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.
The fact that Tibetans weren't able to defend themselves against one of the world's most formidable armies has utterly no bearing on whether or not Tibetan spiritual leaders are capable of "saving" their disciples.
OT, but there was nothing particularly formidable about the Chinese army. It was more that the Tibetans lost than that the Chinese won.
I'm not asking you to. I'm responding to the claim that accepting the concept of postmortem rebirth is essential to effective Buddhist practice.
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!) But I do believe that concepst like Nirvana and Karma should be understood in the context of Rebirth and it is also essential to understand that the Buddha himself held a rebirth belief (dont get filosofical on me now you know what I mean). I also strongly advice from trying to understand Buddhism from a point of view that there is no Rebirth. I hope you understand the distinction.
To me one of the key points is the Kalamasutta, it clearly points out that belief in gods and rebirth is a worldly TRUTH. What most rebirth atheists do wrong (not suggesting that you are or you do) is that they are slaves under occhams razor and can not fathom that there can be more than one truth at a time. Very modern Western by the way if you ask me. .
That is by the way one of the suttas where I do not agree with DD about its translation. So if you would like I would suggest grabbing a pen and pencil. Find a good pali version and a good dictionary and translate it and see for yourself. And I do not like BB:s translation either. Just like DD he missed a pretty important distinction if I remember correctly.
Smorgasbord is a false analogy, at least for how I relate to it. It's more like a chunk of nutritious food which is surrounded by unrewarding embellishments.
Yes I realised that on my way to work this morning. Of course you do not do anything more than what I do myself by selecting from the wast material of the Pali cannon what I choose to believe. There are some suttas that I simply disregard because they do not seem relevant to me in my practise and some that I disregard because they seem a bit fishy like the cosmological ones depicting God to be a deluded and somewhat pathetic.
well, if no sutras, then we can quote our own experiences.
both Vajraheart and I have reported experiences of recollecting past lives.
The problem with this, Vincenzi, et al, is that according to DD, the Buddha says that when ordinary people have past life experiences, they are mere "mental formations" and not valid. Only when the Buddhda experiences past lives, is that reliable. (See pg. 6 or 7 here, for the quote). So apparently the Buddha urged us to trust our own experiences, but then again he...didn't. :-/ That Buddha must've been some contradictory guy. However, what the Buddha has been reported to have said or not said isn't going to change my view of my own past life recall.
The problem with this, Vincenzi, et al, is that according to DD, the Buddha says that when ordinary people have past life experiences, they are mere "mental formations" and not valid.
This is two misunderstandings in one sentence. EVERYTHING is mental formations. Whether you see through your eyes now or think about what you saw yesterday they are the same.
The key you are missing (and its easy to miss) is that both those experiences are as valid or as unvalid as every other sense impression you can think of (the mind is also a sense in buddhist thinking).
Think about it this way. What Buddhism teaches is that no mental formation is more worth than any other. Not that they are worthless.
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!) But I do believe that concepst like Nirvana and Karma should be understood in the context of Rebirth and it is also essential to understand that the Buddha himself held a rebirth belief. I also strongly advice from trying to understand Buddhism from a point of view that there is no Rebirth. I hope you understand the distinction.
Certainly no one gets far with this without developing an understanding of moment-to-moment rebirth, but that is different to postmortem rebirth, which is what we've been talking about. (At least I have.)
That is by the way one of the suttas where I do not agree with DD about its translation. So if you would like I would suggest grabbing a pen and pencil. Find a good pali version and a good dictionary and translate it and see for yourself. And I do not like BB:s translation either. Just like DD he missed a pretty important distinction if I remember correctly.
I don't believe there is a Pali dictionary which is sufficiently authoritative to resolve this. The only way would be to compare all the contexts in which the words/phrases with the contested translations arise, and even that would not be conclusive. This is the philological uncertainty I was referring to. But if you point out the specific Pali passages where you contest Dhatu's translation, that would be interesting.
Fivebells. I was talkingabout the Great Forty: Maha-cattarisaka Sutta. Not the Kalama sutta. Sorry.
This bit:
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."
That is the ATI translation. I do not remember how DD translated it but its all in the other thread- You know the one I mean. . Unless DD went back and altered the first translations he/she made...you could do that in those days.
My own humble translation is this:
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the OTHER after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."
Well of course everything comes down not to translation but interpretation. I of course interpret the next world to be the next life and the Other world to be Heaven. I backed it up in the dictionary of the Pali text society so my interpretation is not entirely fabricated.
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!)
In the Kalama Suttra the Buddha said: "Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
Fivebells. I was talkingabout the Great Forty: Maha-cattarisaka Sutta.
Oh, that sutra. Well, I don't know Pali. Does the "right" in "Right View" mean "ontologically correct" or "appropriate to noble right concentration?"
I am not going to fall for that one. . If you cultivate your mind around the concepts of the eight fold path then the answer seem pretty clear dont you think?
No, not at all. Look at the Brahmajala sutra. A huge list of wrong ontological views, and no balancing description of a correct one. Why does there have to be a correct ontological view associated with Buddhism, which after all is based around a practice which leads to the end of suffering, not to the acquisition of knowledge?
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!)
In the Kalama Suttra the Buddha said: "Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
No, not at all. Look at the Brahmajala sutra. A huge list of wrong ontological views, and no balancing description of a correct one. Why does there have to be a correct ontological view associated with Buddhism, which after all is based around a practice which leads to the end of suffering, not to the acquisition of knowledge?
Because Buddhism is the only filosofy (that I know of) that has a central undeniable "truth" that everything else is in Buddhism is centered upon and derived from. Nibbana.
In Buddhism the value of truth is solely related to that concept and there is no system/filosofy/religion/science from which you can dispute the absoluteness of that concept.
In fact, what you are referring to isn't even a door.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is not even a factor of the path.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is merely a tool for morality, so lusty folks like Victorious don't go off to beach parties.
:nyah:
Those things, Gotamī, regarding which you know, ‘These things lead to passion, not to dispassion; to bondage, not to liberation; to accumulation, not to relinquishment; to having many wishes, not to having few wishes; to discontent, not to contentment; to association, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to arousing energy; to being hard to support, not to being easy to support,’ definitely, Gotamī, you can decide, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.'
definitely, Gotamī, you can decide, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.'
definitely, Gotamī, you can decide, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.'
I quoted above the Buddha said things that lead to passion, to bondage, to accumulation can be regarded as not the Dhamma, not the Vinaya & not the Teacher’s instruction.
MN 117 states directly the mundane right view about rebirth sides with morality but leads to passion, bondage & accumulation.
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!)
In the Kalama Suttra the Buddha said: "Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
I think this is fine, but to be downright sure that it's not possible, and to go around calling Buddhists delusional who do believe in rebirth is what I'm arguing against with DD here.
is that according to DD, the Buddha says that when ordinary people have past life experiences, they are mere "mental formations" and not valid. Only when the Buddhda experiences past lives, is that reliable. (See pg. 6 or 7 here, for the quote).
I do not recall saying such a thing. It follows your post is both moot & mute.
... to go around calling Buddhists delusional who do believe in rebirth is what I'm arguing against with DD here.
Vajra
Post after post and your mind still does not get it.
The Buddha regarded an kind of self-view as delusional.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised the mundane right view about rebirth is delusional, given it sides with the asava (effluents) & the acquisitions of becoming.
Becoming = delusion
Your arguement has no basis according to the Buddha.
My view is your mind is struggling to acknowledge your post after post about your "personal" experiences are delusion after delusion.
... to go around calling Buddhists delusional who do believe in rebirth is what I'm arguing against with DD here.
Vajra
Post after post and your mind still does not get it.
The Buddha regarded an kind of self-view as delusional.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised the mundane right view about rebirth is delusional, given it sides with the asava (effluents) & the acquisitions of becoming.
Becoming = delusion
Your arguement has no basis according to the Buddha.
My view is your mind is struggling to acknowledge your post after post about your "personal" experiences are delusion after delusion.
I think the opposite is true. You don't understand the Mahayana view on "self", you don't understand "Nagarjunas two truths of relative and ultimate" and you don't read my posts with clarity. They are beyond you. This is clear. For me, it seems your mind is simple and reads on an epidermic level and your translations of the pali follow this delusion.
I quoted above the Buddha said things that lead to passion, to bondage, to accumulation can be regarded as not the Dhamma, not the Vinaya & not the Teacher’s instruction.
MN 117 states directly the mundane right view about rebirth sides with morality but leads to passion, bondage & accumulation.
Aha so you have changed your mind on this! Last time we discussed this you werent so forthcomming. So you do agree that the Buddha accepts rebirth as right view! Good on yer.
Yes I know that is sides with attachment and all that but all the same right view is right view.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised the mundane right view about rebirth is delusional ...
That is an outright lie. There is no such inference in that text other than in your mind. That is clear for anybody that reads the passge. Now that is delusion dude (or is it dudette after all we were goingto get married once?)
The truth is that all formations is illusion. That is the Anatta doctrine. Still you DD prevail in denying the Anatta doctrine by trying to elevate one illusion (rebirth belief) above the others.
Can you really not se your blinde spot in this or are you just playing?
The truth is that all formations is illusion. That is the Anatta doctrine. Still you DD prevail in denying the Anatta doctrine by trying to elevate one illusion (rebirth belief) above the others.
Can you really not se your blinde spot in this or are you just playing?
Mahayana recognizes that rebirth is like an illusion, as much as this physical life is like an illusion, but these things still occur. Just as Mahayana recognizes that the "self" is an illusion, but separate seeming entities still occur, and individual mind streams still manifest suffering, while other minds manifest clarity.
Of course the Heart Sutra perspective is about freeing one from any sort of clinging to these, even while they occur.
DD seems to think emptiness comes about through insight, but mind and it's manifestations are already empty, just generally clung to as not as this is the dynamic possibility of consciousness, to cling or not to cling is really what it's about not that things are or are not empty. Everything has already been empty, things aren't made empty through awareness.
I think this is where DD just doesn't understand the Buddhas teaching on dependent origination.
Mahayana recognizes that rebirth is like an illusion, as much as this physical life is like an illusion, but these things still occur. Just as Mahayana recognizes that the "self" is an illusion, but separate seeming entities still occur, and individual mind streams still manifest suffering, while other minds manifest clarity.
I would disagree. To say that they occur is not entirely right and to say that they do not is not entirely right either...But maybe that was your meaning all along?
DD seems to think emptiness comes about through insight, but mind and it's manifestations are already empty, just generally clung to as not as this is the dynamic possibility of consciousness, to cling or not to cling is really what it's about not that things are or are not empty. Everything has already been empty, things aren't made empty through awareness.
But how would you know things are empty if you are not aware of them? How can a thing be on its own without observation? Yes but I get you. Set aside the methaphysical debate and I think we agree.
I think this is where DD just doesn't understand the Buddhas teaching on dependent origination.
Have you read the supposed DO teachings of a Buddha Dhasa? Otherwise you are in for a treat if you find the resources. Now mind you I will say nothing ill of a person I have not met but those TEXTS I have been recommended on this forum are a mess written by somebody two floors short of a one floor building. But thats IMO of course.
Because Buddhism is the only filosofy (that I know of) that has a central undeniable "truth" that everything else is in Buddhism is centered upon and derived from. Nibbana.
In Buddhism the value of truth is solely related to that concept and there is no system/filosofy/religion/science from which you can dispute the absoluteness of that concept.
That is why the meaning of Right in Right View is ultimately not open for discussion.
Sorry, I don't understand your argument. Can you expand on it?
Even in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta, he presents two forms of Right Views: a "fettered/polluted Right View" which is based on rules about ontological beliefs, and "transcendent Right View," described as "The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening etc." (from Access to Insight.) Note that is the transcendent one which is described as "a factor of the path," not the fettered/polluted one. Which is not to say that the former Right View is ontologically wrong, only that it is not represented, in this sutra, as essential.
I will fivebells. But not tonight (its 12 past midnight here and) I got to get up early tomorrow. You were Australian werent you if I am not mistaken and allowed to ask? So I guess its around noon for you?
Have you read the supposed DO teachings of a Buddha Dhasa? Otherwise you are in for a treat if you find the resources. Now mind you I will say nothing ill of a person I have not met but those TEXTS I have been recommended on this forum are a mess written by somebody two floors short of a one floor building. But thats IMO of course.
A biography about him, for anyone who wants to assess his sanity and grasp on reality on the basis of a little more information. (First part of three. Later parts linked from that page.)
Mahayana recognizes that rebirth is like an illusion, as much as this physical life is like an illusion, but these things still occur. Just as Mahayana recognizes that the "self" is an illusion, but separate seeming entities still occur, and individual mind streams still manifest suffering, while other minds manifest clarity.
I would disagree. To say that they occur is not entirely right and to say that they do not is not entirely right either...But maybe that was your meaning all along?
Oh sure, we're not really talking to each other on this relative level, this isn't occurring between two empty but dependently arisen separate beings? LOL!!
Have you read the supposed DO teachings of a Buddha Dhasa?
I've heard of him, and I like some of the stuff I've read of him, though his whole take on other religions is obviously Buddhist, as Buddhism as well doesn't inherently exist, but Buddhists know this. LOL!!
So for him to say all religions are one, is really just from the emptiness perspective of things. Other religions generally don't lead to that view though.
is that according to DD, the Buddha says that when ordinary people have past life experiences, they are mere "mental formations" and not valid. Only when the Buddhda experiences past lives, is that reliable. (See pg. 6 or 7 here, for the quote).
I do not recall saying such a thing. It follows your post is both moot & mute.
I am actually pretty sure that rebirth belief is not essential for buddhist practise. (Not suggesting that nonbelief is!)
In the Kalama Suttra the Buddha said: "Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself."
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
I think this is fine, but to be downright sure that it's not possible, and to go around calling Buddhists delusional who do believe in rebirth is what I'm arguing against with DD here.
Agreed. I just threw that quote out as a sort of olive branch. (Fat lot of good it did...*sigh* eyeroll) I think everyone should respect everyone else's choices on rebirth belief, since there seems to be much conflicting material in the suttras. Besides, isn't tolerance one thing Buddhism is supposed to be about? There doesn't seem to be any way to prove right view or wrong view on this question, so why not just relax and enjoy each other's company?
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
In the Samkitta Sutta, the Buddha basically pulled off the door.
In fact, what you are referring to isn't even a door.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is not even a factor of the path.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is merely a tool for morality, so lusty folks like Victorious don't go off to beach parties.
:nyah:
I'm not sure to whom you're referring by "you". The "you" in your first statement can't be the same as in the next two statements, because I haven't been arguing anything. I've supported both sides in this argument, because I believe there's some flexibility on this point, given the contradictions in the suttras. Somehow I'd gotten the impression that it was you who was doing the bulk of the arguing here. Maybe the "you" in statements 2 and 3 should be changed to "we"? :nyah:
This thing about lusty people going off to beach parties is interesting. One Western former monk wrote in a book about how he confessed to his lama that he had visited the "flower houses" in Beijing on a recent trip (the monastery where they lived was somewhere in old Tibet), and the lama said, "So, what of it? I did when I was your age." And he told the monk to experience life to the fullest while he was young, as he would lose interest in time, anyway. He also commented that the student was focussing on breaking his vow of celibacy due to Christian upbringing that caused him to feel that this was the worst transgression, when in fact the vows all have equal weight, and he had probably broken others at some point as well. Interesting conversation, interesting advice. Victorious seems to be doing just fine. Leave him be.
Agreed. I just threw that quote out as a sort of olive branch. (Fat lot of good it did...*sigh* eyeroll) I think everyone should respect everyone else's choices on rebirth belief, since there seems to be much conflicting material in the suttras. Besides, isn't tolerance one thing Buddhism is supposed to be about? There doesn't seem to be any way to prove right view or wrong view on this question, so why not just relax and enjoy each other's company?
LOL! Yea... true that! I was all good with that until DD straight up starting to call the Buddhism of rebirth belief delusional. As if we didn't recognize that it was merely a relative truth. But DD has no training in the two truths of Nagarjuna, so his mind can't relate to this language at all. He doesn't understand the implications, the meaning of relative versus ultimate truths. Of course, even these two truths are relative, LOL!! So, it's just a matter of speech.
Well, also...didn't the Buddha outline to some extent the workings of karma from one lifetime to the next? If he didn't believe in rebirth, he wouldn't have done that. I'm coming to the conclusion that he taught different things to different people, and that's why there are contradictions in the suttras. So there's a choice with rebirth/karma, as to what to believe. Or one can remain agnostic on the point, as Stephen Batchelor does. And those who have had past life memory experiences can feel that much more assured that there is rebirth.
Well, also...didn't the Buddha outline to some extent the workings of karma from one lifetime to the next? If he didn't believe in rebirth, he wouldn't have done that. I'm coming to the conclusion that he taught different things to different people, and that's why there are contradictions in the suttras. So there's a choice with rebirth/karma, as to what to believe. Or one can remain agnostic on the point, as Stephen Batchelor does. And those who have had past life memory experiences can feel that much more assured that there is rebirth.
I agree, until one has the assurance based upon past life re-experiencing, agnosticism concerning the concept is in my opinion the most open choice to make. Self assuredness or clinging to the idea of no-rebirth with absolute certainty without any direct experience surrounding the idea for me seems to be arising from a clinging to "self" rather than the opposite, as our self is made up of our beliefs and ideas.
He thinks that if one is enlightened, there is no rebirth, because conditions have been made empty, but that's not our interpretation of emptiness as dependent origination never stops, one just stops becoming it. Things are already empty, but conditions keep rolling, enlightenment is merely a matter of awareness, seeing emptiness directly de-conditions the mind from craving, even as conditions with a beginningless regress of information to keep rolling from, flow on. Manifestation happens with or without our awareness of it's emptiness.
With awareness of emptiness/dependent origination we have a deeper tendency for acting out of inter-connection instead of selfishness, thereby revealing the powers of perception of a Buddha being free from self involvement and subjective thinking, and the virtue of a Buddha shines through. As a Buddha acts out of the constant revelation of the relevance of all activity for everything and everyone and is not knotted up by a sense of lack and craving for self fulfillment as a Buddha acts out of the state of fulfillment.
Recognizing the emptiness of all arisings, even thoughts, we don't become them, thus the concept of "unbecoming" in Buddhism. Things still arise, as always, but we don't become them, we don't attach identity to them. It's not that occurrences cease and a Buddha simply ceases to exist after the death of the body, but rather that the Buddha is not identified with any occurrence anymore, they are self liberated in all circumstances, but there is no such thing as non-existence. We never cease to exist, the cosmos never ceases to cycle, we just experience enlightenment in and through it instead of bondage. We exist as a Buddha In it, but not of it, through it, but not identified with it, we don't become it.
Very interesting, Vajraheart. I agree, that past-life experience gives one a sense of assuredness, but I asked Jason about this on another thread (see: Dissing Buddhism), and he said that we can't ever 100% be sure of our experiences, our perceptions during our experiences. That's not going to change my mind, but I thought it was interesting. He did say that after analyzing the experience and testing it, then we can believe. At any rate, I'm satisfied with the way I went about confirming the validity of my past life memory experience. I see you are with yours, too.
I've edited my post since you last read it, and I recommend re-reading it as I've added clarification and points of what I think to be deep relevance to this conversation.
I do agree, that a healthy sense of doubt is good until doubt has no footing left to stand on, or doubt realizes it's self emptiness fully... it's good to use it as a tool for practice and self investigation. It keeps one humble.
Reading it, a couple of points immediately come to mind. The first is that a belief in postmortem rebirth needn't be faith-based (which, incidentally, holds true for belief in God): it can arise out of personal experiences, such as from the occurrence of past-life memories; it can arise out of anecdotal evidence (e.g., the research of Ian Stevenson); it can arise out of reason (i.e., the concept of rebirth isn't illogical, it simply relies on premises that strict materialists reject); etc.
I don't intent to turn this into /another/ rebirth thread, I just had a question, and a thank-you to Jason for weighing in on this. I've found that when I bring up these points, they are dismissed. One member on the current rebirth thread actually came up with quotes from the Pali Canon stating that when ordinary people have past-life recall experiences, the Buddha declared those mere "mental formations" and therefore illusion, while the BUddha's recall of his past lives are valid experiences. This makes me feel like giving up, but it also doesn't seem to make sense; why would the Buddha urge students to trust their experiences, and they say experiences (or the memory of them) are mere "mental formations" not to be trusted? (Have you checked out that thread? This all comes up in the middle, around pg. 6 or 7)
well... that may be because the recollection of past lives can be mere mental formations, one has to be careful. however, there's enough support for actual rebirth in the sutras.
well... that may be because the recollection of past lives can be mere mental formations, one has to be careful. however, there's enough support for actual rebirth in the sutras.
I agree, which is why the experience is initially more like a re-experiencing, like time travel. It's not a mental conjuring like a regular memory, as past life memories exist on a deeper level, so the initial re-experiencing of a past life is going to be on a lot deeper level than those memories consisting of this life. Though once that time travel happens, those memories do come to the level of brain that the memories of this life exist on.
Is that clear? I don't know if I said that clear enough? I'm sure plenty of you already understand that.
I agree, until one has the assurance based upon past life re-experiencing, agnosticism concerning the concept is in my opinion the most open choice to make. Self assuredness or clinging to the idea of no-rebirth with absolute certainty without any direct experience surrounding the idea for me seems to be arising from a clinging to "self" rather than the opposite, as our self is made up of our beliefs and ideas.
There is also the rationalist perspective, which strictly speaking is agnostic, but ends up assigning a very low probability to scenarios for which there is no verifiable evidence, on the basis the observation that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine." If you accept this observation, then in any context where you can't possibly verify what's going on (true ipso facto for occult postmortem experiences) you are obliged to assign approximately equal probability to a literally unimaginably large set of possible explanations. Said probabilities are therefore unimaginably low.
A shorter way to say this is "don't talk about what you don't know about," and frankly, we don't know a thing about postmortem experience. Recollections of apparent personal postmortem experience are unverifiable, contradictory (where do the "white light" experiences fit in with the Buddhist cosmology?) and admit of highly plausible explanations which have nothing to do with postmortem events. The same goes for scriptural assertions of postmortem events.
If I cared enough to take a position rejecting postmortem rebirth outright, this would be my line of reasoning. It is quite a categorical rejection, but not at all arrogant. It starts and ends in a position of almost complete agnosticism, after all.
A shorter way to say this is "don't talk about what you don't know about," and frankly, we don't know a thing about postmortem experience. Recollections of apparent personal postmortem experience are unverifiable, contradictory (where do the "white light" experiences fit in with the Buddhist cosmology?) and admit of highly plausible explanations which have nothing to do with postmortem events. The same goes for scriptural assertions of postmortem events.
If I cared enough to take a position rejecting postmortem rebirth outright, this would be my line of reasoning. It is quite a categorical rejection, but not at all arrogant. It starts and ends in a position of almost complete agnosticism, after all.
The white light experience is a vision of the purer aspect water, which is explained through Vajrayana.
We are 75 percent water, so this is the general color that is seen through deeper states of meditation and contemplation but ascribed different meanings according to the path or view you come from. When I had exzima my lama told me I had to focus on the water element and purify that in my body and during showers by focusing on the white light and repeating the mantra or sound form of that elements it will get purified and the rash would go away. It worked within a very short period of time, went away in a week when I had that problem for many years while practicing Hindu Tantra which assigns a different meaning to the white light experience. So for me, this makes valid that view of water and the white light experience within Vajrayana experiential explanation.
Other traditions assign a different designation of the same experience but don't seem to to have the same level of insight. So the proof is in the pudding.
If you are agnostic about the experience of rebirth and it's reality, then you are more open and don't assign a definitive opinion and don't mis-translate texts surrounding this assumption.
Being agnostic means you are open to the possibility of being wrong as well as right, but not definite.
If there is no rebirth, means life would finish after your death, right? (assuming no heaven etc) So what then would die? A self.
But there is no self! I hope it is clear to everybody that that was a clear teaching by the Buddha and his students. With all respect, trying to find quotes to oppose this is shear ignorance.
So.. there must be rebirth. (except for enlightened ones)
So saying there is no rebirth undermines the entire Buddhist teachings. Saying there is no-rebirth implies no-self will mean nothing, saying that and enlightenment will mean nothing. Insights will mean nothing. Impermanence will mean nothing. Emptiness will mean nothing. From A to Z, all suttas will be misinterpreted.
Again, just speaking in general here, nothing personal: With all respect to everybody, really. Drop the clinging onto the no-rebirth view and see how much more sense it makes. Really, I hope you will. Even if it is just a little bit. As I've said before, if you don't believe it, fine, but allow at least some doubt.
If there is no rebirth, means life would finish after your death, right? (assuming no heaven etc) So what then would die? A self.
No. I am not my body. I am not my life. I am not the observer. Those are all contingent phenomena, subject to decay and dissatisfaction.
With all respect to everybody, really. Drop the clinging onto the no-rebirth view and see how much more sense it makes.
It appears that you don't understand the position we've been debating. Moment-to-moment rebirth is essential to understanding dukkha. It is the postmortem variety which is under question here. It's a critical distinction, because no one here is denying the moment-to-moment variety, as far as I can tell. (If you don't know what I mean by moment-to-moment rebirth, see the paragraph here just after the subtitle "Commentary: Emptying the Six Realms.")
Comments
To me one of the key points is the Kalamasutta, it clearly points out that belief in gods and rebirth is a worldly TRUTH. What most rebirth atheists do wrong (not suggesting that you are or you do) is that they are slaves under occhams razor and can not fathom that there can be more than one truth at a time. Very modern Western by the way if you ask me.
That is by the way one of the suttas where I do not agree with DD about its translation. So if you would like I would suggest grabbing a pen and pencil. Find a good pali version and a good dictionary and translate it and see for yourself. And I do not like BB:s translation either. Just like DD he missed a pretty important distinction if I remember correctly. Yes I realised that on my way to work this morning. Of course you do not do anything more than what I do myself by selecting from the wast material of the Pali cannon what I choose to believe. There are some suttas that I simply disregard because they do not seem relevant to me in my practise and some that I disregard because they seem a bit fishy like the cosmological ones depicting God to be a deluded and somewhat pathetic.
Kr
Victor
However, what the Buddha has been reported to have said or not said isn't going to change my view of my own past life recall.
The key you are missing (and its easy to miss) is that both those experiences are as valid or as unvalid as every other sense impression you can think of (the mind is also a sense in buddhist thinking).
Think about it this way. What Buddhism teaches is that no mental formation is more worth than any other. Not that they are worthless.
Questions?
This bit:
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."
That is the ATI translation. I do not remember how DD translated it but its all in the other thread- You know the one I mean.
My own humble translation is this:
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the OTHER after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."
Well of course everything comes down not to translation but interpretation. I of course interpret the next world to be the next life and the Other world to be Heaven. I backed it up in the dictionary of the Pali text society so my interpretation is not entirely fabricated.
Sounds a bit like he's opening the door to those who feel belief in rebirth isn't required for buddhist practice.
In Buddhism the value of truth is solely related to that concept and there is no system/filosofy/religion/science from which you can dispute the absoluteness of that concept.
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Suttas/Samkhitta/samkhitta.html
In fact, what you are referring to isn't even a door.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is not even a factor of the path.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised what you are arguing about is merely a tool for morality, so lusty folks like Victorious don't go off to beach parties.
:nyah:
I quoted above the Buddha said things that lead to passion, to bondage, to accumulation can be regarded as not the Dhamma, not the Vinaya & not the Teacher’s instruction.
MN 117 states directly the mundane right view about rebirth sides with morality but leads to passion, bondage & accumulation.
:coffee:
Post after post and your mind still does not get it.
The Buddha regarded an kind of self-view as delusional.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised the mundane right view about rebirth is delusional, given it sides with the asava (effluents) & the acquisitions of becoming.
Becoming = delusion
Your arguement has no basis according to the Buddha.
My view is your mind is struggling to acknowledge your post after post about your "personal" experiences are delusion after delusion.
Yes I know that is sides with attachment and all that but all the same right view is right view.
:thumbsup:
Can you really not se your blinde spot in this or are you just playing?
Of course the Heart Sutra perspective is about freeing one from any sort of clinging to these, even while they occur.
DD seems to think emptiness comes about through insight, but mind and it's manifestations are already empty, just generally clung to as not as this is the dynamic possibility of consciousness, to cling or not to cling is really what it's about not that things are or are not empty. Everything has already been empty, things aren't made empty through awareness.
I think this is where DD just doesn't understand the Buddhas teaching on dependent origination.
But how would you know things are empty if you are not aware of them? How can a thing be on its own without observation? Yes but I get you. Set aside the methaphysical debate and I think we agree. Have you read the supposed DO teachings of a Buddha Dhasa? Otherwise you are in for a treat if you find the resources. Now mind you I will say nothing ill of a person I have not met but those TEXTS I have been recommended on this forum are a mess written by somebody two floors short of a one floor building. But thats IMO of course.
Cheers
Even in the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta, he presents two forms of Right Views: a "fettered/polluted Right View" which is based on rules about ontological beliefs, and "transcendent Right View," described as "The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening etc." (from Access to Insight.) Note that is the transcendent one which is described as "a factor of the path," not the fettered/polluted one. Which is not to say that the former Right View is ontologically wrong, only that it is not represented, in this sutra, as essential.
I'll be back, good night.
A biography about him, for anyone who wants to assess his sanity and grasp on reality on the basis of a little more information. (First part of three. Later parts linked from that page.)
I've heard of him, and I like some of the stuff I've read of him, though his whole take on other religions is obviously Buddhist, as Buddhism as well doesn't inherently exist, but Buddhists know this. LOL!!
So for him to say all religions are one, is really just from the emptiness perspective of things. Other religions generally don't lead to that view though.
..
He thinks that if one is enlightened, there is no rebirth, because conditions have been made empty, but that's not our interpretation of emptiness as dependent origination never stops, one just stops becoming it. Things are already empty, but conditions keep rolling, enlightenment is merely a matter of awareness, seeing emptiness directly de-conditions the mind from craving, even as conditions with a beginningless regress of information to keep rolling from, flow on. Manifestation happens with or without our awareness of it's emptiness.
With awareness of emptiness/dependent origination we have a deeper tendency for acting out of inter-connection instead of selfishness, thereby revealing the powers of perception of a Buddha being free from self involvement and subjective thinking, and the virtue of a Buddha shines through. As a Buddha acts out of the constant revelation of the relevance of all activity for everything and everyone and is not knotted up by a sense of lack and craving for self fulfillment as a Buddha acts out of the state of fulfillment.
Recognizing the emptiness of all arisings, even thoughts, we don't become them, thus the concept of "unbecoming" in Buddhism. Things still arise, as always, but we don't become them, we don't attach identity to them. It's not that occurrences cease and a Buddha simply ceases to exist after the death of the body, but rather that the Buddha is not identified with any occurrence anymore, they are self liberated in all circumstances, but there is no such thing as non-existence. We never cease to exist, the cosmos never ceases to cycle, we just experience enlightenment in and through it instead of bondage. We exist as a Buddha In it, but not of it, through it, but not identified with it, we don't become it.
I've edited my post since you last read it, and I recommend re-reading it as I've added clarification and points of what I think to be deep relevance to this conversation.
I do agree, that a healthy sense of doubt is good until doubt has no footing left to stand on, or doubt realizes it's self emptiness fully... it's good to use it as a tool for practice and self investigation. It keeps one humble.
however, there's enough support for actual rebirth in the sutras.
Is that clear? I don't know if I said that clear enough? I'm sure plenty of you already understand that.
A shorter way to say this is "don't talk about what you don't know about," and frankly, we don't know a thing about postmortem experience. Recollections of apparent personal postmortem experience are unverifiable, contradictory (where do the "white light" experiences fit in with the Buddhist cosmology?) and admit of highly plausible explanations which have nothing to do with postmortem events. The same goes for scriptural assertions of postmortem events.
If I cared enough to take a position rejecting postmortem rebirth outright, this would be my line of reasoning. It is quite a categorical rejection, but not at all arrogant. It starts and ends in a position of almost complete agnosticism, after all.
We are 75 percent water, so this is the general color that is seen through deeper states of meditation and contemplation but ascribed different meanings according to the path or view you come from. When I had exzima my lama told me I had to focus on the water element and purify that in my body and during showers by focusing on the white light and repeating the mantra or sound form of that elements it will get purified and the rash would go away. It worked within a very short period of time, went away in a week when I had that problem for many years while practicing Hindu Tantra which assigns a different meaning to the white light experience. So for me, this makes valid that view of water and the white light experience within Vajrayana experiential explanation.
Other traditions assign a different designation of the same experience but don't seem to to have the same level of insight. So the proof is in the pudding.
If you are agnostic about the experience of rebirth and it's reality, then you are more open and don't assign a definitive opinion and don't mis-translate texts surrounding this assumption.
Being agnostic means you are open to the possibility of being wrong as well as right, but not definite.
But there is no self! I hope it is clear to everybody that that was a clear teaching by the Buddha and his students. With all respect, trying to find quotes to oppose this is shear ignorance.
So.. there must be rebirth.
Can you follow me?
Again, just speaking in general here, nothing personal: With all respect to everybody, really. Drop the clinging onto the no-rebirth view and see how much more sense it makes. Really, I hope you will.
Sabre :vimp:
P