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.
Ethics without Rebirth
Chrysalid
Veteran
I was just reading an essay on the writings of Stephen Batchelor when I came across this;
Would most people on this site agree with Punnadhammo on this?
Bhikkhu Punnadhammo regards rebirth as the crux of Buddhist ethics, and thus he feels that by discarding the doctrine of rebirth Batchelor is discarding the ethical basis of Buddhism. Obtaining a positive rebirth, and eventually ending the cycles of rebirth altogether, is what provides incentive to act ethically in this lifetime, says Punnadhammo.
Would most people on this site agree with Punnadhammo on this?
0
Comments
Metta to all sentient beings
Yes but how do you know what is ethical and what is not ?
It is because you have the knowledge and understanding of what actions bring no benefit or gain and are unethical and just lead to suffering. So I would agree with Punnadhammo, to some extent at least that if a Buddhist believes in rebirth and also karma then it has to have a large effect on that persons actions and overall behaviour. The precepts really hit this message home as they show the way to live an ethically right life which will lead to happiness in this life and future life's until enlightenment is eventually reached.
Metta to all sentient beings
It is my opinion that to consider future reward as the sole basis for good acts/good karma is bad karma in and of itself.
Good acts propagate and return to the self in this lifetime, irregardless of any future lives/reincarnations. Thus, consideration of the present life is the only necessary justification for good acts.
I agree with you, but do not believe there needs to be any rebirth, possibility of ending rebirths, a literal heaven/hell in the afterlife or any such future reward/lack of reward/punishment to behave ethically.
If that were the case atheists would all be child molesting axe murderers
Behaving ethically is the right thing to do and it also brings rewards in the present moment and life in terms of a clean conscience and the ability to be at peace with oneself and the world in general. That's a pretty huge reward all by itself.
I ask you what is the point in being a Buddhist ?
For me it is to at some point in time to reach enlightenment,
I believe it will occur after a lot of rebirths after the life force which gives me life in this body progresses far enough along the path to be able to achieve enlightenment. Thus in order to reach enlightenment I have to take into account future lifes and karma, simply because it is my karma and future life's which dictates when enlightenment will gained.
Thats what I believe anyway
Metta to all sentient beings
No, I'd say that rebirth is more like a carrot and stick (good rebirth = carrot, bad rebirth = stick). The underlying principles behind Buddhist ethics, however are kamma, the idea that certain action produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings/results, and ahimsa or harmlessness.
Essentially, Buddhist ethics revolves around seeing our desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures. If we don't respect that in them, how can we expect the same? This is especially true regarding human beings.
Here I agree with the Buddha that, besides some rare and special cases, there's no one that's as dear to us as ourselves, that all beings essentially want to be happy in their own way (according to their specific capacities), and that it's a fairly decent and logical reason to desire their happiness as well as our own (SN 3.8).
If our happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me, and one of the ways to break this circle is an ethical framework that takes the happiness of others into consideration.
While rebirth is certainly a source of motivation for ethical behaviour, and can easily fit into this framework, I don't see it as the basis since you can remove it from the equation and the framework itself still stands. At least that's how I see it, anyway.
What is wrong with that? It just might be reality.
Indeed, my main point was not to dispute the value of rebirth, but to point out that it is not necessary for rebirth to exist for good karma to be desirable and a way of life. One cannot coast through life solely on accumulated karma from past lives, but is instead affected daily by the karmic balance one builds in this lifetime.
I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of rebirth, it fits my neat little christian-raised-worldview in that rebirth is just the same as going to hell, but it is not necessary for rebirth to exist for me to want to accumulate good karma in this life. I have all the proof I need from personal experience that good acts come back to the self 10-fold, and in realtime, I do not need to wait to be reborn to see the results, they're right in front of me.
Which post are you referring to?
PS. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
kusalassa upsampada (do good)
Sacitta pariyo dapanam (purify mind)
Ethan Buddana Sasanam (this is the Teaching of all Buddas) !!!
Nothing wrong with it. In fact, I have combined rather large doses of existentialism with Buddhism and I really like how it works for me. But existentialism is not Buddhism, although I grant that you may be right about it being reality. I happen to like the strength of the idea of existential courage when I can't find a source of courage in Buddhism at that particular moment. And they have some important things in common. There's something about doing the right thing just because it's the right thing that appeals to me.
This discussion is a repeat of one that has been had here before, many many times.
Without rebirth it's not Buddhism, however admirable or desirable it may be.
Time to close this thread, Fed?
Of course you can remove it from the equation and still be ethical.
I believe in the dependent arising of all things and believe in rebirth and these beliefs do have an effect on my behaviour.
Of course people behave ethically right because they know it is the right way to live their life, but a person must have a reason to think it is the right way to behave, and the knowledge of inducing future happiness onto oneself contributes to that motivation to behave ethically right.
As one progresses on the path then this source of motivation will decrease and be replaced for true loving kindness and compassion for all beings above oneselfs interest, but If I am honest with myself, I don't think I have reached that far on my path. I hope this can be achieved in future life's by living my life as ethically right as I can to give the best possible chance of
been reborn in a life in which I can reach that stage of the path.
Metta to all sentient beings
No I don't agree with it. Rebirth is a morality teaching and its not necessary to either believe or disbelieve in it if we're fully present and practising in the here and now.
To quote Ajahn Sumedho of the Theravada Thai Forest Tradition:
"I quite like the idea of reincarnation, and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it, but it is speculative and it's conceptual."
(from The Sound of Silence)
Ajahn Sumedho also said recently at an offline teaching "What happens after death?
We all have our opinions, all the religions - but the fact is we don't really know"
.<O:p</O:p
Topics do tend to repeat on forums
Why would a thread be closed asking about ethics, Buddhism and rebirth? Isn't Stephen Bachelor a Buddhist teacher who is respected and endorsed even by those who disagree with him? Some say he is an heretic, others say he is a much needed reformer. Either way seems like a valid discussion for a 'No question is too basic here!' forum. It's somewhat shocking there would be a call to lock the thread.
I dont agree with either of them.
No silly, I dont agree with Punnadhammo or Batchelor.
If we are doing good only to gain good karma our activity is selfishly motivated.
Good is no more requiring of literal re-birth than it is of a God.
That doesn't mean there is or isn't a God or literal re-birth, it just means that ethics do not require either to be true or false.
Is there a scriptural citation for this?
I mean, I don't know. There might be. Just asking.
People who don't beleive in rebirth or God are perfectly capable of being ethical though, therefore ethics is not dependant on re-birth or God.
The exceptions I suppose would be these...
God made us and gave us the capacity to be ethical...unknowable though.
Or
Our capacity to be ethical is influenced by past karma. This is a big one in Pure Land Buddhism because...
If I am evil in one life, I may be born into a worse situation in a next life...perhaps to alcoholic parents and I am born with fetal alcohol syndrome which could make it more difficult for me to be ethical in that life, creating an endless downward spiral lifer after life. Thus the need for an outside force...Amida in this case, to step in and stop this downward spiral.
Huh? Ethical behavior is a lot more than that, at least in my book. Ethical behavior has as much to do with how I treat others and interact with them as it does about my own stuff (per the dictionary definition of existentialism). My job as a nurse is a great example.
Mtns
I'm a nurse too, as you may know, and the way I treat others is how I work out who I am. Some days I so it for Buddha. Some days I do it because it's the right thing to do.
I would say just technicallly that nursing for the sake of it is existentialism. I may have more to say later, as Merleau-Ponty is coming to mind and I have to go look that up.
:thumbsup:
...appears (to me) to contradict this...
...does it? or am I missing something?
Whether it is future reward in this lifetime or future reward in a future lifetime - it is the same logic.
Personally I don't see what is wrong with looking out for your future (either in this life or a future life). Why do people study hard at school and university? It's (often) because they believe they will get a good job out of it some time in the future, isn't it? What's wrong with that?
Certainly. Furthermore, if kamma and rebirth are true then the good person will be rewarded in the future too:
"Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas" (AN 3.65), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, June 8, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html.
I agree completely with Jason on this one. "Essentially, Buddhist ethics revolves around seeing our desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures." Makes the Golden Rule look almost manipulative.
You are right, there is nothing wrong with it, the whole point in me practicing Buddhism is to reach the goal of enlightenment, which for me means some life after this one. So I would argue that being mindful of future life's and living ethically to ensure you stay on the right path is one of the central ideas of Buddhist practice.
Metta to all sentient beings
There is something deeply amiss about practicing Buddhist meditation while being concerned about whether one is or is not a "Buddhist." In terms of the this-life interpretation of dependent origination, it's a form of becoming.
Sorry, I cannot follow you here, Guy. The passage speaks of "one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure" acquiring four assurances in the here-&-now. All four of these are built on conditions. Note the word "if" is used throughout. The assurances are built on context, not on guarantees.
In sum, what this passage is saying about the bona fide follower of the Dharma, i.e., one who keeps his mind free from hostility, free from ill will and remains undefiled and pure is that he has four assurances:
1) If there is any afterlife, that pure one will reach the good destination.
2) If there is no afterlife, in this life that pure one can nonetheless live in ease of mind.
3) If any harm befalls any other creature through any act that pure one should have caused there can no torment touch his soul, having willed no one any evil.
4) In the happy event that nobody is ever harmed by any act of that pure one, that one can consider herself doubly blessed.
That Is All.
It is so tiresome to hear these endless arguments over reincarnation and such, when the Buddha made it very clear that speculation on such matters was not in any way profitable.
Among some fundamentalists who call themselves Christians are found those who actually believe that belief in a literal Hell is a matter of Faith. Though mistaken, they will rudely tell anyone who will not listen to them that they'll believe in Hell when they end up there. To me, there's a certain parallel to be drawn here. Arguments that suggest the other guy is sadly mistaken and on an entirely wrong path are not at all edifying to one's faith. Saying that someone is not a real Buddhist to my ears implies he is wasting his time.
Why does this require belief in rebirth?
Is something ethical because someone says it would lead to a positive rebirth for you?
How do you know what leads to a positive rebirth? Some people think/thought killing gays will send them to Heaven.
It doesn't, of course, which is why I disagree with Bhikkhu Punnadhammo et al. on this.
Word.
Yeah, that is all I said:
I agree.
If you are implying that I am implying this, then you missed the point of my post. I was just pointing out that if rebirth is true then good people not only have a good life now, but will have a good future life too. I am sure there are plenty of people who are happy to be a good person now for the sake of peace in this lifetime (good for them!), but if rebirth is true (which I am convinced that it is) then their good kamma will lead to a good rebirth. Bonus!
May you be happy now and in the future.
With Metta,
Guy
It does not require you to believe in rebirth, what I am saying is that there is of course a strong connection between what we believe in and how we behave. Through my understanding of the Dharma, I myself believe that by following the 10 precepts I can lessen the suffering that is experienced in this life and future life's and eventually reach my goal and this belief has an affect on my behaviour and of course what behaviour I think is ethical or unethical.
It is my belief,faith, knowledge and wisdom in the Dharama that allow me to have an opinion and indeed belief in rebirth and on what leads me to positive rebirth and thats my right to have my own opinion and beliefs. I am not saying my beliefs or opinions or behaviour are better than anyone else's or mine are ethical and correct and yours are not. But it is what I believe in and it does have an affect on my behaviour and how I view it, and again its my right to have this, just like its your right to have your own beliefs and opinions on rebirth, ethical behaviour etc etc.
Im not sure what you want me to say about your statement that "some people think killing gay people will send them to heaven" but again I would guess that their beliefs and faith have a significant role in how they behave and on what behaviour they think is ethical or unethical.
Myself I would say they have wrong view, but I am sure the same people would say the same about my views.
Metta to all sentient beings
Although once a believer in rebirth/reincarnation/life-after-death scenarios I now find such speculations to be almost irrelevant to how I lead my day to day life. I try to be a decent person, give aid whenever possible and try at all times to act compassionately to all living things. (I'm the first to admit that I don't always succeed.
However, given that I'm not at all concerned about the possibilities or consequences of a life after death -
Does this mean that I cannot be an ethical being, that Enlightenment will always remain beyond my grasp?
That doesn't sound quite right to me, and it's quite possible that I haven't successfully followed the above debate, in which case I'm hoping that someone can illuminate me?
I have not read all the posts above - but to provide some help in your question.
As my teacher has said, on more than one occasion, you take from Buddhism what fits best for you at the time. If you find that the concept of reincarnation difficult there is no problem.
Buddhism, unlike Christianity for example, does not have a creed of what you must, or must not, believe. And as HHDL has said, probably more than once, he has no idea of what happens after death.
Acting ethically stops the cause of negative karma. This is certainly beneficial. The Bodhisattva works for the benefit of all sentient beings without thought of his/her own enlightenment.
May any merit achieved be dedicated to the relief of all suffering.
I’ve been struggling with this one too for some of the same reasons.
The agnostic in me considers afterlife and rebirth as theories..Things we don’t know, we theorize until we can actually touch it and find out what it is.
After reading the Buddha’s ancient path, much of it was brought to rest for me on some of the quotes in which the Buddha requires his disciples to question his theories as he does not wish to be referred to as an all knowing god so much as a guide, laying the path.
This is just me tough, if people do not feel the need to be mindful or even do not believe in rebirth or kamma, then I see no reason whatso ever why they cannot behave ethically or follow the precepts.
Metta to all sentient beings
It is true rebirth is the unknown, and a lot of people would only believe in something if they found conclusive evidence of its existence and then fully understand its workings. Which as an experimental physicist I can totally relate to. However I also believe that somethings you just have to take on faith alone. Concerning rebirth and indeed kamma, this is not just a blind faith but a faith that has a foundation on logic and also something from within, a sort of gut feeling in yourself that it is true. If you study the Dharma you will see that a lot of our Lord Buddhas teachings require you to have faith in their truth, without any concrete evidence that they are actually true.
I myself am willing to take this leap of faith in believing rebirth and kamma without any concrete evidence of their existence or fully understanding their workings.
Metta to all sentient beings
Below videos (some have more than 1 part, didn't put all the links as it would be too tedious... hope it helps)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF3KqGpxXvo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdmMEKPFDTY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZiU9eATbY8&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI3sL01ytbo&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JSseLczR9M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKspwdBWtCU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoCnaL62NRc&feature=player_embedded