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.
Dharma Lite
Buddhism goes West
In the course of history, Buddhism has spread out to many different countries and it is currently happening again. Buddhism is spreading to the West. As previously, the transplantation of Buddhism into a new culture also results in a transformation, that is to say Buddhism once again changes its face. In the case of Western Buddhism, this manifests itself in a more intellectual approach, a certain eclecticism towards the traditional schools, and the attempt to strip away or at least de-emphasise what is perceived as cultural/ethnic baggage. However, some people go even further.
There are elements of Buddhism that clash with scientism and materialism, that have taken deep roots in Western society. In particular, these are the metaphysical elements of Buddhist doctrine, Buddhist cosmology, and the supernatural accounts related in Buddhist scripture. Materialism -which I take to be identical with physicalism- dictates that the universe is physical, that there is nothing beyond matter and energy, and that every phenomenon, including mind and consciousness, can (and must) be ultimately explained in terms of physics. People who have internalised this world view often take considerable pain to reinterpret Buddhist doctrine. Since the attempt of harmonising scientism/materialism with Buddhism necessarily results in omitting incompatible aspects (such as rebirth), it may be called "Dharma Lite".
Dharma lite: More coffee, less dukkha
The American scholar Dr. Alexander Berzin writes about the Dharma Lite approach: "Most Westerners come to Dharma without prior belief in rebirth. Many approach the study and practice of Dharma as a method for improving the quality of this lifetime, especially in terms of overcoming psychological and emotional problems. This attitude reduces Dharma to an Asian form of psychotherapy. I have coined the term Dharma-Lite for this approach to Buddhist Dharma, analogous to "CocaCola-Lite." It is a weakened version, not as strong as "The Real Thing." The traditional approach to Dharma - which includes not only discussion of rebirth, but also the presentation of the hells and the rest of the six realms of existence - I have termed The Real Thing Dharma."
So what do you prefer? The real thing dharma or dharma lite?
Cheers, Thomas
In the course of history, Buddhism has spread out to many different countries and it is currently happening again. Buddhism is spreading to the West. As previously, the transplantation of Buddhism into a new culture also results in a transformation, that is to say Buddhism once again changes its face. In the case of Western Buddhism, this manifests itself in a more intellectual approach, a certain eclecticism towards the traditional schools, and the attempt to strip away or at least de-emphasise what is perceived as cultural/ethnic baggage. However, some people go even further.
There are elements of Buddhism that clash with scientism and materialism, that have taken deep roots in Western society. In particular, these are the metaphysical elements of Buddhist doctrine, Buddhist cosmology, and the supernatural accounts related in Buddhist scripture. Materialism -which I take to be identical with physicalism- dictates that the universe is physical, that there is nothing beyond matter and energy, and that every phenomenon, including mind and consciousness, can (and must) be ultimately explained in terms of physics. People who have internalised this world view often take considerable pain to reinterpret Buddhist doctrine. Since the attempt of harmonising scientism/materialism with Buddhism necessarily results in omitting incompatible aspects (such as rebirth), it may be called "Dharma Lite".
Dharma lite: More coffee, less dukkha
The American scholar Dr. Alexander Berzin writes about the Dharma Lite approach: "Most Westerners come to Dharma without prior belief in rebirth. Many approach the study and practice of Dharma as a method for improving the quality of this lifetime, especially in terms of overcoming psychological and emotional problems. This attitude reduces Dharma to an Asian form of psychotherapy. I have coined the term Dharma-Lite for this approach to Buddhist Dharma, analogous to "CocaCola-Lite." It is a weakened version, not as strong as "The Real Thing." The traditional approach to Dharma - which includes not only discussion of rebirth, but also the presentation of the hells and the rest of the six realms of existence - I have termed The Real Thing Dharma."
So what do you prefer? The real thing dharma or dharma lite?
Cheers, Thomas
0
Comments
With or without rebirth, the teachings need to be applied in this lifetime. Then, what happens after death either way will naturally take care of itself, yeah? :rolleyes:
I see a hear a lot of quacking and not a lot of evidence to back up his bold claim. :buck:
I am truly disappointed that I bothered reading that entire article and did not find the answer. :buck:
What does this add up too? How do you wish to relate?
There is a diverse bunch of people around here.
The 'Dharma lite' and 'Real thing' nonsense is an old issue which has been discussed many times at various forums in the past, Thomas.
.
Richard, I am surprised that you find this alienating. Why? The label "dharma lite" is of course chosen quite playfully, but it isn't my invention. I think Dr. Berzin made it up. What I wish to convey are two things: (1) the underlying cultural issues that lead to the clash of Western ideas with the traditional Buddhist teaching and Buddhism in Asia; (2) the importance of distinguishing the "lite" from the "full" version. For example, I have come across some Western Buddhists who claim that the Buddha never taught (literal) rebirth, a point of view is neither supported by the canon, nor by any of the Asian Buddhist schools.
Dazzle, that may be so. I am new here, so I haven't followed these past discussions. Sorry to bore you old hands who have all heard it before. That sort of thing does of course happen on discussion boards.
Cheers, Thomas
Surely every topic imaginable has been discussed countless times on internet forums (or whatever has been the equivalent to internet forums in previous aeons). The masturbation and pornography threads seem more popular though than any threads discussing what is the actual Dhamma taught by the Buddha and what is not.
I think its definitely worthwhile to discuss this topic.
- Saddhammappatirūpaka Sutta ( S.XVI.13){II,225}, trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
With Metta,
Guy
I don't think so.
I think you get a bit confused here... It doesn't matter what the stuff of the universe is for Dharma to be true. Dharma would be true in a dualistic or a materialistic world.
However to assume there is something beyond this world without evidence - the mystical assumption, is clearly illuminated by the kalama Suttra skepticism for what it is.
Don't forget that the doctrines we have today as "traditional buddhism" are themselves just interpretations.
How about we just call it Dharma and the version of Dharma with all the bells and whistles and cultural additions and unjustified beliefs "Dharma Bloat"?
this rests on the assumption, you are not really justified to make, that the buddha believed and taught the above....
Whatever you call that which is fully contained, explained and explainable by the Four Noble Truths, nothing more, nothing less.
namaste
Cheers, Thomas[/QUOTE]
I hope you don't mind that I snipped the words in your reply a little bit; it is to illustrate how you use suggestive language without addressing the issues. You formulate assumptions without providing reasoning. For example, when you say "I don't think so" it would be helpful to know why. If you say "just interpretations" it would be helpful to know what and why. Otherwise you are just expressing disagreement without making an argument.
My point is that the Buddha taught rebirth and cosmology in a quite literal sense. This is hardly an "unjustified assumption", because there is ample evidence for that in the suttas of the Pali canon. I'll be glad to collect pertinent references if required. Of course, this exercise is futile if one does not want to acknowledge the sutta account of rebirth as authoritative. In this case, perhaps we might refer to the opinion of the most eminent Buddhist scholars. Again, I'd be glad to collect references if required, but if one does not want to acknowledge these either, then all bets are off.
For now, perhaps a more simple thought will do:
If rebirth was false, then why did the Buddha not refute rebirth like he refuted atman? Since the Buddha has gone to great length to reject atman, which was the predominant belief in ancient India, it should be expected for rebirth to receive the same treatment if the Buddha judged it to be a false belief. However, no such thing occurrs. Rebirth is -according to the canonical view- not only unquestioned by the Buddha, but it is supported by his utterances in the Pali canon.
My point is that while everyone is free to accept or reject the idea of rebirth, one is not free to reject that the Buddha taught it.
Cheers, Thomas
I guess everyone is entitled to their opinon whether rebirth is true or false.
However
I vote Dhamma Classic:uphand:
Metta
I don't mind at all. But just to be clear you made one sweeping generalisation in which you yousefl decided on the criteria of what is and what is not "proper" buddhism.
I dont acknoweldge this generalsation.
When you asked us:
I answered, as did others. My answer wasn't in accord with your views....
I am not sure that means we now need to adopt counter positions as you seem to think it does. Still... lets chat..:)
No, my reasoning is unequivocal: we cannot speak with certainty about anything the Buddha is said to have said.
I did answer this in the next sentence ("It doesn't matter what the stuff of the universe is for Dharma to be true. Dharma would be true in a dualistic or a materialistic world.").
It is much the same issue as with free will/determinism, Dharma is not dependent upon this issue. Dharma is eternal and universal, it applies equally to materialistic and dualistic contrasts.
I think that the Buddha taught a radical skeptical path and I imagine I believe many of my beliefs about the Buddha will be differnt to yourse.
But if we try to argue this we just end up nowhere and frankly, I dont care what you belive, or anyone else. Why should i? Why should you care if I think the Buddha was something you think he was absolutly not?
We would all get on much better if we were allowed to voice options without that being considered throwing down some gauntlet.
My point is that we don't know he taught that and that there are reasons to believe he was agnostic or directly opposed to such a view.
I cant prove you wrong. You cant prove me long.
I dont accept that evidence because it is demonstrably very disconnected from the time and place of The Buddha, amongst many other reasons.
Even if you found a sutta that said "The Buddha absolutely beleived in x,y,z" when I apply the kalama suttra method to this I find I can doubt it and thus should doubt it.
There is no refernce that could convince me without it also being shown to fit perfectly with my understanding of Dharma.
It is very very futile!
Again, what else can I do but apply the kalama suttra to this claim?
You dont need to do show me any sutta to show me I am wrong. Just show me why you believe in these beliefs with the same kind of clarity and simplicity you could show me why ignorance leads to suffering... or how emptiness equates to interconnectivity etc etc
I don't think you, or anyone, can do that, so again, we are back in the futile. I deeply and genuinely would love to be proved wrong on this.
namaste
Now, the claim has been made that Buddhism without rebirth is lesser, and yet this hasn't actually been supported. Care to?
People are free to think whatever and say whatever they want, actually. "They aren't free to reject that the Buddha taught it" - give me a break. In actuality I've only actually spoken to two people who outright deny it. Most of us "Dhamma Lite" practitioners deny only that it was one of his own supramundane teachings.
Atman isnt a proposition that can be refuted. It is about the fundemental nature of reality. The buddha didn't refute atman, he discovered anataman.
How could atman be true? It couldn't be.
reject and refute are differnt. I think one just needs to read the last days of the buddha suittra to see a pretty clear rejection of rebirth:)
he doesnt refute it, in fact he says such discussions are a waste of time, doesnt he?
I disagree with that claim. however even if I agreed it wouldn't change the fact that the pali cannon is hundreds of years after the buddha and cannot be considered litteral.
I disagree profoundly. I think one is entitled to consider themselves Buddhists who following dharma if they believe Buddha taught rebirth or notrebirth or was agnostic on it.
The ones we need to watch out for are the ones telling others what they need to believe;)
I did no such thing, because I did not even use the word "proper Buddhism". I made a distinction between "dharma classic" which can be roughly described as the sum of core teachings that Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana agree on and "dharma lite" which is equivalent to that sum minus rebirth, cosmology, and supernatural accounts. The latter version is popular with some people in Western countries. I don't think it can be said that "dharma lite" is inferior, at least not in any other sense than "coke lite" is inferior to "coke classic".
The problem with this position is: if you don't take the canon, or at least the core teachings of the canon to be authoritative, then there aren't many reference points left. All bets are off; nothing is authoritative. You are just cherrypicking. If it works for you, great. However, you cannot speak for Buddhists, because the consensus among Buddhists is that the core teachings of the canon represent the Buddhadharma.
It happened again: you make a controversial claim without providing supportive reasoning. Can you name the reasons to believe he [theBuddha] was agnostic or directly opposed to such a view [rebirth]? What would suggest this?
This isn't about proving anyone wrong, or proving rebirth right. If this was my intention I would have named this thread "rebirth is true". This is about distinguishing different positions and interpretations of the dharma among Western practitioners. One such position -which you seem to advocate- is to prefer the Kalama sutta before all other suttas. This has been identified as sceptical Buddhism, eclectic Buddhism, or Buddhism Lite.
That is quite correct. Much of the Buddhadharma is not directly concerned with rebirth or the series of lifes of sentient beings. However, it should be obvious that many aspects of the dharma assume quite a different meaning if one takes rebirth out of the equation. Dr. Berzin had already explained this in the article I quoted.
What about dukkha without rebirth for example? Well, there is dukkha in this life, but when your life is over, your dukkha is over. Why bother at all with solving the problem of dukkha when the problem solves itself by dying, at least for yourself? And what about karma? You could say there is karma in the here and now, but if there are no future lifes, then there is no karma in future lifes and all you need to worry about is postponing the fruition of karma until your death, because again death will solve the problem. That doesn't sound very much like Gautama's approach, does it?
People can and do believe whatever seems right to them. What I meant to say is that people aren't free to reject that the Buddha taught rebirth without logically contradicting the canonical Buddhadharma. If you state that the Buddha did not teach rebirth, it is like stating that the Buddha did not teach anatta, that he did not teach impermanence, or that he did not teach mindfulness. You are free to state such things, of course, but they aren't terribly consistent with the canonical account. It's simply not logical.
Cheers, Thomas
Rebirth debates go around and around. Hey a bad pun.
I am not saying don't take the cannon, i am saying dont belive that which can be doubted is part of the teachings of the buddha.
I believe the teachings of the buddha cannot be doubted, if the cannon contains teachings that can be be doubted then I dont belive he taught that:)
it works well for me.
Exactly:) I belive this as foundational.
Not at all: not believing that which can be doubted and holding as certain that which cannot be doubted is hardly cherry picking.
Can you tell me what is wrong with this principle?
Yes I can actually. But can you address my point from before, why believe in rebirth?
Rebirth seems to go against annica and anatman and do. Rebirth seems to be a belive that can easily be doubted. Rebirth can be a belief that can be seen to be very cultural at the time... etc etc etc.
I think the burden is on you to show why you are so sure he was so certainly teaching rebirth.
No, but you make the mistake of assuming tehre is a baseline. There is no baseline against which you can meaningfully say "this view" has divereged....
Absolutely. I think the buddha was the first skeptic.
Not really. I used to think it did. It don't matter what we believe about rebirth in terms of how dharma affects this life and our practice of it.
I think rebirth is wrong view, you think my view is wrong view. How does our practice differ?
What about dukkha without rebirth for example?
Umm... because this is our only life so it should be lead maximising the sukka and minimizing the dukka?
I found the stark limit on life to be liberating not terrifying. I used to find it kinda scary, but now, thanks singularly to Dharma, its very very liberating.
I think this is what the buddha taught. Forget about some future life and planning for that, think not even about this life, but just this moment.
We have differnt views of karma. My view of karma is simply as mental/moral/spiritual interconnectedness. it is completely relevant to this life of mine.
It sounds exactly like it to me:)
Not true.
No it isnt. At all. Quite the opposite. Without anataman or annica there is no dharma. It becomes meaningless. the same with karma, dukka, skanda....
However dharma is completely unaffected by if rebirth is false or true.
My views are 100% consisent with much of the cannonical account, just not all of it.
I disagree.
namaste
Many "Western Buddhists" believe he taught it to those who would not be suited for his supramundane teachings but would benefit from reexamining their own belief system. Those who hold this view DO feel it is supported by canon.
And frankly, quite a few great "Asian [Real] Buddhist" teachers hold this view, too (that literal rebirth is not core Dhamma or that he didn't teach it within his own transcendent teachings).
Imo Thickpaper's "Dhamma Bloat" term is quite appropriate. :buck:
The world doesn't work according to your moral ideology or your beliefs in hindu kamma. The Buddha's own reinterpretation of "kamma" is unique and related to the habitual mind.
Because when you are dead, you are not alive. (Wow). Whereas, I could live in the unconditioned happiness of Nibbana in this very life. If you would rather die then live in peace, that is your own problem. But unfortunately, so many practice Buddhism in Christian-like fear of samsara and see Nibbana as synonymous with jumping off the proverbial bridge... people wishing that they'll never have to live another life... I think the Buddha would be saddened to see his teachings twisted into this, personally.
Me too.
In think he would be saddened for many reasons, but mainly because this "bloat" makes dharma much less accessible to many more people.
As new buddhists do't we have some duty to change that? Or do we just tow the party lines?
what would buddha do?
namaste
"Even modernist interpreters of Buddhism seem to have trouble taking the rebirth teaching seriously. Some dismiss it as just a piece of cultural baggage, "ancient Indian metaphysics," that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age. Others interpret it as a metaphor for the change of mental states, with the realms of rebirth seen as symbols for psychological archetypes. A few critics even question the authenticity of the texts on rebirth, arguing that they must be interpolations. A quick glance at the Pali suttas would show that none of these claims has much substance. The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms — the hells, the animal world, the spirit realm, the human world, and the heavens — they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally." (Bikkhu Bodhi)
References to rebirth in the Pali canon:
(*) The Mahasaccaka Sutta (MN 36) recounts the spiritual practice and the awakening of the Buddha. It contains a brief description of how the Buddha remembered his own past lifes. Sample quote: "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: '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 I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details." http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima-Nikaya/mn-36.htm
(*) The Jataka tales in the Khuddaka Nikaya (too many to quote all) contain stories about the Buddha's previous lives. Quote from the first Apannaka Jataka: "Thence he went on to say:--"No disciples, male or female, who seek refuge in the Three Gems that are endowed with such peerless excellences, are ever reborn into hell and the like states; but, released from all rebirth into states of suffering, they pass to the Realm of Devas and there receive great glory." http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j1/j1004.htm - There are all together 547 past life accounts of the Buddha, some in human form, some in animal form. These stories are arranged in six books and make up a voluminous part of the Khuddaka Nikaya.
(*) The Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 135) is a short discourse about karma and fruition of karma. Quote: "If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn." This sutta gives a description of the kammic fruits in future lifes of 14 distinct types, such as killing, harm, kindness, harmlessnes, anger, envy, arrogance and so forth. of http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html
(*) Brahma-nimantanika Sutta (MN 49) is a discussion with a (deluded) Brahmin and Mara, the evil one. Quote: "The fermentations that defile, that lead to further becoming, that disturb, that ripen in stress, that tend to future birth, aging, & death: Those the Tathagata has abandoned, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palmyra tree, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising." http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Brahmanimantanika_Sutta
(*) The Nagara Sutta (SN 12:65) contains an abbreviated account of codependent origination and the arising of dukkha. Quote: "Then, monks, it occurred to me: This consciousness turns back; it does not go further than name-and-form. It is to this extent that one may be born and age and die, pass away and be reborn, that is when there is consciousness with name-and-form as its condition, and name-and-form with consciousness as its condition." (BB)
(*) The law of kamma (AN 4:232; II 230-32) contains this quote: "And what, monks, is dark kamma with dark results? Here, monks, someone generates an afflictive volitional formation of body, speech, or mind. Having done so, he is reborn in an afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by afficltive contacts, he experiences an afflictive feeling, extremely painful, as the beings in hell experience." (BB)
(*) The Saleyakka Sutta (MN 41), given to the Brahmin householders of Sala, gives a detailed account of life after death. Quote: "Householders, it is by reason of unrighteous conduct, conduct not in accordance with the dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell. It is by reason of righteous conduct, conduct in accordance with the dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. [...] And how, householders, are there three kinds of unrighteous mental conduct, conduct not in accordance with the dhamma? [...] Or he has wrong view, distorted vision, thus,: There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed, no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world,; no mother, no father; no beings wo are reborn spontaneously (devas); no good and virtuous ascetics and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world." (BB)
(*) The Saleyakka Sutta (MN 41; I 286-90) also contains a detailed description of the deva realm: "If, householders, one who observes righteous conduct, conduct in accordance with the dhamma, should wish: Oh, that on the breakup of the body, after death, may I be reborn in the company of the devas of the realm of the four great kings! ...in the company of the Tavatimsa devas ...the Yama devas ...the Tusita devas ...the devas who delight in creating ...the devas who wield power over others' creations ...the devas of Brahma's company ...the devas of radiance ...the devas of streaming radiance ...the devas of glory ...the devas of limited glory ...the devas of immeasurable glory ...the devas of refulgent glory ...the devas of great fruit ...the aviha devas ...the atappa devas, the sudassa devas ...the sudassi devas ...the akanitta devas ...the devas of the base of the infinity of space ...the devas of the base of the infinity of consciousness ...the devas of the base of nothingness ...the devas of the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception! it is possible that on the breakup of the body, after death, he will be reborn in the company of the devas of...." (BB)
(*) The Anguttara Nikaya (AN 8:35, IV 239-40) contains an account of generosity (dana) that relates the meritorious act of giving to future lifes. Quote: "There are, O monks, eight kinds of rebirth on account of giving. What eight? Here, monks a certain person makes a gift to an ascetic or a brahmin, offering him food, drink, clothing, and vehicles, garlands, scents and unguents, bedding, lodging and lighting. [...] With the breakup of the body, after death, he will be reborn among affluent nobles, brahmins, or householders. This, however, I declare only for the morally pure, not for the immoral; for it is due to his purity, monks, that the heart's desire of the morally pure succeeds."
(BB) = Bikkhu Bodhi, In the Buddha's Words (An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon)
And it is up to each of us, unto our selves, to make sense of what these references may mean and whether or not the Buddha said something along those lines.
I am not a cannon literalist, if you are, cool-beans, but please don't tell me what I need to believe is the word of the buddha in the cannon:)
namaste
Secondly, I don't believe the assertion that harmonizing Buddhism and science requires omitting rebirth at all; it just means admitting that science hasn't answered all of the available questions as yet.
My own personal opinion, of course; YMMV.
Engyo, I agree with this point of view.
Please allow me to point out that I said "harmonising scientism with Buddhism", not "harmonising science with Buddhism". Scientism is the idea that only science is authoritative, that other views are inferior, and that one's worldview should be determined by science only. This is a widespread view in Western society, advocated by people like Richard Dawkins. In other words: harmonising scienctism with Buddhism requires subordination of Buddhism to science. Harmonising science with Buddhism doesn't require it.
Cheers, Thomas
Very well put
Dharma Lite is Dharma Night, part of the Dharma Ending Era - for all things are impermanent.
So it's sure as eggs is eggs that this is rooted in a cultural dimension. It is a product of transplanting Buddhism into a culture that has been moulded for centuries by judeo-christian monotheism, science, and materialism. It is definitely not an arbitrary phenomenon, not a quirk, not an insignificant peculiarity or fashion. It has deep roots in cultural paradigms. People on both sides, East and West, are often not aware of these paradigms and their precise nature. It only comes to the surface when friction develops as a result of contact.
Ultimately, I am not concerned whether anyone is practicing dharma or dharma lite, or Hinduism, or Taoism, or Christianity for that matter. While I favour "dharma classic" myself, I realise that people are generally better off sticking to what suits them. Thus applying the wisdom of the Kalama Sutta makes indeed perfect sense. However, I am somewhat fussy about proper labelling. If someone wants to pass off "dharma lite" or "quantum non-duality" as "dharma classic", then the alarm bells start ringing. On the Internet, one comes across fairly outlandish misrepresentations of Buddhism such this one. I am sure one could start a nice collection...
Cheers, Thomas
And lol at linking to a Kevin video. I kind of expected that when I opened the link.
Jesus, if you're not exaggerating then you might want to try some medication huh...
MN 117 clearly differentiates between dharma lite & dharma heartwood.
Naturally, MN 117 differentiates in a way opposite to that of Berzin.
So we can choose. Berzin or MN 117.
Thomas.
Possibly this U-Tube would interest you.
Reincarnation is no nonsense...
:cool:
I also discovered Buddhism in Thailand two decades ago.
We were advised there are two kinds of teachings, namely, moral teachings for worldlings (putthujanas) and supramundane for aspirants.
Indeed. And your views follow this 'intermixing'.
Then I can only suggest you broaden your sphere of experience.
In Thailand, I have seen the exact opposite.
Once upon a time, belief that the world was flat and God existed was self-evident in certain cultures.
I lived in Thailand for some years. The average Thai is quite unlearned regarding Buddhism and the monks have deliberately made it that way. The average Thai cannot list the Four Noble Truths.
Indeed it is.
I find your view above hilarious.
The facts are the reincarnation view is a product of transplanting this Brahministic view into Asian cultures that has been moulded for centuries
Indeed it does.
:buck:
Yes, there is the idea of a dichotomy of teachings addressed to putthujanas and sravakas, but singling out rebirth as a putthujana teaching is a colossal misunderstanding and -frankly speaking- it smacks of a good deal of cultural chauvinism. The difference lies in the understanding of rebirth/reincarnation. The putthujana interprets it as transmigration, whereas the sravaka interprets it as conditioning within the context of codependent origination. According to the first view, there is a person or an entity transmigrating; according to the second view there is re-arising without transmigration.
Cheers, Thomas
When one lives in the monastery, as a practitioner, each morning & evening one participates in the chanting with the monks. Where in the chanting is rebirth view???
A Chanting Guide
Are you saying the term putthajana was not spoken by the Lord Buddha?
Interpret as you wish, but its in your own link.
The Verses on the Noble Truths
Ye dukkhaṃ nappajānanti
Those who don't discern suffering,
Atho dukkhassa sambhavaṃ
suffering's cause,
Yattha ca sabbaso dukkhaṃ
Asesaṃ uparujjhati,
and where it totally stops, without trace,
Tañca maggaṃ na jānanti,
who don't understand the path,
Dukkhūpasama-gāminaṃ
the way to the stilling of suffering:
Ceto-vimutti-hīnā te
They are far from awareness-release,
Atho paññā-vimuttiyā,
and discernment-release.
Abhabbā te anta-kiriyāya
Incapable of making an end,
Te ve jāti-jarūpagā.
they'll return to birth & aging again.
Ye ca dukkhaṃ pajānanti
While those who do discern suffering,
Atho dukkhassa sambhavaṃ,
suffering's cause,
Yattha ca sabbaso dukkhaṃ
Asesaṃ uparujjhati,
and where it totally stops, without trace,
Tañca maggaṃ pajānanti,
who understand the path,
Dukkhūpasama-gāminaṃ:
the way to the stilling of suffering:
Ceto-vimutti-sampannā
They are consummate in awareness-release,
Atho paññā-vimuttiyā,
and in discernment-release.
Bhabbā te anta-kiriyāya
Capable of making an end,
Na te jāti-jarūpagāti.
they won't return to birth & aging ever again.
In both cases that the OP suggests, one wishes to overcome the problems of their life. This is the dukkha of all humankind that the stream is pushing away, slowly but surely. That Dharma is perceived in multiple ways in no way detracts from it, but indeed expounds more of the effective change leading toward peaceful existence for the species.
We perceive change of what binds us ('our' Dharma that we choose) to be negative, and in that perception we immediately lose sight of reality. Negative and positive are cravings/desires and aversions combined with feeling. These lead to wrong perception, and holds a world that is 'like this', rather than the world that has no one perceiving it.
I'm babbling again, probably nonsense, but at least nonsense that flows. Bruce Lee said to be like water.....and such is not only of fighting, but the very essence of what the various traditions of Buddhism are attempting; to show that the part of us that goes against the stream, that holds still, must be allowed to flow like water.
Namaste
You obviously dont want to.
The concept is explicitly and clearly in the text.
Just because the word "rebirth" isnt in there doesnt really mean much.
Namaste
Ok, please highlight it for me. :eek2:
Unless life is inherent suffering, "BIRTH" (sans "re-") does not refer to anything physical, either. "Birth/aging/sickness/death" are defined by the Buddha in the Pali Canon.
The point is, though, the DDhatu has also spent time in Thailand, and that in fact many very well-respect Thai Forest teachers hold this view as well, contrary to what truthseeker claims.
They are far from awareness-release,
Atho paññā-vimuttiyā,
and discernment-release.
Abhabbā te anta-kiriyāya
Incapable of making an end,
Te ve jāti-jarūpagā.
they'll return to birth & aging again.
hmmmm return to birth & aging again?
return to birth?
re.....birth?
rebirth! Holy cow!
The etymology of "return" is the trap here.
There is really no other way of getting around it than an extraordinarily unorthodox interpretation that in no way reflects the words themselves.
Pesky words.
I used to believe one way pre-Buddhist, then another way in study, then yet another way through practice, and then a further way through absorption of multiple perspectives on the subject.
There seems to be little 'getting over' the fact that unlike most teachings, this one has been subject to more personal interpretation than any other. Worse, we act upon our personal interpretations without understanding the underlying reasons that we act.....and in so doing, we invisibly create our own frustration.
Namaste
I dont think we have to.
As far as I'm concerned whether or not someone accepts rebirth is trivial.
Maybe some sort of scriptural interpretation common ground would be nice.
Somethings like, "Ok, the Buddhist scriptures talk about rebirth a lot, big deal" would be nice.
But then again, the scriptures are books, the actual practice and realizations are living through us as practitioners and thats what really matters.
And yet.... (that's all I've got, there's no more to say; one must only research and come to their own conclusions)
Namaste
There is an enormous difference between birth birth birth and rebirth imo. And as you should know by now there are certainly instances where I don't deny REbirth was discussed by him but I do not see "rebirth" HERE, sorry. Probably because it's not.
But once again the point was:
Heraclitis said, no man can step into the same river twice.
Similarly, if I return to the 'same' river, is it the same river????
For example, very soon, I will walk to the beach and swim.
The last time I did this was seven days ago.
I trust the sand formations on the beach have changed...it is a different beach.
The water temperature will have changed; the clarity of the water will have changed; the tide will have changed.
Am I returning to the same beach???
Relativity as a scientific concept, and inter-relatedness that is implied by Buddhism, are greatly in accord. Our clues as a species to the true nature of reality are only beginning to 'catch up' to the conclusions that the Buddha had come to long ago. As a collective species, inter-related most of all to each other, we have far to go to bring our minds up to speed with our discoveries.
Namaste
An example is returning to the supermarket.
I go to the supermarket and buy some milk. I then return to the supermarket and buy some yogurt. I then return to the supermarket and buy some cheese. I then return to the supermarket and buy some butter.
I return to the supermarket for different things. Each acquisition of a new thing is a new birth.
Holy cow!!!
The pleasure ceasing & despair arising. This is death.
Returning again to that pleasure, this is another birth.
Experiencing the impermanence of that pleasure, this is death.
Seeking & finding a lover or a partner. This is birth.
Losing that lover or partner. This is death.
Searching for a new lover or partner. This is returning to birth.
Suffering another loss & disappointment. This is returning to death.
Sound familiar???
kisses.
How can you say a view is trapped when no view has been posited?
Talk about absurd.
All I pointed out was yet another misinterpreted and misrepresented use of a source on your part. I offered no view whatsoever.
Your interpretation of the words is nothing more than wordmashing and redundant attempts to promote a very weak argument based upon a fringe view of the meaning of certain terms in the scriptures.
Return to birth MEANS rebirth. I think you're smart enough to know that.
Not sure why you would try to assert otherwise. How you want to interpret the meaning is your prerogative.