where I have aired the inconsitencies I found was more or less forced upon me by you, DD and Deshy when I replied to armandos question and you would not let me express my view without questioning it.

    Regards
    /Victor
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Dhamma Dhatu wrote: »
    Nibbana is not really 'truth' (although it is sometimes called a 'truth'). Really, truth is that which leads to Nibbana rather than Nibbana itself.

    If Nibbana is not called truth then it is meaningless to call that which leads to it truth. Since the only reference is taken away.

    /Victor
  • VictoriousVictorious Grim Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Hi all.

    I am sorry for the small amounts of irony slowly seeping into my replis as some of you might have noticed. But it is due to me running low on patience lately. I will be back with a fresh sack tomorrow.

    /Victor
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    I am no good at pali. What am I missing?
    You are missing understanding what the Buddha meant by world.

    Human, heavenly, hungry ghost, animal & hell world.

    These are the result of action as mentioned in MN 117.

    You are missing knowing about what you wish to argue about.

    The other world or the next (future) world is the fruit of karma.

    It is like you wish to argue amount the beauty of a certain woman and do not realise she has siphilis.

    The 'next world' you are engrossed & infatuated with could be hell.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    If Nibbana is not called truth then it is meaningless to call that which leads to it truth. Since the only reference is taken away.
    ???

    Water quenches thirst. Water is not the same as the feeling of being quenched.

    Study leads to a degree. Study is not the same as a degree.

    The same. Insight of truth leads to Nibbana. Insight is not the same as Nibbana.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
    :buck:

    No idea what V is babbling on about.

    :buck:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    freq. in phrase paro loko the world beyond, the world (i. e. life) to come, the beyond or future life (opp. ayaŋ loko)


    I am no good at pali. What am I missing?
    Beyond here means tomorrow.

    Today you rob a bank, tommorrow you are in prison.

    Or in the next ife, you a reborn as a beggar for your crime.

    Action & fruit was what the Buddha was concerned with (rather than your emotional cravings for a next life without realising the consequences of karma).


    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    For that reason I'm leaving this thread, before he accuses me of slander again.
    So you admit 'the next world' is incorrect?

    Well done.

    :)
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    The translation of anatta is not not-self according to the Pali text society. It is rather unreality.
    :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

    We have a new Buddha amongst us, namely, Victor.

    2,500 years of Buddhism has been changed in the stroke of a pen.

    :cheer::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::cheer::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:
  • DhammaDhatuDhammaDhatu Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    The 3 properties (tilakkhaṇaŋ) of existing things or of the phenomenal world are anicca, dukkha, anatta, or impermanence, suffering, unreality.

    :eek2:
  • ValtielValtiel Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    Read how Deshy is using the concept not-self in her argument.

    EDIT:
    The translation of anatta is not not-self according to the Pali text society. It is rather unreality.

    The 3 properties (tilakkhaṇaŋ) of existing things or of the phenomenal world are anicca, dukkha, anatta, or impermanence, suffering, unreality

    /Victor

    try again, victor. From the pali text society's actual entry for anatta:

    "**anattā (n. and predicative adj.) not a soul, without a soul. Most freq. in combn. with dukkha & anicca -- (1) as noun: S iii.141 (˚anupassin); iv.49; v.345 (˚saññin); A ii.52 = Ps ii.80 (anattani anattā; opp. to anattani attā, the opinion of the micchādiṭṭhigatā sattā); Dh 279; Ps ii.37, 45 sq. (˚anupassanā), 106 (yaŋ aniccañ ca dukkhañ ca taŋ anattā); DhA iii. 406 (˚lakkhaṇa). -- (2) as adj. (pred.): S iv.152 sq.; S iv.166; S iv.130 sq., 148 sq.; Vin i.13 = S iii.66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S iii.20 sq.; 178 sq., 196 sq.; sabbe dhammā anattā Vin v.86; S iii.133; iv.28, 401."

    A buddhist who denies not-self... Amazing.
  • mettafoumettafou Veteran
    edited May 2010
    "What do you think, great king? As you now enjoy yourself endowed & replete with the pleasures of the five senses, can you say, 'Even in the afterlife I will enjoy myself in the same way, endowed & replete with the very same pleasures of the five senses'? Or will this wealth fall to others, while you pass on in accordance with your kamma?"

    "Oh, no, Master Ratthapala, I can't say, 'Even in the afterlife I will enjoy myself in the same way, endowed & replete with the very same pleasures of the five senses.' This wealth will fall to others, while I pass on in accordance with my kamma."

    "It was in reference to this, great king, that the Blessed One who knows & sees, worthy & rightly self-awakened, said: 'The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind.' Having known & seen & heard this, I went forth from the home life into homelessness."

    "It's amazing, Master Ratthapala. It's astounding, how well that has been said by the Blessed One who knows & sees, worthy & rightly self-awakened: 'The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind.' For the world really is without ownership, Master Ratthapala. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.082.than.html
    "rebirth is an important teaching on not-self." all we'll have to take with us is the qualities and skills and kamma... so knowing this whether they are in greed, hatred, and delusion, or paramis, that's probably what we should concern ourselves rather than clinging to views of whether the buddha taught rebirth in this or that way...

    http://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/100409%20Pissing%20on%20Palaces.mp3
  • DeshyDeshy Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »

    It is not possible to prove that there is no rebirth in the here and now…

    I believe in rebirth…. I am a rebirth fanatic (laughs)

    I have said this before and I am saying it again. I have no idea what is reborn…

    I have no blind faith in my cultivation….

    I will be back with a fresh sack (of comedy) tomorrow…

    Tune in for more Victorious comedy tomorrow
  • DeshyDeshy Veteran
    edited May 2010
    Victorious wrote: »
    The Buddha did not teach not-self…

    Seriously folks, I don’t think continuing with this thread is of any use.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited May 2010
    At 430 posts, I'm struggling to see what anyone has actually successfully achieved, at all.
    Thanks to all.
    If you want to continue this dialogue, I suggest PMs would be just as effective.
    Thanks.
This discussion has been closed.