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.
Self-improvement and being concerned for the welfare of future generations are certainly wholesome intentions. But they are not, in and of themselves, going to lead to Nibbana, though they may indeed be supportive to the goal.
The end isn't the goal, unless you are completely self-absorbed. The goal is to help elevate the whole of the world, no?
The end isn't the goal, unless you are completely self-absorbed. The goal is to help elevate the whole of the world, no?
"Elevating the world", by which I assume you mean making this human realm on Earth a happier and safer place to live, is a very wholesome aspiration. But, IMO, it fits more into the domain of social activism and political reform than spiritual practice. I say this because it is not something that can be sustained indefinitely (i.e. It is not making an end to Dukkha). This is not to say that these things are unimportant or don't have their place, but they are not the primary aim of anyone who wants to end Dukkha once and for all.
The highest goal is for each one of us to reach Nibbana by our own efforts. An Arahant (even the Buddha) can not do the work for someone else when it comes to walking the Path, its up to each of us individually whether or not we want to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. What other people decide to do is, frankly, none of our business. If we can say something or do something to help someone correct their views or encourage them to practice, that's just a bonus, but its not really up to us what the rest of the world does or doesn't do.
fits more into the domain of social activism and political reform than spiritual practice. Moreover, it is not something that can be sustained indefinitely and, as far as I'm aware, it is not the highest goal that we can pursue.
I do not think there is a difference between spiritual practice of the person and the social interactions a person has with the world. We are not individuals, but intrinsically tied to everyone around us.
This social activism you speak of is not the goal, but in my case, the more practice I have embracing moments of stillness, the more I am instinctively drawn into helping where I can. Its not like I say "I'm going to change the world today" or any such foolishness. Rather, as I see people whose hearts are in need, I reach out to them because it seems like the only possible response that makes any sense at all.
I do not think there is a difference between spiritual practice of the person and the social interactions a person has with the world. We are not individuals, but intrinsically tied to everyone around us.
This social activism you speak of is not the goal, but in my case, the more practice I have embracing moments of stillness, the more I am instinctively drawn into helping where I can. Its not like I say "I'm going to change the world today" or any such foolishness. Rather, as I see people whose hearts are in need, I reach out to them because it seems like the only possible response that makes any sense at all.
Having read both versions I must say that I think the Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's explanation of the DO is the one that tallies with how the Buddha explained DO in the suttas. In fact Bhikkhu Buddhadasa merely states what is there in the suttas.
The birth in DO has nothing to do with physical birth or rebirth and kamma is not even mentioned in the suttas which discuss DO. It is a serious error to interpret it the other way not to mention the many gray areas that it has with no rational explanations. DO is for the cessation of suffering here and now and rebirth or kamma has got nothing to do with it.
Having read both versions I must say that I think the Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's explanation of the DO is the one that tallies with how the Buddha explained DO in the suttas. In fact Bhikkhu Buddhadasa merely states what is there in the suttas.
The birth in DO has nothing to do with physical birth or rebirth and kamma is not even mentioned in the suttas which discuss DO. It is a serious error to interpret it the other way not to mention the many gray areas that it has with no rational explanations. DO is for the cessation of suffering here and now and rebirth or kamma has got nothing to do with it.
The Dhamma well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see, leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves:
I worship most highly that Dhamma,
To that Dhamma I bow my head down.
Really? I always thought that the Buddha taught about rebirth because he saw the reality of it for himself (having remembered his past lives) and it became one of the key insights to his Awakening, not because he thought it sounded good from a philosophical point of view nor any other reason.
I try not to pretend to know what the Buddha said or experienced.
We do however have access to a large canon of material that highlights and lays the foundation for what the teachings mean.
In the standard list (there are other versions) #2 is samskara, which is karmic formations & #11 jati or birth.
I only know two versions. One is that in the Visuddhimagga which came many years after the Buddha's death, which sadly does not tally with the suttas and which explains the DO by incorporating kamma and rebirth into it. In doing so, it has also added notions of self into it, unintentionally. It has so many gray areas in it which are not verifiable here and now. The Dhamma, as the Buddha taught is verifiable in this lifetime.
About #2:
The sanskara in the DO are fabricators; they condition the body (kaya), mind and the speech.
Ex: As you do the anapanasathi practice, you experience that, as the breath calms the physical body calms down. The breath in this case is the fabricator of the physical body.
"But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What are mental fabrications?"
"In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
"But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings mental fabrications?"
Birth is the birth of the ego not the birth from a mother's womb. If you look at it closely, physical birth is not the cause of your suffering. It is the mental clinging with the false self identification that is the cause of your suffeirng. The kind of birth in the DO happens many times during the day causing all kinds of dukkha.
And Dhamma is explained, leading out (of samsara), calming, tending toward total Nibbana, going to self-awakening, declared by one who has gone the good way.
Having heard the Dhamma, we know this:
Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful,
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful,
Association with things disliked is stressful, separation from things liked is stressful, not getting what one wants is stressful,
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful,
Namely:
Form as a clinging-aggregate,
Feeling as a clinging-aggregate,
Perception as a clinging-aggregate,
Mental processes as a clinging-aggregate,
Consciousness as a clinging-aggregate.
So that they might fully understand this, the Blessed One, while still alive, often instructed his listeners in this way;
Many times did he emphasize this part of his admonition: "Form is inconstant,
Feeling is inconstant,
Perception is inconstant,
Mental processes are inconstant,
Consciousness is inconstant,
Form is not-self,
Feeling is not-self,
Perception is not-self,
Mental processes are not-self,
Consciousness is not-self,
Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā,
All processes are inconstant,
Sabbe dhammā anattāti."
All phenomena are not-self."
For those who deny, ignore or find rebirth & karma irrelevant, I would suggest any of the Abrahamic religions. They have a fine ethical practice and a one-lifetime view.
The Dharma without karma & rebirth is like a zombie - with neither brain nor heart.
Now why does this sound like fundie talk to me? There are lots of people benefiting from Buddhist teachings in the modern world who haven't signed a manifesto which incudes "Karma and rebirth or Zombie - tick preference"
I'm sorry but I'm afraid in my view the above quoted attitude is extremely closed minded.
I've heard a Tibetan Buddhist teacher say to someone interested in the Dharma: "Don't worry about belief in rebirth, this is the lifetime that counts"
To quote Ajahn Sumedho of The Theravada Thai Forest Tradition:
"I quite like the idea of reincarnation, and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it, but it is speculative and it's conceptual." (The Sound of Silence)
And incidentally, Will, have you not seen the flaws of their "ethical systems"? (not that that's what we all came to Buddhism for - but bravo for pissing on the Dharma and encouraging people to turn away from it for blind faith and ignorance)
<TABLE class=tborder id=post101147 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_101147 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #c0c0c0 1px solid">I got so caught up in a rebirth debate in my last life that I forgot to practice and so, here I am!
<!-- / message --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #c0c0c0 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #c0c0c0 1px solid"> </TD><TD class=alt1 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #c0c0c0 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #c0c0c0 0px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #c0c0c0 0px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #c0c0c0 1px solid" align=right><!-- controls --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In line with the present-day stress on the need for religious teachings to be personally relevant and directly verifiable, in certain Dhamma circles the time-honored Buddhist doctrine of rebirth has come up for severe re-examination. Although only a few contemporary Buddhist thinkers still go so far as to suggest that this doctrine be scrapped as "unscientific," another opinion has been gaining ground to the effect that whether or not rebirth itself be a fact, the doctrine of rebirth has no essential bearings on the practice of Dhamma and thence no claim to an assured place in the Buddhist teachings. The Dhamma, it is said, is concerned solely with the here and now, with helping us to resolve our personal hangups through increased self-awareness and inner honesty. All the rest of Buddhism we can now let go as the religious trappings of an ancient culture utterly inappropriate for the Dhamma of our technological age.
If we suspend our own predilections for the moment and instead go directly to our sources, we come upon the indisputable fact that the Buddha himself taught rebirth and taught it as a basic tenet of his teaching. Viewed in their totality, the Buddha's discourses show us that far from being a mere concession to the outlook prevalent in his time or an Asiatic cultural contrivance, the doctrine of rebirth has tremendous implications for the entire course of Dhamma practice, affecting both the aim with which the practice is taken up and the motivation with which it is followed through to completion.
The question of human destiny after death is probably one of the most critical questions we can raise. Nowadays it has become fashionable to dismiss this question as unimportant. But if we reflect on the extent to which our views influence our action we will see that it is quite essential to gain some understanding of the complete context in which our lives unfold.
Last link includes sections on*
.Buddhism and Hinduism compared
.Rebirth without a "Transmigrating soul"
.What continues from one life to another?
.Preservation of identity illustrated
.Conception
.Teaching of dependent arising with specific reference to Rebirth
.Craving the Seamstress
.What is it that causes rebirth in a particular form
.Is rebirth scientifically acceptable?
I got so caught up in a rebirth debate in my last life that I forgot to practice and so, here I am!
If you can't debate rebirth and practice at the same time it is very wise to avoid discussions on rebirth! We all have different dispositions and need different approaches. :uphand:
from the article you linked on what's passed on in rebirth if there's no sould
[SIZE=-1]Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the "cittasantana", the continuum of mind[/SIZE]
Sorry that's short term memory, if you have short term memory damage, nothing is passed on. Look at the cases of short term memory loss, a wife walks out of the room to make a cup of tea, when she reenters the husband thinks he hasn't seen her for weeks.
That citta explanation is simple a pre science way of trying to understand the link between short term and long term memory.
then
[SIZE=-1] In the mind of the dying person there takes place a final thought - moment called the "death consciousness", which signals the complete end of the life. Then, following the death consciousness, there arises the first citta of the next life which springs up with the newly formed physical organism as its basis. The first citta of the new life continues the stream of consciousness which has passed out of the deceased body
So how does the last short term memory jump from one body to another? Anyway I thought Buddha said consciousness does not pass on from one birth to another, doesn't he tell a monk off for teaching this? Sorry no link, but someone posted a link a few weeks ago.
[/SIZE]
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person does not submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata does not regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life do not regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata does not regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life do not regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing."
So, you
Made a controversial claim
Refused to back it up
Implied through the invocation of the Kesi Sutta that your role here is to train people
Implied through that same invocation that people who disagree with you are unteachable and unworthy of your attention.
from the article you linked on what's passed on in rebirth if there's no sould
Sorry that's short term memory, if you have short term memory damage, nothing is passed on. Look at the cases of short term memory loss, a wife walks out of the room to make a cup of tea, when she reenters the husband thinks he hasn't seen her for weeks.
That citta explanation is simple a pre science way of trying to understand the link between short term and long term memory.
then
So how does the last short term memory jump from one body to another? Anyway I thought Buddha said consciousness does not pass on from one birth to another, doesn't he tell a monk off for teaching this? Sorry no link, but someone posted a link a few weeks ago.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
1- No need to apologize, that is your view, and you are welcome to it.
2- I will wait and comment when you provide the link.
The OP asks: Rebirth: does it matter?
I ask: To who?
Clearly, for some practitioners it is a very important part of their practice. Others emphasis may be focused on different methods and understandings.
No problem.
In America we have groups called "Birthers", I see there are international Buddhist 'Rebirthers' - people with strong dogmatic fundamentalistic views for or against the study of the teachings on Rebirth - what a shame, ego sucking all the fun, joy and enthusiasm! :-/
Good to see discussions on Rebirth are alive and well in this place.
from the article you linked on what's passed on in rebirth if there's no soul?
Why do people think that rebirth implies a soul and is at odds with anatman?
My only guess is cultural conditioning. To me rebirth in absolutely no way implies this. Also why is it that people assume that just because something persists after death that the "thing" that persists is somehow permanent?
These are shortsighted and un-necessary conclusions that limit our ability to examine the concepts that so regularly lead to disagreement and confusion.
Implied through the invocation of the Kesi Sutta that your role here is to train people
Implied through that same invocation that people who disagree with you are unteachable and unworthy of your attention.
That is some fine <s>trolling</s>rhetoric.
That rebirth was central to Buddha's teachings is a fact; not controversial to those who know his teachings.
I am old & too tired to repeat in every single thread what I have written on this subject for the last 15? years online.
Wrong about me being or wanting to be a "trainer". I just repeat what I have been taught.
Partly correct on the last one. If rebirth deniers or those indifferent to it, will only continue to argue, no matter whether rhetorical carrots or sticks or both carrots & sticks are offered; then I move on.
That rebirth was central to Buddha's teachings is a fact; not controversial to those who know his teachings.
Apparently it is controversial and debated if you've spent 15 years of your life online debating it.
That it was taught by him is not really debated. Whether it is central to his OWN teachings is rightly debated. Many who believe in rebirth even say it was not a central, necessary aspect of his teachings. Well-respected practitioners such as Buddhadasa, Chah, Sumedho, etc. hold the same view.
"To those who know his teachings" is nothing but a Straw Man argument.
Advice: if you're sick of repeating yourself, then perhaps provide a link to a past response.
I am old & too tired to repeat in every single thread what I have written on this subject for the last 15? years online.
Probably best to take a break from it then until you're feeling up to debating properly--otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.
Partly correct on the last one. If rebirth deniers or those indifferent to it, will only continue to argue, no matter whether rhetorical carrots or sticks or both carrots & sticks are offered; then I move on.
And yet that hefty Musk de Will still lingers here in this Thread. Going at it in "every single Thread EVAR" for 15 years hardly sounds like moving on.
Why do people think that rebirth implies a soul and is at odds with anatman?
Hmm honestly, I'm asking this because I dont know, not because i think i understand and I'm challenging you.
But I've never understood rebirth, I mean if the thing that is reborn isn't going under an idea of something that is individual then "you" or "I" cant be reborn because these nothing that is us after death. Maybe I'm off a little, and I wouldn't be surprised. Just trying to clear up my understanding.
Right now all (I think) i know is that after my death, what i have done will have an effect and that my body will go on to be the body other things. That's all (i think) I know.
I am old & too tired to repeat in every single thread what I have written on this subject for the last 15? years online.
This is such self-serving nonsense. If you keep having the same debate over and over again, you write an essay about it, and cite, quote or the essay when it comes up in the future.
This is such self-serving nonsense. If you keep having the same debate over and over again, you write an essay about it, and cite, quote or the essay when it comes up in the future.
Interesting advice! I wonder... if a stimuli of any kind repeats itself over and over in your reality, perhaps there is a message behind it that bears examination... beyond building a canon to destroy the wall time and again.
That rebirth was central to Buddha's teachings is a fact; not controversial to those who know his teachings.
I am old & too tired to repeat in every single thread what I have written on this subject for the last 15? years online.
Wrong about me being or wanting to be a "trainer". I just repeat what I have been taught.
Partly correct on the last one. If rebirth deniers or those indifferent to it, will only continue to argue, no matter whether rhetorical carrots or sticks or both carrots & sticks are offered; then I move on.
Thank you for your effort and kindness in arguing for the love of wisdom.
I too see no point or sense in arguing for the sake of argument. :smilec:
This is such self-serving nonsense. If you keep having the same debate over and over again, you write an essay about it, and cite, quote or the essay when it comes up in the future.
Speaking of self - try doing your own research for a change. It is all available from traditional gurus and online.
Comments
The end isn't the goal, unless you are completely self-absorbed. The goal is to help elevate the whole of the world, no?
:zombie:
"Elevating the world", by which I assume you mean making this human realm on Earth a happier and safer place to live, is a very wholesome aspiration. But, IMO, it fits more into the domain of social activism and political reform than spiritual practice. I say this because it is not something that can be sustained indefinitely (i.e. It is not making an end to Dukkha). This is not to say that these things are unimportant or don't have their place, but they are not the primary aim of anyone who wants to end Dukkha once and for all.
The highest goal is for each one of us to reach Nibbana by our own efforts. An Arahant (even the Buddha) can not do the work for someone else when it comes to walking the Path, its up to each of us individually whether or not we want to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. What other people decide to do is, frankly, none of our business. If we can say something or do something to help someone correct their views or encourage them to practice, that's just a bonus, but its not really up to us what the rest of the world does or doesn't do.
I do not think there is a difference between spiritual practice of the person and the social interactions a person has with the world. We are not individuals, but intrinsically tied to everyone around us.
This social activism you speak of is not the goal, but in my case, the more practice I have embracing moments of stillness, the more I am instinctively drawn into helping where I can. Its not like I say "I'm going to change the world today" or any such foolishness. Rather, as I see people whose hearts are in need, I reach out to them because it seems like the only possible response that makes any sense at all.
With warmth,
Matt
Daozen: Why?
Because the life of the Dharma is dependent origination, of which karma & rebirth are part.
Daozen: p.s. Zombies actually have brains AND hearts.
Normal zombies do, but Dharma zombies are kept in motion only by fooldoo energy - which needs not heart or brain.
In that case I agree with you for a change.
Where is kamma or rebirth mentioned in Dependent Origination?
That would be the 3 lifetimes model I suppose.
Personally I see DO as relevant to the present lifetime. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa gives an excellent explanation here:
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm
.
Having read both versions I must say that I think the Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's explanation of the DO is the one that tallies with how the Buddha explained DO in the suttas. In fact Bhikkhu Buddhadasa merely states what is there in the suttas.
The birth in DO has nothing to do with physical birth or rebirth and kamma is not even mentioned in the suttas which discuss DO. It is a serious error to interpret it the other way not to mention the many gray areas that it has with no rational explanations. DO is for the cessation of suffering here and now and rebirth or kamma has got nothing to do with it.
The Dhamma well-expounded by the Blessed One,
to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see,
leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves:
I worship most highly that Dhamma,
To that Dhamma I bow my head down.
Lol, then finally you are right
Just teasing of course,
Matt
In the standard list (there are other versions) #2 is samskara, which is karmic formations & #11 jati or birth.
I try not to pretend to know what the Buddha said or experienced.
We do however have access to a large canon of material that highlights and lays the foundation for what the teachings mean.
I only know two versions. One is that in the Visuddhimagga which came many years after the Buddha's death, which sadly does not tally with the suttas and which explains the DO by incorporating kamma and rebirth into it. In doing so, it has also added notions of self into it, unintentionally. It has so many gray areas in it which are not verifiable here and now. The Dhamma, as the Buddha taught is verifiable in this lifetime.
About #2:
The sanskara in the DO are fabricators; they condition the body (kaya), mind and the speech.
Ex: As you do the anapanasathi practice, you experience that, as the breath calms the physical body calms down. The breath in this case is the fabricator of the physical body.
About #11:
Birth is the birth of the ego not the birth from a mother's womb. If you look at it closely, physical birth is not the cause of your suffering. It is the mental clinging with the false self identification that is the cause of your suffeirng. The kind of birth in the DO happens many times during the day causing all kinds of dukkha.
Sankhara is sankhara. Kamma is kamma.
Jati/birth is jati/birth (which is also defined in the suttas). Rebirth is rebirth.
Having heard the Dhamma, we know this:
Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful,
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful,
Association with things disliked is stressful, separation from things liked is stressful, not getting what one wants is stressful,
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful,
Namely:
Form as a clinging-aggregate,
Feeling as a clinging-aggregate,
Perception as a clinging-aggregate,
Mental processes as a clinging-aggregate,
Consciousness as a clinging-aggregate.
So that they might fully understand this, the Blessed One, while still alive, often instructed his listeners in this way;
Many times did he emphasize this part of his admonition:
"Form is inconstant,
Feeling is inconstant,
Perception is inconstant,
Mental processes are inconstant,
Consciousness is inconstant,
Form is not-self,
Feeling is not-self,
Perception is not-self,
Mental processes are not-self,
Consciousness is not-self,
Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā,
All processes are inconstant,
Sabbe dhammā anattāti."
All phenomena are not-self."
Surely not - slogans rule.
(I am in my Kesi Sutta mood)
I agree. If this approach doesn't help us reach Nibbana in this lifetime, at least it might lead to a fortunate rebirth.
Ohhh well said
Some people just don't get it.
Yeah... They just go on and on about rebirth
Now why does this sound like fundie talk to me? There are lots of people benefiting from Buddhist teachings in the modern world who haven't signed a manifesto which incudes "Karma and rebirth or Zombie - tick preference"
I'm sorry but I'm afraid in my view the above quoted attitude is extremely closed minded.
I've heard a Tibetan Buddhist teacher say to someone interested in the Dharma: "Don't worry about belief in rebirth, this is the lifetime that counts"
To quote Ajahn Sumedho of The Theravada Thai Forest Tradition:
"I quite like the idea of reincarnation, and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it, but it is speculative and it's conceptual." (The Sound of Silence)
Those two examples reflect my own views.
.
I got so caught up in a rebirth debate in my last life that I forgot to practice and so, here I am!
Was that yesterday's life, by any chance ?
.
It must be your kamma that you suffer in another rebirth debate in this life too. You are in a victious cycle of bad kamma and rebirth.
Yeah, now I no what I must do....no more internet forums....
excerpt*
Dhamma & Rebirth
*excerpt
Last link includes sections on*
.Buddhism and Hinduism compared
.Rebirth without a "Transmigrating soul"
.What continues from one life to another?
.Preservation of identity illustrated
.Conception
.Teaching of dependent arising with specific reference to Rebirth
.Craving the Seamstress
.What is it that causes rebirth in a particular form
.Is rebirth scientifically acceptable?
fooldoo energy? :eek:
Could this be a major reason why we find ourselves in this world of our own creation, the one with hardly any real compassion?
If you can't debate rebirth and practice at the same time it is very wise to avoid discussions on rebirth! We all have different dispositions and need different approaches. :uphand:
Sorry that's short term memory, if you have short term memory damage, nothing is passed on. Look at the cases of short term memory loss, a wife walks out of the room to make a cup of tea, when she reenters the husband thinks he hasn't seen her for weeks.
That citta explanation is simple a pre science way of trying to understand the link between short term and long term memory.
then So how does the last short term memory jump from one body to another? Anyway I thought Buddha said consciousness does not pass on from one birth to another, doesn't he tell a monk off for teaching this? Sorry no link, but someone posted a link a few weeks ago.
[/SIZE]
- Made a controversial claim
- Refused to back it up
- Implied through the invocation of the Kesi Sutta that your role here is to train people
- Implied through that same invocation that people who disagree with you are unteachable and unworthy of your attention.
That is some fine <s>trolling</s>rhetoric.1- No need to apologize, that is your view, and you are welcome to it.
2- I will wait and comment when you provide the link.
The OP asks: Rebirth: does it matter?
I ask: To who?
Clearly, for some practitioners it is a very important part of their practice. Others emphasis may be focused on different methods and understandings.
No problem.
In America we have groups called "Birthers", I see there are international Buddhist 'Rebirthers'
Good to see discussions on Rebirth are alive and well in this place.
My only guess is cultural conditioning. To me rebirth in absolutely no way implies this. Also why is it that people assume that just because something persists after death that the "thing" that persists is somehow permanent?
These are shortsighted and un-necessary conclusions that limit our ability to examine the concepts that so regularly lead to disagreement and confusion.
That rebirth was central to Buddha's teachings is a fact; not controversial to those who know his teachings.
I am old & too tired to repeat in every single thread what I have written on this subject for the last 15? years online.
Wrong about me being or wanting to be a "trainer". I just repeat what I have been taught.
Partly correct on the last one. If rebirth deniers or those indifferent to it, will only continue to argue, no matter whether rhetorical carrots or sticks or both carrots & sticks are offered; then I move on.
That it was taught by him is not really debated. Whether it is central to his OWN teachings is rightly debated. Many who believe in rebirth even say it was not a central, necessary aspect of his teachings. Well-respected practitioners such as Buddhadasa, Chah, Sumedho, etc. hold the same view.
"To those who know his teachings" is nothing but a Straw Man argument.
Advice: if you're sick of repeating yourself, then perhaps provide a link to a past response.
Probably best to take a break from it then until you're feeling up to debating properly--otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time.
And yet that hefty Musk de Will still lingers here in this Thread. Going at it in "every single Thread EVAR" for 15 years hardly sounds like moving on.
Hmm honestly, I'm asking this because I dont know, not because i think i understand and I'm challenging you.
But I've never understood rebirth, I mean if the thing that is reborn isn't going under an idea of something that is individual then "you" or "I" cant be reborn because these nothing that is us after death. Maybe I'm off a little, and I wouldn't be surprised. Just trying to clear up my understanding.
Right now all (I think) i know is that after my death, what i have done will have an effect and that my body will go on to be the body other things. That's all (i think) I know.
This is such self-serving nonsense. If you keep having the same debate over and over again, you write an essay about it, and cite, quote or the essay when it comes up in the future.
Interesting advice! I wonder... if a stimuli of any kind repeats itself over and over in your reality, perhaps there is a message behind it that bears examination... beyond building a canon to destroy the wall time and again.
Thank you for your effort and kindness in arguing for the love of wisdom.
I too see no point or sense in arguing for the sake of argument. :smilec:
Speaking of self - try doing your own research for a change. It is all available from traditional gurus and online.