Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Buddha didnt just believe in rebirth he argued for it.
caz
VeteranUnited Kingdom Veteran
Source: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/guest-post-buddha-believed-rebirth
Thai forest monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a frequent contributor to Tricycle, sends the following:
It never ceases to amaze me that scholars—who should know better—keep repeating the idea that the Buddha lived in a time when everyone took for granted two principles: (1) that rebirth happened, and (2) that karma had an effect on how rebirth happened.
You wonder why this idea gets repeated so often, because the Pali Canon provides clear evidence to the contrary, evidence that has been available in Western languages for more than a century.
The Buddha frequently referred to two extremes of wrong view that blocked progress on the path: eternalism and annihilationism. “Annihilationism” is the term he used to describe those who denied rebirth. Apparently he didn’t invent the term himself, as Majjhima Nikaya sutra 22 reports that other teachers sometimes accused him of being an annihilationist as well.
The Canon mentions two people who, in the Buddha’s times, were famous for their annihilationist views. One was Ajita Kesakambalin, the leader of a materialist sect. Digha Nikaya sutra 2 reports his views as follows:
“‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’” — Digha Nikaya sutra 2
Thai forest monk Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a frequent contributor to Tricycle, sends the following:
It never ceases to amaze me that scholars—who should know better—keep repeating the idea that the Buddha lived in a time when everyone took for granted two principles: (1) that rebirth happened, and (2) that karma had an effect on how rebirth happened.
You wonder why this idea gets repeated so often, because the Pali Canon provides clear evidence to the contrary, evidence that has been available in Western languages for more than a century.
The Buddha frequently referred to two extremes of wrong view that blocked progress on the path: eternalism and annihilationism. “Annihilationism” is the term he used to describe those who denied rebirth. Apparently he didn’t invent the term himself, as Majjhima Nikaya sutra 22 reports that other teachers sometimes accused him of being an annihilationist as well.
The Canon mentions two people who, in the Buddha’s times, were famous for their annihilationist views. One was Ajita Kesakambalin, the leader of a materialist sect. Digha Nikaya sutra 2 reports his views as follows:
“‘There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.’” — Digha Nikaya sutra 2
0
Comments
“There is the case, Master Kassapa, where my men—having caught a thief, a wrong-doer—present him to me, (saying,) ‘Here is a thief, a wrong-doer for you, lord. Decree for him whatever punishment you want.’ And I say, ‘Very well, then, masters, having placed this man while still alive in a clay jar, having sealed the mouth, having covered it with a damp skin, having plastered it with a thick layer of damp clay, having set it in a furnace, light the fire.’
“They—responding, ‘Very well,’ to me—having placed the man while still alive in a clay jar, having sealed the mouth, having covered it with a damp skin, having plastered it with a thick layer of damp clay, having set it in a furnace, light the fire. When we know, ‘The man has died,’ then—removing the jar, breaking through the seal, opening the mouth—we look carefully, (thinking,) ‘Maybe we’ll see his soul escaping.’ But we don’t see his soul escaping….’
“They—responding, ‘Very well,’ to me—having weighed the man with a scale while still alive, having strangled him to death with a bowstring, weigh him with the scale again. When he is alive, he is lighter, more flexible, and more malleable. But when he has died, he is heavier, stiffer, and less malleable.
“This is the reason, Master Kassapa, for which I believe, ‘There is no other world, there are no spontaneously reborn beings, there is no fruit or result of good or bad actions.’” — Digha Nikaya sutra 23
Digha Nikaya sutra 1 gives a more comprehensive picture of annihilationist views current at the time, classifying them by how they define the self annihilated at death. There were seven types in all. Three of them defined the self in terms of a body: either as a physical body composed of the four material elements, as a divine physical body, or as an astral body. The view espoused by Ajita Kesakambalin and Prince Payasi would fall under the first of the three. Four other annihilationist views, however, defined the self as formless: experiencing the dimension of infinite space, of infinite consciousness, of nothingness, or of neither perception nor non-perception. In each of the seven cases, these doctrines state that the self, however defined, perishes and is annihilated at death.
As for the non-Buddhist schools that affirmed the idea of rebirth, the Pali Canon explicitly names at least four: Brahmans (Samyutta Nikaya 42:6; Anguttara Nikaya sutra 10:177), Jains (Majjhima Nikaya sutra 101), and two contemplative (samana) schools: one led by Makkhali Gosala, and the other by Pakudha Kaccayana. We know from other sources that the Jains and some Brahmans affirmed that action played a role in shaping rebirth; the Canon shows, however, that the other two teachers denied that action played any role in rebirth at all.
“[Makkhali Gosala:] ‘Though one might think, “Through this morality, this practice, this austerity, or this holy life I will ripen unripened kamma and eliminate ripened kamma whenever touched by it”—that is impossible. Pleasure and pain are measured out, the wandering-on is fixed in its limits. There is no shortening or lengthening, no accelerating or decelerating. Just as a ball of string, when thrown, comes to its end simply by unwinding, in the same way, having transmigrated and wandered on, the wise and the foolish alike will put an end to pain.’” — Digha Nikaya sutra 2
“[Pakudha Kaccayana:] ‘There are these seven substances—unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar—that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain. Which seven? The earth-substance, the liquid-substance, the fire-substance, the wind-substance, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh. These are the seven substances—unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator, barren, stable as a mountain-peak, standing firm like a pillar—that do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, and are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain.’” — Digha Nikaya sutra 2
“‘If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.’ This is the first assurance one acquires.
“‘But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease—free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.’ This is the second assurance one acquires.
“‘If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?’ This is the third assurance one acquires.
“‘But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.’ This is the fourth assurance one acquires.” — (Anguttara Nikaya sutra 3:65)
If everyone in his time believed in karma and rebirth, the Buddha wouldn’t have had to state these assurances.
So it’s obvious that that the idea of rebirth and its connection with karma was not an unexamined assumption in Indian culture. It was one of the most controversial issues of the Buddha’s time—which means that we can’t write off his teachings on karma and rebirth simply as an undigested relic from his culture. In teaching these principles, he was consciously taking a stand on an issue that was hotly debated, in a culture that expected him to articulate clearly his explanation for how and why rebirth did or didn’t happen. We know that he didn’t take on all the hot issues of his day—remember the story of the man shot by the arrow (Majjhima Nikaya sutra 63)—so the Buddha must have had his reasons for taking this issue on.
Source: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/guest-post-buddha-believed-rebirth
As for this quote... I think it's probably safe to say that Buddha wasn't particularly prone to leaving relics from his culture undigested, as a rule
Proof is something else though.
Good idea, by the way. A thread on karma and rebirth!
It never ceases to amaze me that scholars—who should know better—keep repeating the idea that the Buddha lived in a time when everyone took for granted two principles: (1) that rebirth happened, and (2) that karma had an effect on how rebirth happened.
Um...no. No serious scholar I've ever heard of would say "everyone took for granted that rebirth happened". This venerable monk needs to actually listen to what people say instead of creating strawman arguments.
What scholars say is that reincarnation was a common belief during Buddha's time, and all evidence shows it was the most common belief. Nobody is saying that other beliefs were not present or explored and even within rebirth the effects of karma were not debated, since the early sutras obviously compare and contrast various beliefs.
As for the sutra going on and on about the pitfalls of the "annihilationist" philosopher's thinking, it's a Buddhist sutra for goodness' sake, so what do you expect? That's like reading a Christian tract describing the pitfalls of Buddhism. You really don't think the monk who wrote the sutra was interested in giving an unbiased accounting of this man's arguments, do you? So it's a fascinating window into an ancient argument and debate, and nothing new.
The inescapable conclusion is that beliefs in literal past life reincarnation and teachings of Sunyata and Anatta do not mix very well. The ancient way to handle it is to call it an imponderable leading to madness. I've pondered it quite a bit, and I'm not mad, mad I tell you!! Oh, wait...
To me, it turns out not to be an imponderable so much as an irrelevent. People do cherish their beliefs, though, and get emotionally attached to them. Like this venerable monk, they can sometimes spend way too much time defending what has to be taken on faith.
Just my opinion.
I don't give into faith.'
When you step into an elevator,
do you give into the faith that it will take you up?
Pursuing Dharma only on the grounds of intellect is fruitless because it doesnt liberate you from suffering, Engaging and becoming familiar with meditation deeply and applying Dharma is the way to see through the veils of Ignorance and see what Buddha and so many others saw.
How can a mind born by Ignorance, clouded in Ignorance and that creates the causes for more Ignorance become anything other then futher enmeshed in Samsara with out help and guidence from those who have already defeated Samsara's very roots ? out of hand rejecting teachings because you dont like them is a factor of Ignorance if one doesnt have the tools to comprehend them as of yet place them on the mental shelf of I dont know, If you dont have some Idea of how accomplished the Buddha was and not an ordinary person with mental afflictions then practising actual Buddhadharma will be very difficult.
But for rebirth there is still no proof.
Yes, because I am a free thinker and I use reason to believe in something or not. Someones does NEED evidence to find out someone is in love with you or now. I can prove that my wife loves me that she can stand living with me.
Faith can be very dangerous weapon to cause suffering on other people. That is why I don't like faith. Remember it was Faith that let Christians bomb abortion clinics and it was faith that brought down the Twin Towers.
I will be agnostic about death. I don't know what is going to happen when I die. Could I be reborn? Could I go to heaven? Could I go to hell? Could I just not exist? It might be possible that there is a beer volcano and a stripper factory. (I would LOVE that!)
The Buddha did supposedly quote:
If the Buddha is wrong you are making a liar out of him and all his followers whom have engaged in his advise and seen it to fruition. Methinks Venerables in the past, present and future to come know Buddha's teachings on cause and effect and think lying to be a miserable and dangerous thing to engage in which is why its a downfall and a very basic precept no ?
Alot of people like to quote the Kalama sutta as a way of tearing up Buddha's teachings without understanding the real meaning or context of such healthy skeptacism is encouraged and doubt is dispelled by engaging in practise. Its a bit like people who dont believe in medatitive concentration but lack the tools to reaffirm their position because they cant be bothered to sit for extensive periods and practise these are the same people who cannot seem to fathom that there are whole generations of practitoners who have rigoursly debated Buddha's teachings for the past few thousand year and engaged in extensive medatation retreat only to come to the conclusion that yes Buddha's teachings are correct
A Look at the Kalama Sutta
by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi
The discourse has been described as “the Buddha’s Charter of Free Inquiry,” and though the discourse certainly does counter the decrees of dogmatism and blind faith with a vigorous call for free investigation, it is problematic whether the sutta can support all the positions that have been ascribed to it. On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker’s kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.
http://amitabhabuddha.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/venerable-bhikkhu-bodhi-on-the-kalama-sutta/
As a rule our lives will improve when we stop killing, stealing, lying, raping and being drunk all the time.
But we have to start with some trust before we can even bring ourselves to changing our behavior.
The difference is that this part of Buddhism – the pragmatic part – is verifiable within weeks, months, or years.
And when we put some effort in it we can even understand how it works.
The idea that the effects of our actions (karma-consequence) work beyond our death and manifest in our future lives is of a different category.
And unlike the pragmatic stuff it lacks all verification.
And no; people can be wrong without such intention; without lying.
I suppose it is because I don’t like it when people turn their Buddhist lifestyle into the practice of eliminating all joy in life; all for the sake of good consequences in the next one or for the sake of not getting another life at all.
That’s no straw-man I’m afraid. Some Buddhists really are like that.
It just makes me sad and I don’t want people to think of Buddhism as an anti-life movement.
It never ceases to amaze me why some Buddhists cling to the necessity rebirth so adamantly and unquestioningly.
There is no dogma in dharma.
Is that a problem?
But the heart of his teaching is brilliant.
Why do people seem proud to willingly abandon one of the 7 treasures and one of the 5 spiritual faculties? I don't get it. He did ask his followers to go on faith, many, many times. The Buddha spoke at great length about the great benefits of faith. He didn't call it one of the 7 treasures for no reason.
"Faith is seed, the entrance, the initiator, the ticket, the beginning.
Understanding is the highest, the goal, the diamond-cutter, the end.
Both are Floods of Advantage, Fabulous Fruits, Leading to Happiness!"
"Whoever has faith in the Buddha, has faith in what is truly highest!
For those who have faith in the highest, the highest is the result..."...Whoever has faith in this noble 8-fold Way, has
faith in what is highest! For those who have faith in the highest,
the highest will be the result."...In so far as there are states, whether
constructed or unconstructed, dispassion, stilling, ceasing is truly
the highest of these states, that is Nibbana... Whoever has faith in
this State, has faith in what is highest! For those who have faith in
the highest, the highest will be the result...
There are 3 types of faith.
The first is faith in the object itself. Let's call that blind faith, if you will.
There is also faith obtained through reasoning, which is based entirely on developing conviction through reasoning, to the point where you will not accept any contrary assertion. For example, one can examine how mind can exist and prove, through reasoning, that there's no inherently existent/unchanging self. And you can do this to the point where you are able to develop conviction regarding that subject, to the point where you would reject all alternative explanations, which posit such a self.
The third type is a faith that one may develop in the possibility of a result, based, generally on a combination of both the first and second types of faith. For example, one may develop faith in the First Noble Truth (the truth of suffering). One may then develop some degree of faith, at least, in the Buddha for having analyzed this correctly and for having presented it in a form which is both understandable and capable of being proven through reasoning. One may then deduce the second Noble Truth, and the third through reasoning. The forth can't be deduced entirely through reasoning (that it will work for you), because it is experience-based (realizations and cessations achieved in a meditative state, generally); but you can develop real faith that, based on the first 3 noble truths, and the reliability of the speaker, if you follow his instructions faithfully, you will eliminate all suffering within your mental continuum.
So, based on faith born of reasoning, in the first 3 Noble Truths, and, some degree of faith born in the one who taught these three, as one who correctly deduced these principles, one can develop faith that, by following the 8-fold Path it is possible to eliminate all outflows and, with that, eliminate all suffering.
I approach the issue this way (see below); you're free to approach it differently; it's got to be something you're comfortable with, or you'll be wasting your time; you can't artificially incorporate anything into your belief structure; it must be literally "born" there.
Rebirth is unprovable; it's a hidden phenomena; if it exists at all it can't be proven through reasoning. Nor am I holding my breath for it to ever be proven by scientific investigation.
I don't have faith in rebirth in the sense of it being a part of my personal belief system (my own tenet system as opposed to the one I espouse); that is to say---when I last thought I might die I didn't cling to hopes or fears about rebirth; I clung to a deep fear of nonexistence, period.
This doesn't mean that I have non-faith in rebirth. Non-faith means one has actively rejected the idea as one not worthy of faith; that's the important distinction here. Maintaining an open mind is best for me, because it allows me to practice within a vehicle that posits a panoramic awareness which transcends limitations of all merely designated (conditioned) phenomena, such as body, objects, mind, time and allows for bodhisattva activities to occur over their necessary time frame. Doesn't make it a correct view; correct accords with experience.
I do have the words of beings who speak of it, such as the Buddha, his direct disciples,and a collection of past,recent and contemporary teachers believed to have gained realizations, if not liberation, including one of the founders of the Thai forest Wat traditions Ajahn Mun (and his teacher Ajahn Sao), both of whom discussed their own alleged past lives with their students; also yogis and teachers in the Tibetan traditions, naturally, and, presumably, practitioners and teachers in other traditions. There are plenty of stories, legend, statements. For example Matthew Ricard (PhD biologist who was accepted into the Pasteur Institute in Paris), saw the alleged rebirth of his own teacher, at age 4 or so, recognize and call out by name an old man no one knew, at his own enthronement ceremony---this person turned out to have been an attendant of his previous rebirth.
So I have faith, based on reasoning in some key teachings of the Buddha, some degree of reliance on anecdotal evidence, and the affirmative statements in Suttas of a being I consider generally correct regarding suffering (faith in the object).
This is enough not to have non-faith in rebirth (belief that it's crap); it's not enough for the kind of faith to be born within my mind, which I can rely on.
Ultimately, I don't see this lack of conviction as an obstacle. Leaving this on the back burner and continuing to do my practice will lead me to a correct understanding of whatever it is I/we need to know in order to make progress on the Path and ultimately obtain its fruition.
The only liers out there are people who believe in their faith so much that they will object the evidence in front of them because of their faith. A good example are Christian Young Earth Creationists who believe the Earth was created 6,000 by deity in six days. We show them tons of evidence and they will not budge. We still have all the benefits of mediation without belief of rebirth.
Do you know who you remind me of? A evangelical Christian who can't accept other opinions about the teachings and tell others that they are not “true” Christians because some Christians don't accept the Bible literally.
Dogma and faith is horrible. A freethinker should be able to tell which parts of the Dharma is acceptable or not. I will never support rebirth until I am able see that it is true. I am sorry that you think that is possible “un-Buddhist” of me, but I believe Buddhism does not require dogma. Dogma and faith can bring suffering and not bring someone else out of suffering. Prove it to me.
Is it wrong for me not to be so open minded that me brain will not fall out?
that you rely on faith. If you are 100% sure,
you dont need faith.
You said that faith means believing in something
with little evidence.
That's your own definition.
So, how much evidence is little evidence?
and how much evidence is sufficient evidence to qualify
as non-faith?
Nothing in this world is 100% certain.
You just choose to accept by faith those things which
you are familiar and comfortable with.
It is the dictionary's. I'll be honest, I ignored the rest of the post after I read that.