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.
I think of the earth touching gesture when I think of faith. Coming back to your present experience. Trusting that your mind is clear luminous and unimpeded. At least thats what you should find in the present experience.
What are Bayesian statistics? Do you controvert that occam's razor is not used as an arbiter between established models within the context of the scientific method?
Stories, sayings, and descriptions. None of these are arguments. How about the story of the Buddha as told in Confession of a Buddhist Atheist? Why doesn't that make sense without the notion of reincarnation/rebirth?
I realised I hadn't responded to you - apologies.
I don't think the Buddha's path makes sense without reincarnation and the process of Karma.
What do you mean by argument? I'm not familiar with the text you cite.
See for instance this review. It's a book which is partly a biography of the Buddha, partly a biography of the author's move away from conventional Buddhist beliefs. And it makes total sense, so it seems like a counter-example to your unsupported claim that the Buddha's path doesn't make sense without the notion of reincarnation.
See for instance this review. It's a book which is partly a biography of the Buddha, partly a biography of the author's move away from conventional Buddhist beliefs. And it makes total sense, so it seems like a counter-example to your unsupported claim that the Buddha's path doesn't make sense without the notion of reincarnation.
So you've referred to a text. Is that any more of an argument than I presented?
It's fine if it works for people. No problem.
Yet Karma and reincarnation are an integral part of The Buddha's teachings. Just look up the index in a book on his teachings, or look at the link to the Noble 8 fold path. They are integal to the idea of Conditioned Arising too. What surprises me is that it is even in contention.
It mentions in the article Humanism, and this seems to be what The Buddha's path is reduced to if you try to take out Reincrnation and Karma. There's nothing wrong with this if it suits you, but for myself it doesn't answer all the questions I would have about life. The apparent randomness of significant events, how actions pan out in this life, predispositions and chance.
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28100.29_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28101.29_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28109.29_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28110.29_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28111.29_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28112.29_9-0" class="reference">[10]"</sup>
Thank you, Jeffrey. I was in two minds whether to post that quote. It makes the point better than I did what the 'Razor' can be used for and what it is not. It is not a proof.
In debate, wielding it can cause useful discussion to bleed to death rather than removing unnecessary whiskers.
So you've referred to a text. Is that any more of an argument than I presented?
In referring to the text, I provided a counter-example. That's an argument: Here is a description of the Buddha's path which "makes sense" despite repudiating the notion of life-to-life karma.
Or the one I've already mentioned, Confession. Or Batchelor's earlier book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. All of these books explicitly repudiate the notion of life-to-life karma as a corruption of the Buddha's original teaching.
It mentions in the article Humanism, and this seems to be what The Buddha's path is reduced to if you try to take out Reincrnation and Karma. There's nothing wrong with this if it suits you, but for myself it doesn't answer all the questions I would have about life. The apparent randomness of significant events, how actions pan out in this life, predispositions and chance.
When evaluating a framework, you have to look at more than how satisfying the answers it provides are. The epistemological basis of those answers is far more important, because in taking on a framework, you are taking on its epistemological standards. And the epistemological standard of the contemporary conventional Buddhist cosmology is pure authoritarianism, with no room for individual doubt. Just look at how you've responded to me here: "I'm surprised that this is even in contention." As Batchelor says:
The way of the Buddha is a living response to a living question. Yet whenever it has become institutionalized its vital response has become a well-formulated answer. The seemingly important task of preserving a particular set of answers often causes the very questions which gave rise to those answers to be forgotten. Then the lucid answers Buddhism provides are cut off from the stammering voice that asks the questions.
Or the one I've already mentioned, Confession. Or Batchelor's earlier book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. All of these books explicitly repudiate the notion of life-to-life karma as a corruption of the Buddha's original teaching.
When evaluating a framework, you have to look at more than how satisfying the answers it provides are. The epistemological basis of those answers is far more important, because in taking on a framework, you are taking on its epistemological standards. And the epistemological standard of the contemporary conventional Buddhist cosmology is pure authoritarianism, with no room for individual doubt. Just look at how you've responded to me here: "I'm surprised that this is even in contention." As Batchelor says:
Or the one I've already mentioned, Confession. Or Batchelor's earlier book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. All of these books explicitly repudiate the notion of life-to-life karma as a corruption of the Buddha's original teaching.
That's three texts, and if they work for you then good. But are you holding up your example and these texts against the canon of Buddhist texts and the millions of practitioners as proof of the veracity? I respect your ten years practice, but I'm afraid respect my own teacher's practice and experience more. As for a counter argument - you've said this book denies this and you practice it. You haven't refuted my assertion that karma and reincarnation are integral to conditioned arising either by saying - no it's not. OK. Yes it is? More tennis?
If something makes sense to you then you should follow it is all I was saying. That was The Buddha's advice.
As for:
And the epistemological standard of the contemporary conventional Buddhist cosmology is pure authoritarianism, with no room for individual doubt.
The messages I get is that it's a suck it and see religion, so I don't accept your idea that it is purely authoritarian. Isn't doubt encourage in the more positive aspect of exploration and questioning? Yes i do take the epistemological standard but I don't feel I've got anyone over my shoulder telling me what to believe. I get the feeling that the texts are guides - instruction manuals - which work in individual ways.
Conditioned arising - explains the process of rebirth, and Karma is the explanation for the type of rebirth a being enters.
...are you holding up your example and these texts against the canon of Buddhist texts and the millions of practitioners as proof of the veracity?
All I'm saying is, you can take the rebirth cosmology out of Buddhist practice, and it still "makes sense." You claimed it didn't, and I objected to that. You seem to have retreated from that position, so nothing more to argue about there.
But no, I would never ask another person to accept either a text or another's behavior as "proof" of the "veracity" of Buddhist teachings. Your question is another example of the authoritarianism I'm talking about. These things need to be verified in personal experience.
As for a counter argument - you've said this book denies this and you practice it. You haven't refuted my assertion that karma and reincarnation are integral to conditioned arising either by saying - no it's not. OK. Yes it is? More tennis?
Conditioned arising - explains the process of rebirth, and Karma is the explanation for the type of rebirth a being enters.
Please point out where the words "karma" or "rebirth" appear in Dependent Origination. Let's not leave out the oft forgotten final Nidana:
Jati-paccaya jaramaranam
With Birth as condition, Aging and Death,
Soka-parideva-dukkha-domanassupayasa sambhavan'ti
Sorrow, Lamentation, Pain, Grief and Despair.
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti
Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering.
It illustrates how dukkha arises, and that's all. If you think birth and death are meant in the physical sense, and dukkha happens after death and before your next birth, then ok.
All I'm saying is, you can take the rebirth cosmology out of Buddhist practice, and it still "makes sense." You claimed it didn't, and I objected to that. You seem to have retreated from that position, so nothing more to argue about there.
But no, I would never ask another person to accept either a text or another's behavior as "proof" of the "veracity" of Buddhist teachings. Your question is another example of the authoritarianism I'm talking about. These things need to be verified in personal experience.
A friend of mine chooses to focus upon mindfulnes and does not fous upon aspects such as reincarnation or karma, in his daily practice. It works for him. My contention is about the whole of the path - the progression and perhaps preparation for death. Is it enough then? If you have a humanist or atheistic leaning, then it does, but this is in opposition to Buddha's teaching. Neither annihilation nor eternalism, but the Middle Way.
Please point out where the words "karma" or "rebirth" appear in Dependent Origination. Let's not leave out the oft forgotten final Nidana:
[/indent]It illustrates how dukkha arises, and that's all. If you think birth and death are meant in the physical sense, and dukkha happens after death and before your next birth, then ok.
I'm thinking of the Wheel of Life which has the 12 dependant links around the outside and the realms within it.
Paulclem, I didn't intend to dissuade anyone from believing in literal rebirth by starting this thread, or by arguing various points. The truth is I often use debate to extract greater understanding on a subject, people come out with better answers when they feel under scrutiny. The problem I do have though, you've highlighted here quite succinctly;
If you have a humanist or atheistic leaning, then it does, but this is in opposition to Buddha's teaching. Neither annihilation nor eternalism, but the Middle Way.
And I very much disagree with it. I don't see skepticism being in opposition to the Buddha's teaching, nor an interpretation of karma and rebirth that limits their scope to a single lifetime (i.e. rebirth of the mind with each passing moment, always changing due to the karmic effects of volitional actions shaping the form the reborn mind takes).
Paulclem, I didn't intend to dissuade anyone from believing in literal rebirth by starting this thread, or by arguing various points. The truth is I often use debate to extract greater understanding on a subject, people come out with better answers when they feel under scrutiny. The problem I do have though, you've highlighted here quite succinctly;
And I very much disagree with it. I don't see skepticism being in opposition to the Buddha's teaching, nor an interpretation of karma and rebirth that limits their scope to a single lifetime (i.e. rebirth of the mind with each passing moment, always changing due to the karmic effects of volitional actions shaping the form the reborn mind takes).
Skepticism is healthy as long as it doesnt lead to any hardened view one way or the other.
There are plenty of teachings on karma that are completely relevant and limited to a single lifetime. There is no need to force a square peg into a round hole by trying to interpret them all as such.
The momentary rebirth of mind is a good way of thinking about it karma in this life but as a definitive interpretation of the teachings is not very strong.
Please point out where the words "karma" or "rebirth" appear in Dependent Origination. Let's not leave out the oft forgotten final Nidana:
[/indent]It illustrates how dukkha arises, and that's all. If you think birth and death are meant in the physical sense, and dukkha happens after death and before your next birth, then ok.
Why are links to Buddhadasa's website considered definitive sources?
Everyone knows his shtick.
His interpretations are extremely simplistic. That said, I think they are quite useful, but, they are by no means definitive.
"Definitive" is not the point, here. The only definitive is in practice. Paulclem claimed that rebirth is in some way integral to DO, and I was demonstrating that DO can get along quite well without it.
The momentary rebirth of mind is a good way of thinking about it karma in this life but as a definitive interpretation of the teachings is not very strong.
But neither is the case strong for transmigration of karma from one being to another, from my point of view anyway.
It's not that I think I know better than people who hold a literal viewpoint, I don't, it's that I can't fathom why such a phenomena would exist at all. For me it doesn't make sense, and I won't force myself to believe it.
If I can't conceptualise it having a reason to exist, trying to incorporate it into my understanding of the Buddha's teachings renders them gobbledygook.
Part of me feels that Buddhism will need to follow the path pioneered by the likes of Batchelor if it's ever going to have any real success in the West. Our culture is becoming more secular and rational with each new generation, and I know people now who laugh at Buddhism because of the metaphysical/superstitious aspects. Perhaps in a few decades there will be a new school as Buddhism adapts itself to a new culture, as it did in China, Japan and Tibet in the past. Maybe then the non-literal view will be more acceptable.
I'm going to step out of this thread, no matter how many times people say that a literal understanding of karma and rebirth are necessary to appreciate the Buddha's teachings, I'm never going to accept it as true. I can't see the point in arguing anymore, firstly because I have no interest in debunking beliefs that other people find useful and secondly because I can see that this debate will never be resolved.
But neither is the case strong for transmigration of karma from one being to another, from my point of view anyway.
Well, I dont think thats true but, I was referring to the world of Buddhist philosophy exclusively with that statement and in the realm of Buddhist philosophy and Buddhisms supporting documents the moment to moment rebirth theory is very weak by comparison.
Part of me feels that Buddhism will need to follow the path pioneered by the likes of Batchelor if it's ever going to have any real success in the West.
Yikes! thats my nightmare.
I would rather see Buddhism continue to exist as a small counter-culture community that ever see such a juvenile version of the teachings take hold.
I'm going to step out of this thread, no matter how many times people say that a literal understanding of karma and rebirth are necessary to appreciate the Buddha's teachings, I'm never going to accept it as true. I can't see the point in arguing anymore, firstly because I have no interest in debunking beliefs that other people find useful and secondly because I can see that this debate will never be resolved.
You're right in that the debate will never be resolved.
Yikes! thats my nightmare.
I would rather see Buddhism continue to exist as a small counter-culture community that ever see such a juvenile version of the teachings take hold.
Simply because they are under-developed and dont take into account the entire scope of the teachings, the histories of tradition, and refined meaning.
The monastic and practitioner structures that have been passed down for thousands of years have very sophisticated philosophical systems that explain the things that are discarded by Batchelor and others.
How long have you been interested in Buddhism?
Simply because they are under-developed and dont take into account the entire scope of the teachings, the histories of tradition, and refined meaning.
The monastic and practitioner structures that have been passed down for thousands of years have very sophisticated philosophical systems that explain the things that are discarded by Batchelor and others.
How long have you been interested in Buddhism?
Just curious.
Why on and off? Do you have a teacher(s)?
On and off because I was exploring other avenues of spirituality, namely theistic ones. In the end, despite the assurances from others that God's presence is self-evident, I never felt even the slightest indication of deity's existence and realised that I was just trying to force what I wanted to see onto the world, rather than trying to see the world for what it really is.
I always found the 4 noble truths to be self-evident, so when I finally realised my search for a God was pointless, I decided to explore Buddhism further.
No, I don't have a teacher, and to be honest I'm not sure I want one at the moment. Choosing a teacher would mean commiting myself to a particular school, and that isn't something I'm keen to do.
The Buddha himself taught against accepting things just because a tradition or teacher said so. The Buddha was a teacher and Buddhism is a tradition. If it can't be experienced directly then there is no evidence for it so agnosticism is the logical response. If there is evidence against it then atheism is the correct response.
If one is comfortable with blind faith (believing something true on the basis of nothing that qualifies as evidence) so be it.
One thing I am confident the Buddha never taught was that blind faith was a requirement. He taught the opposite.
I trust this has cleared everything up and the debate is now settled forever
Paulclem, I didn't intend to dissuade anyone from believing in literal rebirth by starting this thread, or by arguing various points. The truth is I often use debate to extract greater understanding on a subject, people come out with better answers when they feel under scrutiny. The problem I do have though, you've highlighted here quite succinctly;
And I very much disagree with it. I don't see skepticism being in opposition to the Buddha's teaching, nor an interpretation of karma and rebirth that limits their scope to a single lifetime (i.e. rebirth of the mind with each passing moment, always changing due to the karmic effects of volitional actions shaping the form the reborn mind takes).
I like the debate Chrysalis, and in truth it is very useful for me to test out what knowledge I have to see if it is consistent, viable etc etc. I don't feel that my Buddhism has been challenged.
On your second point - this was one of the defining arguments in The Buddha's time. I take your point about the rebirth of the mind. I'm not criticsing your practice. My point is that it is limited in addressing all the philosophical problems that come up. I think there may be confusion about the nature of the teachings and their purpose here. We're struggling with the idea that it is wrong to take things on faith, and indeed The Buddha said so, but what the texts posit is an integrated philosophical system that is there to be discovered by myself and any other practitioners. I' not saying that we should believe on anyone's say so. I'm saying that practice of only a part of the Buddha's path may bear only limited fruit. This is the part that requires some faith in the teachings - the motivation to practice the whole path.
Thanks if you're stepping out anyway. It's been useful for me.
"Definitive" is not the point, here. The only definitive is in practice. Paulclem claimed that rebirth is in some way integral to DO, and I was demonstrating that DO can get along quite well without it.
Hi Fivebells. See above post. It's a point of discussion I hasten to add. I'm not trying to tell you what to do.
The Buddha himself taught against accepting things just because a tradition or teacher said so. The Buddha was a teacher and Buddhism is a tradition. If it can't be experienced directly then there is no evidence for it so agnosticism is the logical response. If there is evidence against it then atheism is the correct response.
If one is comfortable with blind faith (believing something true on the basis of nothing that qualifies as evidence) so be it.
One thing I am confident the Buddha never taught was that blind faith was a requirement. He taught the opposite.
I trust this has cleared everything up and the debate is now settled forever
Why can't it be experienced directly? Blind faith has no place in Buddhism of course - which is why many people become Buddhists.
Evidence is problematic. How can acceptable evidence be garnered for reincarnation? It has been tried by Dr Stephenson:
but I see this as more problematic with questions about his methodology.
A personal evidence might be acceptable to oneself - as mine is to me - but isn't anyone else's evidence at all.
I think it comes back to the discovery of the path - which is laid out for us to test it's veracity or not. Some faith is required to test this out - but my experience - limited though it is - has proven to me that the path is worthwhile - though I hasten to add I am not very far along it.
agnosticism is the logical response?
I don't think so. The path has benefits - even for an amateur like myself - and is worth testing. If it's true - liberation. If it's untrue - the you'll know a great truth - perhaps the alternative path.
I trust this has cleared everything up and the debate is now settled forever
I do. The chapter I pointed to shows how Occam's razor arises in a statistically rigorous way in model comparison.
Thats why occam's razer IS used as a guide. However despite the statistic significance that doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the more complex model turns out to be more accurate. This is why such models are put on the back burner rather than the trash heap.
Evidence is problematic. How can acceptable evidence be garnered for reincarnation? It has been tried by Dr Stephenson:
That is the point. There is nothing that would meet the criteria of evidence supporting reincarnation. This means that if the idea seems unlikely to a person, they have no reason other than faith to believe it's true. Perhaps reincarnation IS true. Perhaps a deity DOES exist. I don't see evidence for either so I do the logical (to me) thing. I don't have any beliefs in the existence of either. Some people are able to have faith in such things and I wish them well. Others of us would love to have faith like that so we could fit in with the crowd better, but we simply do not.
A personal evidence might be acceptable to oneself - as mine is to me - but isn't anyone else's evidence at all.
That is very true. If your standard of evidence has been met, then you will believe. If my standard of evidence is met then I will believe. I am not at all hostile to the idea of reincarnation. I actually like the idea in some ways.
I think it comes back to the discovery of the path - which is laid out for us to test it's veracity or not. Some faith is required to test this out - but my experience - limited though it is - has proven to me that the path is worthwhile - though I hasten to add I am not very far along it.
I am not very far along either. Perhaps that is why we are hanging out at newbuddhist.com instead of oldbuddhist.com I am not sure what path you are referring to so I will assume the 8fold path. I am not aware of any part of it that requires a belief in reincarnation in order to practice it.
agnosticism is the logical response?
Agnosticism is the only logical response to a proposition that lacks evidence supporting it, but also lacks evidence against it or for a competing proposition.
I don't think so. The path has benefits - even for an amateur like myself - and is worth testing. If it's true - liberation. If it's untrue - the you'll know a great truth - perhaps the alternative path.
Agnosticism is the only logical response to a proposition that lacks evidence supporting it, but also lacks evidence against it or for a competing proposition.
On considering I agree. I was stuck into thinking about something like deferring judgement which is actually the same.
Much of the discussion about karma seems to focus on its effects on the individual and how far it is 'inherited'. I would suggest that we can see a process of inheritance at work on a more 'macro' level, both in evolution and as a social force. The actions of one generation have effects in the subsequent ones. After all, without this, the 'alternative history' genre of fiction would be even more absurd than it is.
Contemporary examples at a purely physical level would include the nuclear bombing of Japan or the Chernobyl accident, where the genetic effects have not yet been fully lived through.
As an historian, I come across long strands of karma. For example, we can link the execution of Mary of Scots with that of Charles I and Louis XVI, or Wycliffe's translation of the Bible and Macchiavelli's The Prince with Thomas Cromwell's dissolution of the monasteries, then Oliver Cromwell's farm (ex-monastic) supporting him to lead the Parliamentarian armies, followed by the Declaration of Breda which inspired the American colonists, producing the Revolutionary War, leading to ...... today.
When I consider how strangely this karma operates, I am less surprised that I cannot understand it at the level of the delusion I call 'myself'.
Comments
I have to trust.....:D
I realised I hadn't responded to you - apologies.
I don't think the Buddha's path makes sense without reincarnation and the process of Karma.
What do you mean by argument? I'm not familiar with the text you cite.
See for instance this review. It's a book which is partly a biography of the Buddha, partly a biography of the author's move away from conventional Buddhist beliefs. And it makes total sense, so it seems like a counter-example to your unsupported claim that the Buddha's path doesn't make sense without the notion of reincarnation.
"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."
So you've referred to a text. Is that any more of an argument than I presented?
It's fine if it works for people. No problem.
Yet Karma and reincarnation are an integral part of The Buddha's teachings. Just look up the index in a book on his teachings, or look at the link to the Noble 8 fold path. They are integal to the idea of Conditioned Arising too. What surprises me is that it is even in contention.
It mentions in the article Humanism, and this seems to be what The Buddha's path is reduced to if you try to take out Reincrnation and Karma. There's nothing wrong with this if it suits you, but for myself it doesn't answer all the questions I would have about life. The apparent randomness of significant events, how actions pan out in this life, predispositions and chance.
Thank you, Jeffrey. I was in two minds whether to post that quote. It makes the point better than I did what the 'Razor' can be used for and what it is not. It is not a proof.
In debate, wielding it can cause useful discussion to bleed to death rather than removing unnecessary whiskers.
I do. The chapter I pointed to shows how Occam's razor arises in a statistically rigorous way in model comparison.
In referring to the text, I provided a counter-example. That's an argument: Here is a description of the Buddha's path which "makes sense" despite repudiating the notion of life-to-life karma.
Then what do you mean by "makes sense?"
How about the book I've trained from for the last decade?
Or the one I've already mentioned, Confession. Or Batchelor's earlier book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. All of these books explicitly repudiate the notion of life-to-life karma as a corruption of the Buddha's original teaching.
No they're not.
When evaluating a framework, you have to look at more than how satisfying the answers it provides are. The epistemological basis of those answers is far more important, because in taking on a framework, you are taking on its epistemological standards. And the epistemological standard of the contemporary conventional Buddhist cosmology is pure authoritarianism, with no room for individual doubt. Just look at how you've responded to me here: "I'm surprised that this is even in contention." As Batchelor says:
Or the one I've already mentioned, Confession. Or Batchelor's earlier book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. All of these books explicitly repudiate the notion of life-to-life karma as a corruption of the Buddha's original teaching.
That's three texts, and if they work for you then good. But are you holding up your example and these texts against the canon of Buddhist texts and the millions of practitioners as proof of the veracity? I respect your ten years practice, but I'm afraid respect my own teacher's practice and experience more. As for a counter argument - you've said this book denies this and you practice it. You haven't refuted my assertion that karma and reincarnation are integral to conditioned arising either by saying - no it's not. OK. Yes it is? More tennis?
If something makes sense to you then you should follow it is all I was saying. That was The Buddha's advice.
As for:
And the epistemological standard of the contemporary conventional Buddhist cosmology is pure authoritarianism, with no room for individual doubt.
The messages I get is that it's a suck it and see religion, so I don't accept your idea that it is purely authoritarian. Isn't doubt encourage in the more positive aspect of exploration and questioning? Yes i do take the epistemological standard but I don't feel I've got anyone over my shoulder telling me what to believe. I get the feeling that the texts are guides - instruction manuals - which work in individual ways.
Conditioned arising - explains the process of rebirth, and Karma is the explanation for the type of rebirth a being enters.
All I'm saying is, you can take the rebirth cosmology out of Buddhist practice, and it still "makes sense." You claimed it didn't, and I objected to that. You seem to have retreated from that position, so nothing more to argue about there.
But no, I would never ask another person to accept either a text or another's behavior as "proof" of the "veracity" of Buddhist teachings. Your question is another example of the authoritarianism I'm talking about. These things need to be verified in personal experience.
Please point out where the words "karma" or "rebirth" appear in Dependent Origination. Let's not leave out the oft forgotten final Nidana: It illustrates how dukkha arises, and that's all. If you think birth and death are meant in the physical sense, and dukkha happens after death and before your next birth, then ok.
A friend of mine chooses to focus upon mindfulnes and does not fous upon aspects such as reincarnation or karma, in his daily practice. It works for him. My contention is about the whole of the path - the progression and perhaps preparation for death. Is it enough then? If you have a humanist or atheistic leaning, then it does, but this is in opposition to Buddha's teaching. Neither annihilation nor eternalism, but the Middle Way.
I'm thinking of the Wheel of Life which has the 12 dependant links around the outside and the realms within it.
And I very much disagree with it. I don't see skepticism being in opposition to the Buddha's teaching, nor an interpretation of karma and rebirth that limits their scope to a single lifetime (i.e. rebirth of the mind with each passing moment, always changing due to the karmic effects of volitional actions shaping the form the reborn mind takes).
Skepticism is healthy as long as it doesnt lead to any hardened view one way or the other.
There are plenty of teachings on karma that are completely relevant and limited to a single lifetime. There is no need to force a square peg into a round hole by trying to interpret them all as such.
The momentary rebirth of mind is a good way of thinking about it karma in this life but as a definitive interpretation of the teachings is not very strong.
Why are links to Buddhadasa's website considered definitive sources?
Everyone knows his shtick.
His interpretations are extremely simplistic. That said, I think they are quite useful, but, they are by no means definitive.
It's not that I think I know better than people who hold a literal viewpoint, I don't, it's that I can't fathom why such a phenomena would exist at all. For me it doesn't make sense, and I won't force myself to believe it.
If I can't conceptualise it having a reason to exist, trying to incorporate it into my understanding of the Buddha's teachings renders them gobbledygook.
Part of me feels that Buddhism will need to follow the path pioneered by the likes of Batchelor if it's ever going to have any real success in the West. Our culture is becoming more secular and rational with each new generation, and I know people now who laugh at Buddhism because of the metaphysical/superstitious aspects. Perhaps in a few decades there will be a new school as Buddhism adapts itself to a new culture, as it did in China, Japan and Tibet in the past. Maybe then the non-literal view will be more acceptable.
I'm going to step out of this thread, no matter how many times people say that a literal understanding of karma and rebirth are necessary to appreciate the Buddha's teachings, I'm never going to accept it as true. I can't see the point in arguing anymore, firstly because I have no interest in debunking beliefs that other people find useful and secondly because I can see that this debate will never be resolved.
Well, I dont think thats true but, I was referring to the world of Buddhist philosophy exclusively with that statement and in the realm of Buddhist philosophy and Buddhisms supporting documents the moment to moment rebirth theory is very weak by comparison.
I would rather see Buddhism continue to exist as a small counter-culture community that ever see such a juvenile version of the teachings take hold.
You're right in that the debate will never be resolved.
The monastic and practitioner structures that have been passed down for thousands of years have very sophisticated philosophical systems that explain the things that are discarded by Batchelor and others.
How long have you been interested in Buddhism?
Why on and off? Do you have a teacher(s)?
I always found the 4 noble truths to be self-evident, so when I finally realised my search for a God was pointless, I decided to explore Buddhism further.
No, I don't have a teacher, and to be honest I'm not sure I want one at the moment. Choosing a teacher would mean commiting myself to a particular school, and that isn't something I'm keen to do.
If one is comfortable with blind faith (believing something true on the basis of nothing that qualifies as evidence) so be it.
One thing I am confident the Buddha never taught was that blind faith was a requirement. He taught the opposite.
I trust this has cleared everything up and the debate is now settled forever
Who said anything about his practice?
Its his watering down of Buddhist philosophical systems that is problematic.
I like the debate Chrysalis, and in truth it is very useful for me to test out what knowledge I have to see if it is consistent, viable etc etc. I don't feel that my Buddhism has been challenged.
On your second point - this was one of the defining arguments in The Buddha's time. I take your point about the rebirth of the mind. I'm not criticsing your practice. My point is that it is limited in addressing all the philosophical problems that come up. I think there may be confusion about the nature of the teachings and their purpose here. We're struggling with the idea that it is wrong to take things on faith, and indeed The Buddha said so, but what the texts posit is an integrated philosophical system that is there to be discovered by myself and any other practitioners. I' not saying that we should believe on anyone's say so. I'm saying that practice of only a part of the Buddha's path may bear only limited fruit. This is the part that requires some faith in the teachings - the motivation to practice the whole path.
Thanks if you're stepping out anyway. It's been useful for me.
Hi Fivebells. See above post. It's a point of discussion I hasten to add. I'm not trying to tell you what to do.
Why can't it be experienced directly? Blind faith has no place in Buddhism of course - which is why many people become Buddhists.
Evidence is problematic. How can acceptable evidence be garnered for reincarnation? It has been tried by Dr Stephenson:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation01.html
but I see this as more problematic with questions about his methodology.
A personal evidence might be acceptable to oneself - as mine is to me - but isn't anyone else's evidence at all.
I think it comes back to the discovery of the path - which is laid out for us to test it's veracity or not. Some faith is required to test this out - but my experience - limited though it is - has proven to me that the path is worthwhile - though I hasten to add I am not very far along it.
agnosticism is the logical response?
I don't think so. The path has benefits - even for an amateur like myself - and is worth testing. If it's true - liberation. If it's untrue - the you'll know a great truth - perhaps the alternative path.
I trust this has cleared everything up and the debate is now settled forever
No - afraid not. There's mileage yet!
Thats why occam's razer IS used as a guide. However despite the statistic significance that doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the more complex model turns out to be more accurate. This is why such models are put on the back burner rather than the trash heap.
That is the point. There is nothing that would meet the criteria of evidence supporting reincarnation. This means that if the idea seems unlikely to a person, they have no reason other than faith to believe it's true. Perhaps reincarnation IS true. Perhaps a deity DOES exist. I don't see evidence for either so I do the logical (to me) thing. I don't have any beliefs in the existence of either. Some people are able to have faith in such things and I wish them well. Others of us would love to have faith like that so we could fit in with the crowd better, but we simply do not.
That is very true. If your standard of evidence has been met, then you will believe. If my standard of evidence is met then I will believe. I am not at all hostile to the idea of reincarnation. I actually like the idea in some ways.
I am not very far along either. Perhaps that is why we are hanging out at newbuddhist.com instead of oldbuddhist.com
Agnosticism is the only logical response to a proposition that lacks evidence supporting it, but also lacks evidence against it or for a competing proposition.
I agree with everything you wrote above.
On considering I agree. I was stuck into thinking about something like deferring judgement which is actually the same.
Contemporary examples at a purely physical level would include the nuclear bombing of Japan or the Chernobyl accident, where the genetic effects have not yet been fully lived through.
As an historian, I come across long strands of karma. For example, we can link the execution of Mary of Scots with that of Charles I and Louis XVI, or Wycliffe's translation of the Bible and Macchiavelli's The Prince with Thomas Cromwell's dissolution of the monasteries, then Oliver Cromwell's farm (ex-monastic) supporting him to lead the Parliamentarian armies, followed by the Declaration of Breda which inspired the American colonists, producing the Revolutionary War, leading to ...... today.
When I consider how strangely this karma operates, I am less surprised that I cannot understand it at the level of the delusion I call 'myself'.