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.
Simple question on samsara
In my studies of Buddhism, I am struck with the obvious contradiction presented in the idea of samsara and the Gotama's teaching. It is a basic tenant of Buddhism that one must experience the teachings first hand rather than simply rely on it because someone else believes it. Yes? If so, the concept of samsara, karma and reincarnation is contradictory to the experiencial nature of Buddhism.
Noone can state that they have DIRECT experience with their present life being a product of karma in past lives. One can suppose this is true, but direct experience is dependent on the here and now. We are guessing that samsara actually occurs, but again, it's just a guess. I'm sure there are those who will come and say, "I know for sure that I was so-and-so in a previous life", although DIRECT experience with this, by definition, is impossible. What is presented here is a hallmark of virtually all religions; in the absence of answers to the most fundamental existential questions (who are we, why are we here) they just make stuff up and say, "You cannot disprove what I am saying". No, I cannot disprove samsara as much as you cannot disprove that the center of the planet Jupiter is comprised of pink marshmallows.
I am merely pointing out that even Buddhism relies on myth and unprovable conjecture as a very important foundation for it's teachings, despite stating that truth should only be gleaned from personal experience. To accept the teachings and philosophy of Buddhism, one MUST accept the concept of samsara, karma and reincarnation despite the fact that these concepts are, at best, speculative.
I am open to correction here and welcome a critique of this argument. I'm relatively new to the study but have done much reading on the topic.
Thanks!!!
Noone can state that they have DIRECT experience with their present life being a product of karma in past lives. One can suppose this is true, but direct experience is dependent on the here and now. We are guessing that samsara actually occurs, but again, it's just a guess. I'm sure there are those who will come and say, "I know for sure that I was so-and-so in a previous life", although DIRECT experience with this, by definition, is impossible. What is presented here is a hallmark of virtually all religions; in the absence of answers to the most fundamental existential questions (who are we, why are we here) they just make stuff up and say, "You cannot disprove what I am saying". No, I cannot disprove samsara as much as you cannot disprove that the center of the planet Jupiter is comprised of pink marshmallows.
I am merely pointing out that even Buddhism relies on myth and unprovable conjecture as a very important foundation for it's teachings, despite stating that truth should only be gleaned from personal experience. To accept the teachings and philosophy of Buddhism, one MUST accept the concept of samsara, karma and reincarnation despite the fact that these concepts are, at best, speculative.
I am open to correction here and welcome a critique of this argument. I'm relatively new to the study but have done much reading on the topic.
Thanks!!!
0
Comments
In a sense this is true. The thing is, the teachings also allow you to set aside that which is not true in your experience
Untrue. Samsara, karma and reincarnation/rebirth all have a 'this life only' interpretation that is self evidently true and confirmable via direct experience.
Our reaction to a teaching is often more important than the teaching itself.
Some people will argue passionately and endlessly that beliefs in any kind of life before or after this one are for stupid, gullible people. There is an internal attitude of "There is nothing whatsoever I, with my superior intellect, could ever learn from such a simpleton." This reveals an aspect of their pathology that is a source of their suffering that needs to be realized and let go of. The problem is not the lack of belief in something untestable, it's the degree of passion with which they reject it.
On the other hand there are those who accept these teachings with great passion. They will argue endlessly that one can't be Buddhist or make any real progress on the path to liberation from suffering without these beliefs. Teachers who omit these teachings are viewed as 'off the true path' and stripping Buddhism of it's power. There is an internal attitude of 'there is nothing I, with my faith and trust in the Buddha and his teaching, could ever hope to learn from such an arrogant person.' This reveals an aspect of their pathology which is a cause of their suffering that needs to be realized and let go of.
The teachings are like a mirror. Look at the mirror, and what do you see?
A couple of points to ponder:
I would be interested to read how past life actions affect the present, present actions affect future lives and how this is confirmable and experienced directly in the here and now. I'm not sure how that can be proved in a way that would provide direct experience other than to say that my direct experience today IS a product of past life actions, but again, that would seem speculative. Is there a text you could recommend that may explain this fuller? Thanks again.
Bill, any basic text on Buddhism will espouse the workings of karma. I come from the Tibetan tradition and the Lam Rim will provide any amount of material.
You could also seek out any Buddhist philosophy - particularly by Jerry Hopkins, Robert Thurman or Herbert Guenther. These are all respected Western professors who have studied under more highly respected Buddhist teachers.
The other thing is you don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you are wrestling with karma - and it is not easy - just bypass that matter for the moment.
One does not have to be all that philosophical to experience samsara - it is all around us - life is suffering. Life is a process of suffering because we continually grasp after things in the belief (a religious belief even) that we will be happy. Even Rupert Murdoch is going to die and leave everything behind and face death. In other words, not to accept the concept of samsara is purely speculative - it carries no inherent truth value.
I said there are 'this life only' interpretations. They do not include literal past lives. In the Suttas we read about Mara who appeared to the Buddha to try and keep him from enlightenment. Is Mara a real being or is Mara a psychological archetype representing the workings of our own mind? Is there a Mara 'force' of any kind external to us or is Mara 100% internally created and it's just a coincidence that every human alive has their own Mara doing to them what everyone else's Mara is doing to them?
Modern psychotherapy has something Buddhism lacks. A well developed map of the human psyche or ego and how it gets damaged and what the repercussions of that damage are in terms of a person's thoughts, beliefs and actions. Buddhism tends to explain such things in a very simple way rather than a complex way. Our present condition can be explained in terms of karma from past actions. It may be that we are experiencing the fruition of our actions in a past life, or it may be that we are experiencing the fruition of our responses to external phenomenon that resulted in psychological wounding (this life karma). It may be something else entirely.
Ultimately what is real and knowable is the truth of the first noble truth. Once one has realized the truth of the first noble truth it doesn't much matter if the origin of the suffering is from 1000 past lives or events in our childhood or the reaction we had a few seconds ago. The suffering is real and it's intolerable. If this is your own realization then just go from there. If this is not your realization, feel free to just move along.:)
So if you come across something that doesn't sit well with you, set it aside for now. You might have a light bulb moment one day where it makes perfect sense, or you might not.
If you were to tell that to the person who just had a bomb dropped on their house and had to watch as their children died in their arms, they would probably disagree.
I was too! It just didn't make sense, it seemed contradictory.
Eight years later, I still think it is a contradiction...
Karma is not at all contradictory to Dharma, it is a key mechanism. The other two, yes, I agree with you.
I don't agree one "MUST" at all. Try restudying what you have studied but with the assumption that the Buddha was teaching that attachment to the very idea of an afterlife is a key cause of suffering. This is what I believe.
Unfortunatly, if at the very starting centuries of what we now call Buddhism a significant error in the passing on of the Buddha's teaching took place then that error would exist today in all schools. In which case most things you have read will have this error as foundational.
Was the Buddha teaching about escape from samsara or escape from the idea of samsara?
namase
I think it manifests in many aspects of where Dharma meets Buddhism but I
assume the sense the OP meant was:
You might also think these couplets are contradictory:
Or:
I don't know, I hardly think these are new conundrums for us buddhists!:) The point is, they are irrelevant to the understanding of and practice of Dharma.
The four noble truths are true with or without samsara, I think the Buddha saw this very clearly.
namaste
What about Nirvana?
How so? It's not your being that exists after death, it's your karma, isn't it?
Because Samsara pertains to a series of afterlives, and experience takes place in this one life?
I don't follow?
Not on my Understanding of karma, no.
I certainty have no certainty about these matters but like the OP, I think there seems to be this root contradiction.
well wishes.
It's not only lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nidanas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratitya-samutpada
It's just about everything.
You can see it all the time. You know people are dying, you know people are being born. You know you're breathing out and breathing in. You can see cycles everywhere.
Is your previous breath the same as your current breath? Are you the same person you were last year? Are you the same person you were last second? Are people who are dying right now the same as the people who are being born?
There's no yes/no answer to any of those question... The answer is "in a way yes, in a way no" (to me anyway).
Nirvana breaks samsara. You can view it as an end to rebirth (of yourself as a being or of things that lead to suffering).
Well, Buddha did say that there's nothing that goes from one person to another upon death, but he used the concept of lighting one candle with another to help understand rebirth. There are many ways to interpret that. I see it as a sort of karmic trail. Your actions may affect future generations. Again, there are many interpretations, some more literal than others...
My point is, if you find two ideas that contradict each other, one of them might be wrong or misinterpreted.
I think you miss the point of my point:)
I am well aware of the doctrines and ideas and all that which try to explain away these issues.
My point is, as said above, if there was this error in very early Buddhism then all that followed will contain it. Does that make sense?
#
Well, no, in this case its rather specific, I think; Either there is samsara or there is not.
Sure, but if there is Samsara then there are connections between those people, connections of such strength and importance that people dedicate their lives to ensuring that future connections escape the very Samsra posited.
There is really no me to compare between points in time. There is no me now, nor a year ago. If I die tomorrow there will be no me tomorrow. If I live a hundred years, equally there will be no me tomorrow.
I am but a causal process, when that process stops, I will stop, in totality. As much as the cloud that was over my house last week is now utterly gone.
I think absolutely not, but I admit I may be wrong on that.
That's an assumption I am not sure why you make. If there is no samsara there can still be nirvana, ie, the cessation of attachment/view/delusion/suffering....
Yep, but this has never satisfied me as explanatory device or metaphor.
Sure, but that seems to disconnect it from the urgency with which the path invites approaching, the "house is burning" and all that. What would be the point of practice if the "true" effects arise countless candle flames down the line?
Yes, and when that's the case, how do you find out which?
This is my first "rebirthy" chat for a long time, it still interests me greatly, thank you for keeping the peace:)
namase
Why wouldn't there be peace?
You said there is no 'me'. Is there 'other'? If you don't make distinction between self and other then how can't you see the connection between people born and dying?
By testing both. Whichever one is wrong or you can't test needs another look, because you either don't understand it properly (do to ignorance) or it's just plain wrong.
Then why are you saying that samsara is only the cycle of life and death rather than the cycle of everything? I always saw it as the cycle of dependant co-arising of everything. Thus, being free of those cycles is Nirvana.
There's no need to get involved in pointless speculation about karma and past and future lives. We need to just let go of all that mental clutter and focus on practising in the here and now.
Ajahn Sumedho, abbot with the Theravada Thai Forest tradition said this in his book "The Sound of Silence".
Could you give a Pali Canon sutta reference showing where the Buddha said that, please?
.
Tiz often thus when these issues are debated.
Not in the sense there is no me, no. There are no things in themselves.
Let's be clear we are talking about the dharmic sense of "me" etc. There is me and other in social, linguistic, relationships and, of course, in the illusionary sense that causes so many problems.
Because in the notion of samsara is contained the idea that people being born and dying is connected across existence in a very special way; there are direct correlations between rebirths and these correlations are "spiritually non trivial".
Sure, but the OP's point was that the aspects of Buddhism pertaining to samsara cannot be tested, and I agree with them.
What makes it more pertinent to me is that the skandic/aggregate mind is testable and understandable and consistent etc, as is the four noble truths, dependent origination etc.
This, to my mind at least, is another manifestation of the contradiction the thread is about.
namase
Debate can be peaceful if there is no ego involved.
For example, Jason just corrected me and I can accept that I was foolishly saying something that was only about a quarter right.
As for samsara... supposedly his past lives were revealed to him (Buddha that is, not Jason=) under the bodhi tree, right? That's kind of a direct experience. However, that's probably just a myth though.
I suppose the key is to set aside rather than dismiss things that don't make sense. This topic is mostly speculation, isn't it?
Natch:)
But the rebirth issue is special because Dharma and Buddhism is able to accommodate diametrically opposed opinions on it, all within the same consistent practice. You just cant be a Christian and not believe in heaven, for example. But Dharma doesn't have this dogmatic limit.
So the accounts we have may say. Some Buddhists are happy to believe those accounts as literal, some mythical as you say.
I won't believe anything as being a Dharmic truth unless I cannot doubt it. Historically, empirically, spiritually and philosophically I can find lots to doubt about such accounts.
Yes, unlike The Four Noble Truths,
namaste
Does it have to have any faith in it? Do Annica/Anataman and Dukka and all they condition require any element of faith? I cant see where or how.
You mean there's no way for us to observe the relationship between our actions (kamma) and how they're experienced or the arising and ceasing of our sense of self (rebirth)?
You can see first hand short the effects of present karma, if you act right and have a positive attitude your life will be better. You can't see the effects of long term karma, if you have acted right in past lives it will help this life and if you build good karma in this life it will help in future lives.
Even the apophatic approach to self used in Buddhist discourse is imported from hinduism, along with other ideas.
I don't really see a problem with that, though.
Do you have faith that following the 8 fold path leads to the end of suffering? If not, then why even practice it?
No I don't. Nor do I have faith that a vegetable rich diet is healthy or that driving my car at 90 miles an hour uses more fuel than driving it at 60.
My belief in the path comes from understanding and experience.
Understanding why the three marks of existence lead to experience of suffering.
Understanding how ones mental, moral, spiritual and philosophical attitudes condition experience.
Experiencing the reduction of suffering in my life and seeing it in others.
Not a jot of faith in any of that for me:)
If, say, under right view, was the precept "Do not joke," I would look at that precept in dharmic terms and, on seeing it made no sense in those terms, I would reject it as a later addition to Buddhism. Would you accept it just on "faith" because "it is written"?
namaste
I don't believe in enlightenment as anything dislocated from the four noble truths.
Mundane as it may be, I believe in enlightenment and have experienced myself becoming more enlightened, though I am far from enlightened.
To me, if Bob doesn't know about dharma and Mary has even a murky understanding of the noble truths, then Mary is more enlightened than Bob.
Again, none of this involves any faith.
But to avoid confusion, there is a sense in which practice involves faith by extrapolation. That is, I have faith that as my mediation improves my path will progress. But this is fundamentally different to faith by assumption as required by some religious views.
namaste
I can't make sense of what actual could mean when it comes to nirvana. Nirvana to me is the cessation of the causes of Dukka.
Yes, he saw dependent origination and the truths of dharma. Isn't that enough? Does something of a different kind need to happen for enlightenment to be valuable? I don't think so, personally.
After The Buddha was enlightened he stood up and spent fifty years teaching others his discovery.
It is my view that over the years enlightenment has been pushed further and further into the unattainable and mystical, as decent doctrines often seem to be:(
You may subscribe to that conditional, I don't. I have experienced profound and wonderful reductions in dukka, as I would hope most of us here have. I still get greedy and sad and angry and all these things, but I can imagine that those things could cease fully and would like to think that one day in this short and only life of mine they will. I am utterly certain the only way to do that is practice of the path.
namaste
Sure:)
I don't see any real difference; One is the end of the path the other is part of the path. Millions of people reap wonderful benefits from Dharma practice in terms of suffering reduction and the reason why this is the case is perfectly explained by the causal interdependence of the second and third noble truths.
As said way up in the thread, I doubt everything the buddha is said to have said and only accept it when I cannot doubt it. I do not need any faith to see exactly why and how Dharma is true.
TheJourney, you do however make a lot of conditional statements as if they're true.
That's just no true. If you have experienced the end of some suffering by letting go of some ignorance and you know that ignorance is the root of suffering, it's self evident that letting go of all ignorance/delusions will lead to an end of all suffering. It's not faith, it's experience.
The whole argument is fairly trivial though.
and,
read and learn again
what are the six elements
what are the sense bases
what are the five aggregates
and think over them
and
try to grasp them within
then
they are not what you have read in suttas or listened from dhamma talks
you will build up confidence of Dhamma within you and you do not have to worry about faith on this or that
As one progresses through meditational insight these things are reavealed, There are many accounts of practitoners who follow Buddhas advise progressing through levels of concentration and develop Clarity of mind in order to see these hidden phenomena in the way they function, Of course there is only a contradiction to this if one only interlectually studies the teachings and doesnt deeply apply them as suggested to gain a valid experience of what is being spoken of.