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.
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.
Sabre :vimp:
I don't recall firmly taking either viewpoint in this thread (other than birth from moment to moment)because to do so would be speculative and irrelevant to my practice. Your statements are unfounded and muddled, Sabre. I highly recommend reading this teaching on anatta (not self) and rebirth by the well-known Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
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.
indeed, if the memories of past lives are similar to remembering something you forgot it is much more probable that they are legitimate.
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)
Can you follow me?
I am going to suppose you are actually being serious here...
The meaning of Anatta is not that there is no self first of all. Second of all you are mixing up the mundane and supramundane understanding of the self and if you do that you can arrive at almost any conclusion of the self be it right or wrong.
The Buddha said that saying there is a self is not correct but he also said that saying there is no self is also wrong!!!
The self is a illusion. How can you say a illusion exists or that it dont? Both are wrong view.
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.
Sabre :vimp:
Hm I think you are entirely right in this. Saying there is no rebirth is not rational nor logical. It can not be proved that someting like that does not exist.
But rebirth agnostics is not unrational nor unlogical.
You were Australian werent you if I am not mistaken and allowed to ask? So I guess its around noon for you?
I was in Australia until Saturday, taking care of my Mum. I came back to Ithaca, NY then, where it is currently 6:24 p.m. See you.
Mums are nice up to the point when they drive you up the wall. . Mines here for a visit from Stockholm to meet her grandchildren.
Think I said I would explain why I think the Right in Right view is not up for i discussion.
Well buckle up because its gonna be a loooong post.
First of all this is my understanding of Nibbana.
Think of two baskets beside each other. The one on the left is called Samsara and the other is called Nibbana. They are mutually exclusive. That means that if you put something in one of them then the same thing can not be placed in the other.
Now take all concepts you have in your mind and put them in the samsara basket. That is all formations you have experienced as well as all formations you can make up in your (wildest) fantasy. All the things that are subject to anicca, anatta and dukkha in short your entire perception of the world and yourself goes in the Samsara basket.
When you are done, think about the other basket and what is in there. The Nibbana basket.
Now to get a short intellectual glimps of Nibbana. Take the entire setup with two baskets and place it in the Samsarabasket.
Mind you this does in no way contradict what you said about Nibbana.
Any way can we agree that nibbana is an absolut in any system or filosofy? Or can you think of any contradiction to that statement? I can not. Even the concept of God is not that Absolute.
The Dhamma has only one purpose. It was Expounded (as they say) to enable people to reach nibbana. That is its only Goal.
In light of that can you see that the Right in Right view can only be understood in one way. Right view is the view that furthers you towards that absolute non argueable state nibbana. Therefore the meaning of Right is also unargueable. All else is per definition not Right view.
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.
By the way after thinking about it I am no longer sure what you mean by ontological. And Buddhism does not lead to knowleadge alone it leads to understanding which is better.
In light of that can you see that the Right in Right view can only be understood in one way. Right view is the view that furthers you towards that absolute non argueable state nibbana. Therefore the meaning of Right is also unargueable. All else is per definition not Right view.
You seem to be taking the same position as me, now: that the "Right" in "Right View" means "view appropriate to awakening." Hence, it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the "way the world actually is" (which is what I mean by "ontologically correct.") But this seems inconsistent with your earlier position. Could you clarify?
There are two Right Views given in the Maha-cattarisaka sutra: the one which (according to your translation) includes postmortem rebirth, referred to as "fettered/polluted Right View" and the one which makes no statement about "the way the world actually is." I'm sticking with the latter one, because I don't like pollution.
Incidentally, this distinction between "fettered/polluted Right X" and "transcendent Right X" reminds me a lot of the distinction Mencius draws between the "village good man" who consciously chooses good-seeming behavior for personal gain and the true man of virtue.
Buddhism does not lead to knowleadge alone it leads to understanding which is better.
Buddhist teaching might. Buddhist practice leads to the end of suffering. If you spend your time trying to understand or chase esoteric knowledges, you just get tied up in knots.
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.
Vajra
I already quoted the Pali texts for you on this matter. An enlightened being is not attached to manisfesting "self" in social or conventional interaction.
But this "self" is just a mental formation.
However, you are taking this mental formations to be a "real self", as in, "past lives".
I understand the Mahayana view of "self". The Dalai Lama is the perfect example.
Unlike many Theravadin monks, who project a public image of inward meditation, the Dalai Lama projects a public image like Krusty the Clown, in order to entertain the children.
This "Krusty the Clown" or "outward personality", what Hindus call "The Personality of the Godhead", is also emptiness.
I have no issues understanding the Mahayana view of "self" in relation to the Bodhisatva who creates an outer "Krusty the Clown" personality.
But I have grave concerns about your understanding of this.
Your mind has mental experiences, which are mere mental formations, and your regard these as "your personal past lives".
Your posts are saturated with personality views. Even the Dalai Lama, when playing the role of Krusty the Clown, does not claim to remember any past lives. The Dalai Lama (hopefully) understands Krusty the Clown is emptiness.
I heard from Lincoln that this thread has been "sunk." He told me that this is not a deliberately surreptitious decision, it's just not shown in the web interface because the interface is a work in progress. (Hence, I assume it's OK to announce the thread's status here.) The upshot is that this thread does not rise when people post to it, so it's about to fall off the front page, and then it'll be nobody here but us chickens.
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.
Indeed. But 'something' exists or you wouldn't be aware, now would you? Why would this something just disappear instantly after your death?
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.") I know moment to moment rebirth. That's obvious. But I'm talking about life-to-life rebirth. Because, what's the difference? Why would there be a moment-to-moment rebirth and that suddenly stops after death? Doesn't make sense.
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.
Sabre :vimp:
I don't recall firmly taking either viewpoint in this thread (other than birth from moment to moment)because to do so would be speculative and irrelevant to my practice. Your statements are unfounded and muddled, Sabre. I highly recommend reading this teaching on anatta (not self) and rebirth by the well-known Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
Again, dear Dazzle. Don't take it personal. I'm talking in general. I know you don't take any standpoint and that's great. A nice middle way. Keep the possibility open. Perfect!
Ajahn Buddhadasa has a good point. He doesn't want to call the process 'rebirth' because it implies someone or something is reborn. Of course, this is not true. BUT he doesn't pay attention to the fact that there is the process that one death is the cause of another birth (also notice that nowhere he disagrees with this, read carefully). This process is called rebirth usually. Buddhadasa doesn't want to call it like that. That's fine, it IS a bad name. This process, it doesn't have anything to do with the self, it is a pure natural process. YOU don't get reborn, obvious. Your inclinations are 'reborn' into another person.
That's why I said.. If there is no self, there are still the inclinations that make you believe there is a self. This inclination together with some others are destroyed during the process of enlightenment.
1. belief in an individual self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[7] 2. doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)[8] 3. attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)[9] 4. sensual desire (kāmacchando)[10] 5. ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)[11] 6. lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)[12] 7. lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)[13] 8. conceit (māno)[14][15] 9. restlessness (uddhaccaŋ)[16] 10. ignorance (avijjā)[17]
And indeed, debating about this endlessly is a waste of time actually. But it makes me a bit sad, people misinterpreting the entire teachings. They don't know what they're missing. Again: Not saying that is you. Just putting this on the web for all to read in the future when someone googles or something.
I know moment to moment rebirth. That's obvious. But I'm talking about life-to-life rebirth. Because, what's the difference? Why would there be a moment-to-moment rebirth and that suddenly stops after death? Doesn't make sense.
Well, our understandings of moment-to-moment rebirth differ. My understanding of rebirth concerns projection of a world-view and a self-concept onto the stream of experience, in order to shore up some grasping/aversive/ignorant reaction. That could certainly stop at death, for instance if the stream of experience stops at death.
(BTW, there is a formatting issue with your post. Some text where you intend to quote me looks like it comes from you.)
But rebirth agnostics is not unrational nor unlogical.
Its not unrational, no of course not. Again: I held this view too. Rebirth, it totally goes against all rationality. But is meditation rational? Is Buddhism about thinking things out? Obviously, it isn't. Or else the Buddha would have attained enlightenment sitting philosophizing behind a desk or something.
Agnosticism is good. That's keeping a bit of reasonable doubt to the subject. That's great.
I know moment to moment rebirth. That's obvious. But I'm talking about life-to-life rebirth. Because, what's the difference? Why would there be a moment-to-moment rebirth and that suddenly stops after death? Doesn't make sense.
Well, our understandings of moment-to-moment rebirth differ. My understanding of rebirth concerns projection of a world-view and a self-concept onto the stream of experience, in order to shore up some grasping/aversive/ignorant reaction. That could certainly stop at death, for instance if the stream of experience stops at death.
(BTW, there is a formatting issue with your post. Some text where you intend to quote me looks like it comes from you.)
Why would everything stop at death? I know it makes sense rationally, but there's things logic just can't grasp and only through insight can you actually see things as they are.
i didn't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if i'm repeating something that someone else has asked or written. i just started to pracktise the buddhist teachings and it has realy helped me a lot, but my problem is that i was previously an atheist and everything i beleved in was based on sience and provable facts wich is giving me a reely hard time acsepting the consept of rebirth.. so my questions are. is there a way that i can change that about myself ? because even tho it seemes so far fetched to me i realy want to beleave in it. and also is this nessesary to call yourself a buddhist ?.
You can't force belief, and so anything/one that states you must believe in rebirth or not believe in rebirth, in order to become enlightened is foolish. People naturally have differing views on life, leading to beliefs of all colors, and these are not changed unless the mind itself changes.
Focus on the fact that life is transient and ownerless (not-self, interdependently connected), and that the mind not seeing all things clearly as such is bound to suffer. Belief and disbelief in rebirth is also transient, ownerless; brought about by conditions, and only changing conditions lead to a change in view.
Why would everything stop at death? I know it makes sense rationally, but there's things logic just can't grasp and only through insight can you actually see things as they are.
It's fine if you think things continue past death. My only point is that there is a consistent, useful interpretation of Buddhist teachings which does not involve the notion of postmortem rebirth.
hehe fivebells: thanks for pointing that out.. but if i think about it i'm guesing that it might have something to do with old habits of labeling things. but i gues what i ment was.. can i be enlightened eventho i don't beleave in reincarnation.
You can't force belief, and so anything/one that states you must believe in rebirth or not believe in rebirth, in order to become enlightened is foolish. People naturally have differing views on life, leading to beliefs of all colors, and these are not changed unless the mind itself changes.
Focus on the fact that life is transient and ownerless (not-self, interdependently connected), and that the mind not seeing all things clearly as such is bound to suffer. Belief and disbelief in rebirth is also transient, ownerless; brought about by conditions, and only changing conditions lead to a change in view.
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.
Vajra
I already quoted the Pali texts for you on this matter. An enlightened being is not attached to manisfesting "self" in social or conventional interaction.
But this "self" is just a mental formation.
However, you are taking this mental formations to be a "real self", as in, "past lives".
I understand the Mahayana view of "self". The Dalai Lama is the perfect example.
Unlike many Theravadin monks, who project a public image of inward meditation, the Dalai Lama projects a public image like Krusty the Clown, in order to entertain the children.
This "Krusty the Clown" or "outward personality", what Hindus call "The Personality of the Godhead", is also emptiness.
I have no issues understanding the Mahayana view of "self" in relation to the Bodhisatva who creates an outer "Krusty the Clown" personality.
But I have grave concerns about your understanding of this.
Your mind has mental experiences, which are mere mental formations, and your regard these as "your personal past lives".
Your posts are saturated with personality views. Even the Dalai Lama, when playing the role of Krusty the Clown, does not claim to remember any past lives. The Dalai Lama (hopefully) understands Krusty the Clown is emptiness.
All the best
:-/
Yes, the Dalai Lama does remember past lives and has said so in various readings and at other times he's denied, from different points of view, because in explanation there are the two truths, both ultimate and relative.
You still have not understood a single thing I've said and I doubt you understand the Buddha, there is no point in arguing with you as you misconstrue everything I say...
So be it... get on with your path, and evolve.
From the perspective of emptiness, there is no birth, no death but from the perspective of dependent origination, there is no end to manifestation including the endless selves that we see everyday that are ultimately empty but relatively real and always will be relatively real, from formless to form realms... all empty of inherent existence.
You really don't understand Mahayana, but Mahayana understands Theravada.
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.
Vajra
I already quoted the Pali texts for you on this matter. An enlightened being is not attached to manisfesting "self" in social or conventional interaction.
Which is why the bodhisattva path is necessary as when you are fully enlightened, you've already created the conditions for endless rebirth as an aid to all beings, even after attaining freedom from these conditions, they still, due to the effort as a Bodhisattva have the propulsion to continue endlessly as a free form of a saviour for beings that are ready to listen, as completely detached from either or.
There is no experiencer anymore, there is only the ongoing experiencing... the result of the Bodhisattva path, thus there is no non-existence. But, since there never has been to begin with, even arhats have to be awakened from their unconscious bliss sleep into the bodhisattva path, and the Buddha explains this in the Mahayana Sutras, which you obviously don't yet have the ability to read with awareness as of yet...
Sooo... though I don't find your version of Theravada very deep, may you evolve in and through it and realize exactly how deep the cosmos is.
i didn't read all the posts in this thread so forgive me if i'm repeating something that someone else has asked or written. i just started to pracktise the buddhist teachings and it has realy helped me a lot, but my problem is that i was previously an atheist and everything i beleved in was based on sience and provable facts wich is giving me a reely hard time acsepting the consept of rebirth.. so my questions are. is there a way that i can change that about myself ? because even tho it seemes so far fetched to me i realy want to beleave in it. and also is this nessesary to call yourself a buddhist ?.
Hi Blackmoth,
No, it is not necessary to start learning Buddhism. I don't see anybody claiming that. Some believe in it, some don't, fine. We debate about it. And allthough my posts might come across that you must believe it, that is totally not what I want to say. I just think it is wise to keep some doubt about both views, rebirth or no-rebirth. And leave the question be for the time, just like Dazzle suggests.
Those kind of questions can wait. In the meantime, you might want to read some work by Ian Stevenson if you are interested. It's a scientific approach to rebirth.
Why would everything stop at death? I know it makes sense rationally, but there's things logic just can't grasp and only through insight can you actually see things as they are.
It's fine if you think things continue past death. My only point is that there is a consistent, useful interpretation of Buddhist teachings which does not involve the notion of postmortem rebirth.
Ok. For me the entire teachings would fall apart, but it's ok.
Those kind of questions can wait. In the meantime, you might want to read some work by Ian Stevenson if you are interested. It's a scientific approach to rebirth.
At this point, any resemblance between Stevenson's work and scientific inquiry is at best coincidental.
I think that anyone interested in his claims from a scientific perspective has a responsibility to give serious consideration to critical reviews of his work. Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination seems pretty good, in particular Chapter 16, "More about Dr. Ian Stevenson, the 'Galileo of Reincarnation.'"
I'm not saying here that reincarnation (or postmortem rebirth, etc.) doesn't happen, only that Stevenson's laborious curation of reincarnation anecdotes doesn't constitute convincing evidence for the notion.
Its not unrational, no of course not. Again: I held this view too. Rebirth, it totally goes against all rationality. But is meditation rational?
Yes. Totally. No bhavana that I do that is not. What kind of Bhavana do you do?
Is Buddhism about thinking things out? Obviously, it isn't.
Some part of it is thinking things out. How else can you practise? There is no contradiction or irrationality in Buddhism it all makes perfect sense.
Or else the Buddha would have attained enlightenment sitting philosophizing behind a desk or something.
The path is different for different people. Remember some people attained Aryan distinctions simply by listening to the Teaching. Do not belittle Right Understanding.
Agnosticism is good. That's keeping a bit of reasonable doubt to the subject. That's great.
The suttas expressivley statethat knowleadge of past lives and jhana is NOT neccessary for attaining Nibbana.
The self is a illusion. How can you say a illusion exists or that it dont?
By following the 8-fold path.
Sabre please I am saying this for your benifit. If you really believe this then point me to the place in the scriptures or the person who has told you this and I will take out my cane and put those scriptures or person over my knee. I swear I will.
Believing that there is no self is clearly defined as Wrong View in the suttas... As in NOT Right View.
I remember my past lives. I was an entirely different person at many times in my life (that which is remembered, not owned), seeing the world differently, thinking differently of who and what I was, acting and speaking differently. These were different people, all with the same name. They weren't me, how silly that I was clinging.
You seem to be taking the same position as me, now: that the "Right" in "Right View" means "view appropriate to awakening." Hence, it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the "way the world actually is" (which is what I mean by "ontologically correct.") But this seems inconsistent with your earlier position. Could you clarify?
This is a bit confusing probably I just do not understand the word ontological as you do (or the rest of the world . For me the understanding of nibbana IS how the world actually is. All else is illusion. I mean in the supramundane way.
There are two Right Views given in the Maha-cattarisaka sutra: the one which (according to your translation) includes postmortem rebirth, referred to as "fettered/polluted Right View" and the one which makes no statement about "the way the world actually is." I'm sticking with the latter one, because I don't like pollution.
Probably the best choice for you. But for me, if practise requires it or not I still think that Nibbana, Karma and DO should be understood in light of both moment to moment arising of conciousness and rebirth.
Incidentally, this distinction between "fettered/polluted Right X" and "transcendent Right X" reminds me a lot of the distinction Mencius draws between the "village good man" who consciously chooses good-seeming behavior for personal gain and the true man of virtue.
I dont know... the first thing that came to mind was the distinction between a normal person and a Sotapanna. Maybe we mean the same thing?
Buddhism does not lead to knowleadge alone it leads to understanding which is better.
Buddhist teaching might. Buddhist practice leads to the end of suffering. If you spend your time trying to understand or chase esoteric knowledges, you just get tied up in knots.
I do not undrestan your division between practise and understanding. Could you explain please? The path is for me tha balancing and development of all eight of the "Rights". So I find it hard to seperate Understanding from Effort...
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.
Sabre :vimp:
I don't recall firmly taking either viewpoint in this thread (other than birth from moment to moment)because to do so would be speculative and irrelevant to my practice. Your statements are unfounded and muddled, Sabre. I highly recommend reading this teaching on anatta (not self) and rebirth by the well-known Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
I would on the other hand recommend you read the suttas directly and make up your own mind about what has been preserved of the Buddhas teaching instead of reading somebody elses interpretation of them...
I would on the other hand recommend you read the suttas directly and make up your own mind about what has been preserved of the Buddhas teaching instead of reading somebody elses interpretation of them...
Good advice. And when reading suttas keep an open mind instead of rejecting the bits you don't like, including all the references to rebirth, other realms, etc etc.
There is no I to be reborn, it's an idea which sounds clever but is just plain wrong. ;-)
At least in the moment-to-moment version, "rebirth" refers to the experience of switching to a different projected world-view, while imagining that some kind of persistent identity is preserved across the switch. So, no, there is no "I," but there is an attachment to the concept of one.
There is no I to be reborn, it's an idea which sounds clever but is just plain wrong. ;-)
At least in the moment-to-moment version, "rebirth" refers to the experience of switching to a different projected world-view, while imagining that some kind of persistent identity is preserved across the switch. So, no, there is no "I," but there is an attachment to the concept of one.
I still don't think this idea makes much sense and I don't think it ties in with actual experience too well either. It might make sense to talk about a process of "becoming".
Makes sense. What is reborn are unhealthy mental attachments and cravings, including the sense of self that is a separate being. These are the fires that burn us up, and the ones that go out when we become unbound and cool.
Its not unrational, no of course not. Again: I held this view too. Rebirth, it totally goes against all rationality. But is meditation rational?
Yes. Totally. No bhavana that I do that is not. What kind of Bhavana do you do?
Is Buddhism about thinking things out? Obviously, it isn't.
Some part of it is thinking things out. How else can you practise? There is no contradiction or irrationality in Buddhism it all makes perfect sense.
Or else the Buddha would have attained enlightenment sitting philosophizing behind a desk or something.
The path is different for different people. Remember some people attained Aryan distinctions simply by listening to the Teaching. Do not belittle Right Understanding.
Agnosticism is good. That's keeping a bit of reasonable doubt to the subject. That's great.
The suttas expressivley statethat knowleadge of past lives and jhana is NOT neccessary for attaining Nibbana.
Br Victor
You are right totally indeed, right knowledge is a very very good tool. But those that get enlightened just by listening is something that probably won't happen these days, because the Buddha is gone and I'm sure he directed his teachings in such a personal way that people just understood. He just saw their barriers. I don't think there is anyone alive who can do this nowadays especially with all the disbelieve and reasoning going on inside many people's heads.
There are many philosofers who kept thinking and thinking, but never reached enlightenment because they just wouldn't meditate (or didn't know how). Sometimes you just need a break especially things like rebirth are almost impossible to grasp through reason.
I also agree that past life experiences and jhana are not necessary. But then still you can know rebirth occurs without actually remembering past lives.
Well, so we agree Just wanted to point out some things a bit.
@Sabre, I think if someone had a 1-on-1 relationship with a master/teacher/guru, that would be beneficial. All the guru would have to do is keep asking the student questions that the student can't answer! This would keep the student's mind working toward unraveling its preconceptions. Very Zen, actually.
Your statements are unfounded and muddled, Sabre. I highly recommend reading this teaching on anatta (not self) and rebirth by the well-known Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
I think the jury is still out on whether this Ajahn's views are consistent with the suttas. ;-)
Is rebirth a bad thing? I think I read somewhere that Buddhists want to limit their rebirths, but I haven't looked too much into this. I'm new to this whole Buddhism thing, and I'm just soaking in everything at this stage Kinda off topic, but i guess in china it's illegal to be reincarnated without legal permission. WTF lol
Whether it's true or false, in either case, does not change the cause of suffering and the way to end suffering.
If you cling to existence (including clinging to the idea of being reborn), this is an attachment and will cause suffering.
If you cling to non-existence (including clinging to the idea that nothing is reborn), this is an attachment and will cause suffering.
So what do you do? Right there is where you'll find the truth. It's no coincidence at all that the Buddha's teaching is called the Middle Path. Stop reaching.
Comments
Your statements are unfounded and muddled, Sabre. I highly recommend reading this teaching on anatta (not self) and rebirth by the well-known Thai teacher Ajahn Buddhadasa.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books7/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
The meaning of Anatta is not that there is no self first of all. Second of all you are mixing up the mundane and supramundane understanding of the self and if you do that you can arrive at almost any conclusion of the self be it right or wrong.
The Buddha said that saying there is a self is not correct but he also said that saying there is no self is also wrong!!!
The self is a illusion. How can you say a illusion exists or that it dont? Both are wrong view.
kindly
Victor
But rebirth agnostics is not unrational nor unlogical.
Think I said I would explain why I think the Right in Right view is not up for i discussion.
Well buckle up because its gonna be a loooong post.
First of all this is my understanding of Nibbana.
Think of two baskets beside each other. The one on the left is called Samsara and the other is called Nibbana. They are mutually exclusive. That means that if you put something in one of them then the same thing can not be
placed in the other.
Now take all concepts you have in your mind and put them in the samsara basket. That is all formations you have experienced as well as all formations you can make up in your (wildest) fantasy. All the things that are subject to anicca, anatta and dukkha in short your entire perception of the world and yourself
goes in the Samsara basket.
When you are done, think about the other basket and what is in there. The Nibbana basket.
Now to get a short intellectual glimps of Nibbana. Take the entire setup with two baskets and place it in the Samsarabasket.
Mind you this does in no way contradict what you said about Nibbana.
Any way can we agree that nibbana is an absolut in any system or filosofy? Or can you think of any contradiction to that statement? I can not. Even the concept of God is not that Absolute.
The Dhamma has only one purpose. It was Expounded (as they say) to enable people to reach nibbana. That is its only Goal.
In light of that can you see that the Right in Right view can only be understood in one way. Right view is the view that furthers you towards that absolute non argueable state nibbana. Therefore the meaning of Right is also unargueable. All else is per definition not Right view.
Simple as pie.
There are two Right Views given in the Maha-cattarisaka sutra: the one which (according to your translation) includes postmortem rebirth, referred to as "fettered/polluted Right View" and the one which makes no statement about "the way the world actually is." I'm sticking with the latter one, because I don't like pollution.
Incidentally, this distinction between "fettered/polluted Right X" and "transcendent Right X" reminds me a lot of the distinction Mencius draws between the "village good man" who consciously chooses good-seeming behavior for personal gain and the true man of virtue. Buddhist teaching might. Buddhist practice leads to the end of suffering. If you spend your time trying to understand or chase esoteric knowledges, you just get tied up in knots.
I already quoted the Pali texts for you on this matter. An enlightened being is not attached to manisfesting "self" in social or conventional interaction.
But this "self" is just a mental formation.
However, you are taking this mental formations to be a "real self", as in, "past lives".
I understand the Mahayana view of "self". The Dalai Lama is the perfect example.
Unlike many Theravadin monks, who project a public image of inward meditation, the Dalai Lama projects a public image like Krusty the Clown, in order to entertain the children.
This "Krusty the Clown" or "outward personality", what Hindus call "The Personality of the Godhead", is also emptiness.
I have no issues understanding the Mahayana view of "self" in relation to the Bodhisatva who creates an outer "Krusty the Clown" personality.
But I have grave concerns about your understanding of this.
Your mind has mental experiences, which are mere mental formations, and your regard these as "your personal past lives".
Your posts are saturated with personality views. Even the Dalai Lama, when playing the role of Krusty the Clown, does not claim to remember any past lives. The Dalai Lama (hopefully) understands Krusty the Clown is emptiness.
All the best
:-/
:sawed:
I know moment to moment rebirth. That's obvious. But I'm talking about life-to-life rebirth. Because, what's the difference?
Ajahn Buddhadasa has a good point. He doesn't want to call the process 'rebirth' because it implies someone or something is reborn. Of course, this is not true. BUT he doesn't pay attention to the fact that there is the process that one death is the cause of another birth (also notice that nowhere he disagrees with this, read carefully). This process is called rebirth usually. Buddhadasa doesn't want to call it like that. That's fine, it IS a bad name. This process, it doesn't have anything to do with the self, it is a pure natural process. YOU don't get reborn, obvious. Your inclinations are 'reborn' into another person.
That's why I said.. If there is no self, there are still the inclinations that make you believe there is a self. This inclination together with some others are destroyed during the process of enlightenment.
1. belief in an individual self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)[7]
2. doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings (vicikicchā)[8]
3. attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāso)[9]
4. sensual desire (kāmacchando)[10]
5. ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)[11]
6. lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)[12]
7. lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)[13]
8. conceit (māno)[14][15]
9. restlessness (uddhaccaŋ)[16]
10. ignorance (avijjā)[17]
And indeed, debating about this endlessly is a waste of time actually. But it makes me a bit sad, people misinterpreting the entire teachings.
with metta,
Sabre :vimp:
(BTW, there is a formatting issue with your post. Some text where you intend to quote me looks like it comes from you.)
Agnosticism is good. That's keeping a bit of reasonable doubt to the subject. That's great.
I can't edit my post anymore, sorry
Focus on the fact that life is transient and ownerless (not-self, interdependently connected), and that the mind not seeing all things clearly as such is bound to suffer. Belief and disbelief in rebirth is also transient, ownerless; brought about by conditions, and only changing conditions lead to a change in view.
You still have not understood a single thing I've said and I doubt you understand the Buddha, there is no point in arguing with you as you misconstrue everything I say...
So be it... get on with your path, and evolve.
From the perspective of emptiness, there is no birth, no death but from the perspective of dependent origination, there is no end to manifestation including the endless selves that we see everyday that are ultimately empty but relatively real and always will be relatively real, from formless to form realms... all empty of inherent existence.
You really don't understand Mahayana, but Mahayana understands Theravada.
No, it is not necessary to start learning Buddhism. I don't see anybody claiming that.
Those kind of questions can wait. In the meantime, you might want to read some work by Ian Stevenson if you are interested. It's a scientific approach to rebirth.
I think that anyone interested in his claims from a scientific perspective has a responsibility to give serious consideration to critical reviews of his work. Edwards' book Reincarnation: A Critical Examination seems pretty good, in particular Chapter 16, "More about Dr. Ian Stevenson, the 'Galileo of Reincarnation.'"
I'm not saying here that reincarnation (or postmortem rebirth, etc.) doesn't happen, only that Stevenson's laborious curation of reincarnation anecdotes doesn't constitute convincing evidence for the notion.
P
Br
Victor
Believing that there is no self is clearly defined as
Wrong View in the suttas... As in NOT Right View.
Would you like a reference?
I do not undrestan your division between practise and understanding. Could you explain please?
The path is for me tha balancing and development of all eight of the "Rights". So I find it hard to seperate Understanding from Effort...
I would on the other hand recommend you read the suttas directly and make up your own mind about what has been preserved of the Buddhas teaching instead of reading somebody elses interpretation of them...
Br
Victor
P
P
I still don't think this idea makes much sense and I don't think it ties in with actual experience too well either. It might make sense to talk about a process of "becoming".
P
There are many philosofers who kept thinking and thinking, but never reached enlightenment because they just wouldn't meditate (or didn't know how). Sometimes you just need a break especially things like rebirth are almost impossible to grasp through reason.
I also agree that past life experiences and jhana are not necessary. But then still you can know rebirth occurs without actually remembering past lives.
Well, so we agree
I think the jury is still out on whether this Ajahn's views are consistent with the suttas. ;-)
P
If you cling to existence (including clinging to the idea of being reborn), this is an attachment and will cause suffering.
If you cling to non-existence (including clinging to the idea that nothing is reborn), this is an attachment and will cause suffering.
So what do you do? Right there is where you'll find the truth. It's no coincidence at all that the Buddha's teaching is called the Middle Path. Stop reaching.