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.
Buddhists Against Reincarnation!!!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I was using Miriam-Websters, which defines faith as:
"a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith
: without question "
And I was specifically looking at the part about "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof", and when you said, "I have 'faith' that the earth will continue to revolve on its trajectory around the sun, and that in some hours it will be morning." I don't see that as faith, because in my lifetime alone it has happened consistently more than 22,000 times and hasn't missed even once. To me, that's proof, not faith.
I'm not sure why us seeing the definition of "faith" as being different is so significant. Why can't we look at things differently?
Buddhism is based entirely on the hope that human beings may learn, grow, and change, and the Bodhisattva Vow is based on dedicating one's efforts and existence to bringing about the manifestation of that goal in the cosmos.
Buddhists do not point to ancient Greek pantheistic mythological stories as some kind of dogma in order to denounce hope as one of the evils of this world.
So yes, words do matter. But I also think it's legitimate to understand that not all people or institutions or belief-groups agree on the definition of certain words.
This contradiction is resolved as a practitioner when you see that the 'visions of success' are always dukkha when grasped. Yet at the same time the yearning itself is just the breathing of the universe in your body (my teacher didn't say that this is my take). I mean that to say that it is unformulated preceding fabrication. Sort of the jewel within desire, om mane peme hum - the jewel within the lotus. In short within the mud of hope is the jewel of compassion.
The Buddha clearly asked his followers not to believe things simply because he said them or they are stated in religious texts but because you have experience of them being true (Kalama Sutta).
I would say this thread has provided a demonstration of that wisdom.
In the context of Buddhism they mean essentially the same thing. For example:
I have faith that what the Buddha said is true.
I have faith in enlightenment.
OR
I have a belief (believe in) that what the Buddha said was true.
I have a belief (believe in) in enlightenment.
They all mean the same thing.
Technically, If that is the Ops statement, then the OP's statement is technically incorrect. The Kalama Sutta was not directed at his followers, it was directed at the kalamas, people who did not know who or what to follow. People who we not sure about who to follow. He said very different things to people who were already his followers.
evidence is fact used to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.
Illustration is just "see? it says here, for example....."
I like debating with you @aura, but please don't twist my words or intentions.
I was reminded about some courses I took at university in linguistics, where we learned that there were at least 3 types of language (although right now I can't remember the actual words that were used, but you could break it down into:
formal language -- what dictionaries and thesauruses use
common language -- what people use
personal language -- what individuals use
And I think "faith" may be a good example. Clearly people here are using the term differently, and that's leading to the confusion. But that's the way language is.
Of course it gives them peace of mind!
If they ever accepted rebirth as a fact of life, they would have to accept that the sorry state of our world is not something that they merely inherited from strangers, fate, or some random gods, but that it is exactly what we all created by our past actions for which we are all directly and personally collectively responsible. They would likewise have to accept personal responsibility for cleaning up/repairing/healing ourselves, our neighbors, and the rest of this horrible mess that is the sorry state of our world, which we ourselves created by our own past actions.
If they ever accepted rebirth as a fact of life, they would likewise have to accept it as a fact of life that all the consequences and repercussions of our personal activities in this life are something we will most assuredly face in the future, and that we will indeed see the other side of it all...
including the other side of privilege, which is privation, and the other side of empire, which is slavery.
So of course, in the West, there can't possibly be such a thing as rebirth...
and there can't possibly be such a thing as hell...can there?
After all, it would be very upsetting to one's peace of mind if we here in the West had to put aside our belief that we here in the West must surely be responsible for philosophy and progress and all the finer things in life and instead face the personal sorry history and responsibility of having been barbarians who engaged in butchery!
How much more pleasant it is to believe that we must have only just materialized here in space out of nothing and that we are going to completely dissolve in space into nothing with absolutely no troubling karmic responsibilities and absolutely no troubling karmic residuals!
Westerners could never be accused of living in denial, of course. Westerners attend closely to the current declarations of "Science," (our reigning god of the day who makes declarations according to the direction of the current flow of grant money) as loudly proclaimed and interpreted for us by "Media Business Interests" our current divine oracle (often not much more accurate than reading chicken bones).
Can anybody hear the Buddhist world laughing at the accusation (made by a Buddhist?) that people who accept rebirth as a fact of life must be doing so because they must be living in a state of denial and bargaining?
I certainly can.
And, I don't find westerners and Protestants in general to be any less accepting of the fact that the problems of the world are caused by the people of the world. In fact, go to the world's most Buddhist country -- Thailand -- and you'll experience a culture deeply rooted in a concept we in the west would call "fate".
it was only decried later, because otherwise the final judgement and hell and damnation would hold no fear.
and such religion was once a splendid tool of Fear.
Still is, in the hands of some....
I know it's a discussion source, but it has good links.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110520060819AAvUuI0
In essence I am saying that I am happy for sharing these ideas and reading the posts. That's what this forum is all about. But I am also not surprised that people cannot agree just as someone is going to have a hard time getting me interested in something out of my experience.
At no point in the fable, anywhere, does it isolate or differentiate hope as being any different, or singularly separate from the Evils which escaped.
all we know, is that she managed to contain it.
Now - either it just wasn't as fast as the others, or her reflexes were pretty slow, if she let them all go, but one.
But only Hope remained.
which (for fun) prompts another question:
If it was contained, presumably it was contained (as were all the other Evils) so that they would NOT influence mankind.
however - If Hope was the only thing remaining, and presumably, all the other evils scattered far and wide, and affected mankind in every possible way, then how come we are affected by Hope - if it remained contained in the Jar/box?
see, this is I think, where we get the phrase 'false hope.'
one of the other evils must be cunningly disguised as their erstwhile companion, which is still caught and sealed in the box.
But is this 'false hope' really any worse than the real one?
I think we should know.
We must find that box.....
That link says hope is good. I'd be moderately interested in an accurate translation of Hesiod's Works and Days. Hesiod was the author who dreamed up the story. Though perhaps it was divinely planted in his mind by Zeus,
I agree that an illustration need not stand up to scrutiny as claim of fact.
"see? it says here, for example..." : "something that indicates"
Does anybody actually buy your propensity to engage in semantic gaming as legitimate debate? I don't.
Why would a moderator who closes the discussions of other members on the grounds that they are "not sufficiently about Buddhism..."
point to an ancient Hellenistic pantheistic religious parable and say "See? it says here that hope is one of the plagues of the earth in Pandora's box!"?
Buddhism does NOT equate hope with evil or a plague of the earth.
don't let it get to you....
Buddhism as far as i know, doesn't equate Buddhism with hope.
this all began on a difference of opinion of the definition of the word 'Faith'.
I merely opined that the word Faith, with regard to Theistic doctrine and a belief in a god, was more indicative of a hopefulness of fulfilment. As an ex R.Catholic, having been educated in a convent, I know from my personal experience that this is pretty much spot-on.
I saw the word Faith, in a Buddhist context, as more of an indication of 'confidence'.
Several different definitions have arisen since, and all seem perfectly acceptable.
So now, where would you like to go from here?
Also, do you believe that hope is evil?
In the end Buddhism seeks to move beyond hope and fear.
If a person has knowledge and conviction that a task can be accomplished then there can be motivation without hope.
So I think that hope implys a lack of knowledge about an outcome and faith from the Abrahamic traditions I think means an acceptance based on trust not knowledge.
A specific sentiment or mind-wrought feeling cannot in and of itself alone, be anything.
I know many who believe in rebirth because of the recorded teachings of the Buddha which they have learned and adopted. They believe those teachings reflect reality, and they believe rebirth and karmic consequence is part of those teachings.
I know many who believe in rebirth because they remembered a former life as children, myself included, many of whom have found solid evidence in the world, still standing, of that former life, myself included.
I know many who believe in rebirth because their children have recounted details to them of a former life for which there is no other reasonable explanation.
I know many who believe in rebirth because they experienced a near death experience that demonstrated something to them that somehow convinced them of the reality of rebirth.
I know many who believe in rebirth because after a lifetime of meditation they have noticed their own layers, and those of others, and compared notes with others who saw the same things on the same people.
I know many who believe in rebirth because as adults they recovered memory of a past life.
I know many who believe in rebirth because they have crossed paths in this life with people and places they were close to in a former life, resulting in quite fascinating and often quite mind-blowing phenomena.
But I don't know anybody who believes anything because of what their ancestors believed or any sort of concept of "cultural predisposed belief." I know very few people who even know who their ancestors were, let alone what they happened to believe in.
basicly we have to at some point and in a vast manner eventually accept that dukkha permeates the world. If we don't then we won't experience the vast sukkha (bliss).
But this acceptance does not happen if we are always holding back 'oh I have dukkha but it will eventually turn into sukkha'. It's like having an ace hidden in your sleeve (sukkha hope). But until you play the game fairly you can't truly win and you have to accept all the evils of the box. Of course sometimes we need to find stability like taking a med. Personally I take meds and it is rational. I used to drink and it became worse than the world dukkha so I stopped.
My 2c
"If you cannot find serenity, peace of mind and comfortable joy where you are right now - then where else do you expect to find it?"
Why, were you?
And I can recognise a troll when i see one. I wouldn't call this trolling.
You keep saying, "I know many who believe..." That's not proof or evidence. That's belief or (in my definition) faith. There's nothing wrong with believing what you believe, but there is something very wrong with not being able to see the difference between faith/belief and fact.
Let's face it, you're Buddhist and don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior. That means many of the world's Christians, perhaps most, believe you are going to hell. Well, that's their belief. But that's not ever been proven to be fact.
I could write just as long a soliloquy about "I know many who believe in life after death and heaven". That doesn't make those people right. It's just their belief.
A couple of months ago I found myself getting so steamed up over some of the conversations here that I wanted to drop Buddhism all together. Instead, I stepped away from the forum for quite a few weeks. I'm not going to tell you that you should do that, but I will tell you that you need to chill a bit. And in that theme, Federica -- overall -- is a pretty decent moderator. I haven't always agreed with her opinions or her actions as moderator, but she provides a valuable service to this forum and does a pretty nice job.
But it's all just leaves in the breeze.
Edit: You're too kind, @vinlyn, and I appreciate your gracious comment.
such things prompt me to attempt to be more mindful. and rightly so.
Thank you.
not with that intention....
what point are you trying to make, exactly?
My experience is that I do not personally know anyone who believes in rebirth because of the beliefs of their ancestors, therefore
my own personal experience does not support your assertion that "predisposed cultural belief" determines personal belief in rebirth. I would contend that the majority of people in the western hemisphere do not behave in a manner that evidences any sincere belief in the teachings of Christ whatsoever, and irregardless of any "predisposed cultural belief" or personal ancestors.
Belief seems to have always meant to strongly value, trust, or have confidence in something.
Faith differs from belief in that it means loyalty based on promise or duty.
The meanings make sense when looking at it this way in both the secular and spiritual realms. We need only look at the reliability of those involved. A person can be reliable in the secular realm and have no religious practice or affiliation, and they can be accurately described as having faith because they are faithful. Conversely, a person can be steeped in religious practice and hold true all sorts of religious tenants, yet their actual behavior may not reflect the values of their religion, and in this way that person can be accurately described as having little or no faith, as they are not faithful to their vows, not faithful to their promises and responsibilities. They only have belief in words and dogmas.
I contend that the majority of adults eventually learn to think for themselves and decide what they personally do and do not believe in as adults far beyond whatever they may have been taught as children.
I disagree with your assertion that belief in rebirth has its origins in "cultural predisposition" or the beliefs of one's ancestors, rather than in personal observation of and experience with the natural world.