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.
Who Here Believes In Rebirth? Who Believes in Reincarnation?
>BikkuBhodi>The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon
This isn't true.
I more incline to agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi on this point. He's translated the majority of the Suttas, i.e., the Majjhima Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya and the Anguttara Nikaya, so he's in a position to speak with a modicum of authority about these things. In addition, I've come across countless references throughout the Suttas myself; although I suppose one could always take issue with the translations/interpretations.
>BikkuBhodi>and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters.
This is nonsense, and begging the question. Dharma is perfect without rebirth, its only when we add rebirth that we get these troubles.
I think that's a matter of opinion.
>BikkuBhodi>First, the teaching of rebirth makes sense in relation to ethics. For early Buddhism, the conception of rebirth is an essential plank of its ethical theory, providing an incentive for avoiding evil and doing good.
Surely the reason for doing good dharmically is because of karma, not because of some incitive to benifit in a future life? Would he say the same of metta?
I'm inclined to agree with you here. While I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi that the teaching of rebirth makes sense in relation to ethics, I don't think Buddhist ethics depend upon rebirth as a foundation (see ethics without rebirth).
>BikkuBhodi>The Buddha includes belief in rebirth and kamma in his definition of right view, and their explicit denial in wrong view.
Where?
Places such as MN 117, where right view is defined this way:
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"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.
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
However, in the spirit of full disclosure, it's interesting to note that the Chinese version of MN 117 (which, unfortunately, is no longer available online) makes no mention of "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions":
And what is right view? ‘There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is benefit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are in the world good and virtuous individuals who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view.
It's entirely possible that this particular passage is a later addition. Perhaps later redactors of the Pali Canon (especially the Abhidhammikas) added this distinction in order to support the Abhidhammic theory of two truths (i.e., conventional and ultimate truth). It's not really all that unlikely considering the fact that this is the only sutta in the entire Canon I'm aware of containing this definition of right view with and without effluents.
Of course, it's equally as possible that the redactors of the Chinese Canon intentionally removed this part, or that it was simply lost in translation.
>BikkuBhodi>Some dismiss it as just a piece of cultural baggage, "ancient Indian metaphysics," that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age.
This is one view, but another is that that the Buddha didn't retain it at all, rather he taught that we must escape the hindu idea of samsara. Attachment to it is dukka. Have a think on this possibility, wipe your belief filters clean and really see if you can make sense of it. Is it plausible?
Yes, I think it's plausible. But then again, I don't really have an issue with rebirth; it's just that I don't think it's necessary to believe in rebirth to practice, or to receive the benefits of the practice.
Thickpaper asked where "Buddha includes belief in rebirth and kamma in his definition of right view", and I was pointing out that rebirth is included in the definition of right view in the Saleyyaka Sutta. Also, the other sutta was to further clarify that Buddha did teach about rebirth (and the cessation of rebirth, that is, ending the whole mass of suffering and stress), and that it was something that wasn't easily understood back then either.
Thickpaper asked where "Buddha includes belief in rebirth and kamma in his definition of right view", and I was pointing out that rebirth is included in the definition of right view in the Saleyyaka Sutta. Also, the other sutta was to further clarify that Buddha did teach about rebirth (and the cessation of rebirth, that is, ending the whole mass of suffering and stress), and that it was something that wasn't easily understood back then either.
Right, but you admit that in other definitions of right view (eg the one I mentioned) rebirth doesn't get a mention?
This was the mystery to me, why is rebirth so absent from dharma, scripturally, philosophically, methodologically.....
"Absent from dharma scripturally"? Doesn't Bodhipunk cite several scriptures? Why do you say it's absent? (Just trying to clarify, Thickpaper. Just trying to learn from all this.)
Thank you, Jason. Could you explain exactly what the Buddha is referring to when he says "the other world"?
You'd have to ask the Buddha that; I can only tell you what I think he's referring to when he talks about other words/next worlds (paraloka). In some contexts, I think it's referring to other mental worlds or states of mind based that are upon our actions; although I think it can also be interpreted to mean another world of experience after this one.
Not "other world" as in the bardo, or a spirit world?
The commentarial tradition of Theravada — specifically in the Kathavathu or Points of Controversy — denies the existence of an in-between state (antarabhava); although there are certain passages in the Suttas that can be interpreted as hinting at such a state.
For example, Snp 1.8 mentions "those who are born as well as those yet to be born." Then there's SN 44.9, where the Buddha says, [W]hen a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time," and Ud 8.4, which mentions that in regard to nibbana, "There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two."
Not having been a student of the Sutras, I wonder if there's a reason why they, or some of them, aren't accepted by some people as a valid source. I thought the Sutras were the basic reference for Buddhists.
compassionate_warrior, I see two reasons for people to reject certain suttas.
Firstly, scholars will cross check suttas against others (eg Pali suttas against Chinese Agamas) to ensure correspondence and reject any sections that don't correspond. Thankfully there is a very high degree of correspondence.
The other reason is that some people through ignorance and a strong sense of self, will cling on to their view so hard that they will reject anything in the suttas that does not correspond to their views.
Rebirth is a classic example since, as Bhikkhu Bodhi states, the suttas are replete with examples of the Buddha discussing rebirth. The suttas should be important to Buddhists as the monks themselves teach from them as well as from their own experiences. It would be good for those that disagree with the suttas to have read them first - at least the Digha Nikaya and the Majjhima Nikaya. For those that don't believe this, thankfully in this time we have the internet and youtube. Look up Bhikkhu Bodhi or Ajahn Brahm for some real teachings, not the argumentative discussion that we unfortunately see here!
Right, but you admit that in other definitions of right view (eg the one I mentioned) rebirth doesn't get a mention?
The definition you mentioned was from the Maha-satipatthana Sutta:
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22
This is right view or understanding of the Four Noble Truths, but we could also very much apply this definition to rebirth, as well. Dukkha (stress/suffering) is caused by tanha (craving/thirst), which leads to upadana (clinging) and punabbhava (renewed existence/further becoming). Bhava (becoming), as the tenth link of dependent origination, is dependent upon clinging (upadana) as a condition and leads to birth (jati). Thus knowledge with regard of the cessation of stress is the giving up/cessation of that same craving/thirst which leads to renewed existence/becoming. The practice referred to is, of course, the 8fold path. [SN 56.11] [SN 12.2]
Without knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress and the 8fold path, we are constantly subject to punabbhava or "renewed existence/becoming". In SN 56.11, Buddha also said something along the lines of, "Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming."
Not having been a student of the Sutras, I wonder if there's a reason why they, or some of them, aren't accepted by some people as a valid source. I thought the Sutras were the basic reference for Buddhists.
thankfully in this time we have the internet and youtube. Look up Bhikkhu Bodhi or Ajahn Brahm for some real teachings, not the argumentative discussion that we unfortunately see here!
Yes, the internet and UTube are a blessing; I'm impressed with how much source material is available.
I think the argument on this thread hasn't been too bad. I think the contrary voices have served well to point the direction toward what needs to be elucidated and elaborated upon. I've learned a lot from everyone. In fact, I'm going to download all the karma and rebirth threads, along with the source materials mentioned, to form a textbook for detailed study. Thanks to everyone for their patience and their thoughtful contributions, here and on the other threads.
Right, but you admit that in other definitions of right view (eg the one I mentioned) rebirth doesn't get a mention?
The definition you mentioned was from the Maha-satipatthana Sutta:
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view."
— DN 22
This is right view or understanding of the Four Noble Truths, but we could also very much apply this definition to rebirth, as well. Dukkha (stress/suffering) is caused by tanha (craving/thirst), which leads to upadana (clinging) and punabbhava (renewed existence/further becoming). Bhava (becoming), as the tenth link of dependent origination, is dependent upon clinging (upadana) as a condition and leads to birth (jati). Thus knowledge with regard of the cessation of stress is the giving up/cessation of that same craving/thirst which leads to renewed existence/becoming. The practice referred to is, of course, the 8fold path. [SN 56.11] [SN 12.2]
Without knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress and the 8fold path, we are constantly subject to punabbhava or "renewed existence/becoming". In SN 56.11, Buddha also said something along the lines of, "Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming."
You can let it go, you know, and still hold onto and follow the core beliefs without contradiction, inconsistency or failure.
We all want to believe there is more than this, the middle path moves between this want and the empty want-less, destructive views of nihilism, from suffering to joy.
You can let it go, you know, and still hold onto and follow the core beliefs without contradiction, inconsistency or failure.
We all want to believe there is more than this, the middle path moves between this want and the empty want-less, destructive views of nihilism, from suffering to joy.
Namaste and peace.
Far be it for me to say what someone should hold on to and follow. We all have our own paths the tread. However, on that thread, I also said that most of the "core ideas" go back to the noble truths. That includes rebirth, IMO.
Far be it for me to say what someone should hold on to and follow.
Yet you have on rebirth?
We all have our own paths the tread. However, on that thread, I also said that most of the "core ideas" go back to the noble truths. That includes rebirth, IMO.
This is the crux, isn't it. This is the issue that could or can't be resolved:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth? Where do the four noble truths include rebirth? How do the four noble truths include rebirth? Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
I have said that the Buddha taught rebirth, not that you absolutely HAVE to accept it or else.
This is the crux, isn't it. This is the issue that could or can't be resolved:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth? Where do the four noble truths include rebirth? How do the four noble truths include rebirth? Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
I thought my previous post RE: right view of the Four Noble Truths and "further becoming" already elaborated on this?
I have said that the Buddha taught rebirth, not that you absolutely HAVE to accept it or else.?
But do you see you are stating a claim you cannot be certain about. I am pretty sure that he didn't teach rebirth, I am fairly sure that he taught nonrebirth. But I can be certain of neither (I once foolishly defended the "nonrebirth" claim as if I was defending the 4NT's, I was mistaken.)
However, when you say that you need rebirth to have Dharma (As you have defended with respected erudition) then you are wrong, and misleading.
You do not need rebirth to have dharma and should not dogmatist this as if it is core doctrine, especially not to new buddhists.
>>>I thought my previous post RE: right view of the Four Noble Truths and "further becoming" already elaborated on this?
No you, you explained nothing, you simply cited the words of others. Can you, without citing any other words of anyone else, answer these questions:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth? Where do the four noble truths include rebirth? How do the four noble truths include rebirth? Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
namaste
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2011
EDIT NOTE: I'm sorry, this thread has run away with me... this is what I am responding to...
(. . .)
Maybe those who accept the sutras and the words of the Buddha have examined the teachings, put them to the test, and found them valid. If they're not valid, why do some of the moderators urge members to cite sutric references when quoting the Buddha?
because at least that gives some assurance that people are not making things up as they go along. It doesn't validate/invalidate anything, necessarily. It just means there's a source for their argument, and that it's not just something they happened to think up conveniently.
It's happened..... I would offer the much-flogged, much-misquoted and much-misunderstood Kalama Sutta
because at least that gives some assurance that people are not making things up as they go along. It doesn't validate/invalidate anything, necessarily. It just means there's a source for their argument, and that it's not just something they happened to think up conveniently.
It's happened..... I would offer the much-flogged, much-misquoted and much-misunderstood Kalama Sutta
But do you see you are stating a claim you cannot be certain about. I am pretty sure that he didn't teach rebirth, I am fairly sure that he taught nonrebirth. But I can be certain of neither (I once foolishly defended the "nonrebirth" claim as if I was defending the 4NT's, I was mistaken.)
However, when you say that you need rebirth to have Dharma (As you have defended with respected erudition) then you are wrong, and misleading.
You do not need rebirth to have dharma and should not dogmatist this as if it is core doctrine, especially not to new buddhists.
>>>I thought my previous post RE: right view of the Four Noble Truths and "further becoming" already elaborated on this?
No you, you explained nothing, you simply cited the words of others. Can you, without citing any other words of anyone else, answer these questions:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth? Where do the four noble truths include rebirth? How do the four noble truths include rebirth? Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
namaste
It's helpful to cite sources. Even you defined right view with the Maha-satipatthana Sutta, but I will try to answer your questions the best way I can. When you crave something, chances are you may develop some kind of clinging or attachment. This makes way for "further becoming" - craving for (or a "thirst" for) sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, even craving for non-becoming. Thus, with becoming as a condition, there is birth (which is the "appearance of aggregates"). This is the origin of dukkha, and the Second Noble Truth.
Also, I'm not trying to be a dogmatist. To me, rebirth simply means "further becoming" in Samsara. If you practice the 8fold path, you are ceasing "further becoming" as much as "craving", so does it really matter what one thinks regarding rebirth?
The Buddha did describe Nibbana as "the Deathless" in the Dhammapada, so is that what you mean by "nonrebirth"?
I really don't think we should be arguing about reincarnation in terms of what the Buddha said about it. I think we should be arguing about it in terms of our own rationality.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha
I'd definitely say we should not believe in any transmigration based on our rationality. And we should believe in rebirth in the sense of everything having impermanence based on our rationality.
What's the use of questioning what comes after this death? I act with compassion, and with the intent of liberation being fully convinced that death will end all chances of consciousness i have. If you think it's illogical to do so, I'll explain the logical reasons to do those things even assuming there is no "afterlife" if there was a next life influenced by karma, even better, if not, no big deal.
>>>>"bodhipunk">>>>It's helpful to cite sources. Even you defined right view with the Maha-satipatthana Sutta
It is important to see, if we are to chat without circles, that I place no authority in any suttra or any teaching. The only authority I acknowledge comes from that which I cannot doubt.
Time and time again I ask people to explain rather than cite becausde for me there needs to be an explanation that is independent of anything else to have any meaning to me.
>>>>When you crave something, chances are you may develop some kind of clinging or attachment.
Yes, of course.
>>>This makes way for "further becoming" - craving for (or a "thirst" for) sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, even craving for non-becoming.
I don't understand where "becomming" suddenly comes from. I can see how there is a negative feedback of craving, we experience this all the time. But to go from this to rebirth is not a step I can see.
>>>Thus, with becoming as a condition, there is birth (which is the "appearance of aggregates").
But do you mean there is a birth of more negative states, ie rebirth in the metaphor sense (which I agree with though I don't really think the buddha meant this) or do you mean birth after this flow of processes that is "illusionary me" ceases and "I die"?
They are two profoundly different positions.
>>>>Also, I'm not trying to be a dogmatist.
You come over wise and calm, no mistake. The problem is that because we can doubt rebirth (unlike the core dharma principles we agreed on) then the moment we try to say that it is of the same status as the agreed dharma truths we are forced to be dogmatic.
>>>To me, rebirth simply means "further becoming" in Samsara. If you practice the 8fold path, you are ceasing "further becoming" as much as "craving", so does it really matter what one thinks regarding rebirth?
I don't know the answer to this. It doesn't matter to me but that is because I believe "there is no rebirth for me" but another part of me thinks that the buddha taught that rebirth is attachment, in which case in a dharmic discussison it might matter. So my poistion is to not "defend" either side.
But I will question the claims of those who say "the buddha taught rebirth and if you don't believe in rebirth you are not in dharma" kind of claims, especially when in response to questions from new buddhists. I am not saying that is you, but in places it has seen so:)<<<< Geniune smile, honest!
>>>The Buddha did describe Nibbana as "the Deathless" in the Dhammapada, so is that what you mean by "nonrebirth"?
No, by nonrebirth I mean the idea that in every sense there is no afterlife, apart from memories and disparate karmic fruit.
The only teachings that cannot be doubted are ones on the nature of mind. Because you can observe your mind and see if they are true. From that flow a lot of insight into what the dharma is saying elsewhere.
The only teachings that cannot be doubted are ones on the nature of mind. Because you can observe your mind and see if they are true. From that flow a lot of insight into what the dharma is saying elsewhere.
But is not the mind the seat of illusion and delusion? Do we not dream, and misunderstand and misinterpret our experiences?
To me, the clarity flows from the three foundations.
If you cannot trust your mind then you cannot trust your readings because your mind could deceive you. If you have no fundamental clarity to your mind the dharma would be impossible.
1) You need your mind to contact any teaching 2) If your mind does not have any degree of clarity you could potentially misaprehend any teaching 3) Therefore the nature of mind is the fundamental basis
Comments
Places such as MN 117, where right view is defined this way: However, in the spirit of full disclosure, it's interesting to note that the Chinese version of MN 117 (which, unfortunately, is no longer available online) makes no mention of "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions": It's entirely possible that this particular passage is a later addition. Perhaps later redactors of the Pali Canon (especially the Abhidhammikas) added this distinction in order to support the Abhidhammic theory of two truths (i.e., conventional and ultimate truth). It's not really all that unlikely considering the fact that this is the only sutta in the entire Canon I'm aware of containing this definition of right view with and without effluents.
Of course, it's equally as possible that the redactors of the Chinese Canon intentionally removed this part, or that it was simply lost in translation. Yes, I think it's plausible. But then again, I don't really have an issue with rebirth; it's just that I don't think it's necessary to believe in rebirth to practice, or to receive the benefits of the practice.
This was the mystery to me, why is rebirth so absent from dharma, scripturally, philosophically, methodologically.....
For example, Snp 1.8 mentions "those who are born as well as those yet to be born." Then there's SN 44.9, where the Buddha says, [W]hen a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time," and Ud 8.4, which mentions that in regard to nibbana, "There being no passing away or arising, there is neither a here nor a there nor a between-the-two."
Firstly, scholars will cross check suttas against others (eg Pali suttas against Chinese Agamas) to ensure correspondence and reject any sections that don't correspond. Thankfully there is a very high degree of correspondence.
The other reason is that some people through ignorance and a strong sense of self, will cling on to their view so hard that they will reject anything in the suttas that does not correspond to their views.
Rebirth is a classic example since, as Bhikkhu Bodhi states, the suttas are replete with examples of the Buddha discussing rebirth. The suttas should be important to Buddhists as the monks themselves teach from them as well as from their own experiences. It would be good for those that disagree with the suttas to have read them first - at least the Digha Nikaya and the Majjhima Nikaya. For those that don't believe this, thankfully in this time we have the internet and youtube. Look up Bhikkhu Bodhi or Ajahn Brahm for some real teachings, not the argumentative discussion that we unfortunately see here!
Without knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress and the 8fold path, we are constantly subject to punabbhava or "renewed existence/becoming". In SN 56.11, Buddha also said something along the lines of, "Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming."
I think the argument on this thread hasn't been too bad. I think the contrary voices have served well to point the direction toward what needs to be elucidated and elaborated upon. I've learned a lot from everyone. In fact, I'm going to download all the karma and rebirth threads, along with the source materials mentioned, to form a textbook for detailed study. Thanks to everyone for their patience and their thoughtful contributions, here and on the other threads.
You can let it go, you know, and still hold onto and follow the core beliefs without contradiction, inconsistency or failure.
We all want to believe there is more than this, the middle path moves between this want and the empty want-less, destructive views of nihilism, from suffering to joy.
Namaste and peace.
This is the crux, isn't it. This is the issue that could or can't be resolved:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth?
Where do the four noble truths include rebirth?
How do the four noble truths include rebirth?
Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
However, when you say that you need rebirth to have Dharma (As you have defended with respected erudition) then you are wrong, and misleading.
You do not need rebirth to have dharma and should not dogmatist this as if it is core doctrine, especially not to new buddhists.
>>>I thought my previous post RE: right view of the Four Noble Truths and "further becoming" already elaborated on this?
No you, you explained nothing, you simply cited the words of others. Can you, without citing any other words of anyone else, answer these questions:
Why do the four noble truths include rebirth?
Where do the four noble truths include rebirth?
How do the four noble truths include rebirth?
Do the four noble truths need to include rebirth? (Or does we just wish they did?)
namaste
I'm sorry, this thread has run away with me... this is what I am responding to... because at least that gives some assurance that people are not making things up as they go along. It doesn't validate/invalidate anything, necessarily. It just means there's a source for their argument, and that it's not just something they happened to think up conveniently.
It's happened.....
I would offer the much-flogged, much-misquoted and much-misunderstood Kalama Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html
in response to queries regarding doubt and confidence.....
Namaste.
Also, I'm not trying to be a dogmatist. To me, rebirth simply means "further becoming" in Samsara. If you practice the 8fold path, you are ceasing "further becoming" as much as "craving", so does it really matter what one thinks regarding rebirth?
The Buddha did describe Nibbana as "the Deathless" in the Dhammapada, so is that what you mean by "nonrebirth"?
I really don't think we should be arguing about reincarnation in terms of what the Buddha said about it. I think we should be arguing about it in terms of our own rationality.
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha
I'd definitely say we should not believe in any transmigration based on our rationality. And we should believe in rebirth in the sense of everything having impermanence based on our rationality.
What's the use of questioning what comes after this death? I act with compassion, and with the intent of liberation being fully convinced that death will end all chances of consciousness i have. If you think it's illogical to do so, I'll explain the logical reasons to do those things even assuming there is no "afterlife" if there was a next life influenced by karma, even better, if not, no big deal.
It is important to see, if we are to chat without circles, that I place no authority in any suttra or any teaching. The only authority I acknowledge comes from that which I cannot doubt.
Time and time again I ask people to explain rather than cite becausde for me there needs to be an explanation that is independent of anything else to have any meaning to me.
>>>>When you crave something, chances are you may develop some kind of clinging or attachment.
Yes, of course.
>>>This makes way for "further becoming" - craving for (or a "thirst" for) sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, even craving for non-becoming.
I don't understand where "becomming" suddenly comes from. I can see how there is a negative feedback of craving, we experience this all the time. But to go from this to rebirth is not a step I can see.
>>>Thus, with becoming as a condition, there is birth (which is the "appearance of aggregates").
But do you mean there is a birth of more negative states, ie rebirth in the metaphor sense (which I agree with though I don't really think the buddha meant this) or do you mean birth after this flow of processes that is "illusionary me" ceases and "I die"?
They are two profoundly different positions.
>>>>Also, I'm not trying to be a dogmatist.
You come over wise and calm, no mistake. The problem is that because we can doubt rebirth (unlike the core dharma principles we agreed on) then the moment we try to say that it is of the same status as the agreed dharma truths we are forced to be dogmatic.
>>>To me, rebirth simply means "further becoming" in Samsara. If you practice the 8fold path, you are ceasing "further becoming" as much as "craving", so does it really matter what one thinks regarding rebirth?
I don't know the answer to this. It doesn't matter to me but that is because I believe "there is no rebirth for me" but another part of me thinks that the buddha taught that rebirth is attachment, in which case in a dharmic discussison it might matter. So my poistion is to not "defend" either side.
But I will question the claims of those who say "the buddha taught rebirth and if you don't believe in rebirth you are not in dharma" kind of claims, especially when in response to questions from new buddhists. I am not saying that is you, but in places it has seen so:)<<<< Geniune smile, honest!
>>>The Buddha did describe Nibbana as "the Deathless" in the Dhammapada, so is that what you mean by "nonrebirth"?
No, by nonrebirth I mean the idea that in every sense there is no afterlife, apart from memories and disparate karmic fruit.
namaste
The only teachings that cannot be doubted are ones on the nature of mind. Because you can observe your mind and see if they are true. From that flow a lot of insight into what the dharma is saying elsewhere.
To me, the clarity flows from the three foundations.
namaste
1) You need your mind to contact any teaching
2) If your mind does not have any degree of clarity you could potentially misaprehend any teaching
3) Therefore the nature of mind is the fundamental basis