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.
I don't see how one can put a psychological spin on this passage, because it clearly says "On rearising in an injurious world".... If it meant "on developing an unwholesome mental state" ( whatever ) then it would say that. And generally similies in the suttas are clearly labelled as such.
From my readings of the Pali Canon, I'm of the opinion that the Buddha, when referring to things like 'the all' (sabba) or 'the world' (or 'the cosmos') (loka), was often using these terms as metaphors for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.).
My perception is that some people are uncomfortable with the teachings on rebirth, kamma and the realms, and so they look for metaphorical meanings where they weren't intended - for example attempts to put a psychological spin on dependent orgination, despite the fact that the nidana descriptions flatly contradict this interpretation.
For sure, there is a lot of psychology in the suttas, but it doesn't relate to rebirth.
For what it's worth, I'm neither uncomfortable with the teachings on rebirth, kamma, or the realms of existence, nor do I think they're limited to purely literal (i.e., non-psychological) interpretations.
I tend to feel that the dharma is repeatable on many many levels. To me that is the beauty of the teachings. It is that the same things apply to physical, mental, spiritual, other level of which I am unaware, etc.
I have heard it best described this way: rebirth happens on a moment to moment basis both physically and mentally. At the last moment when we die. The moment to moment rebirth is still happening; however, because the current body is no longer working, the rebirth occurs to another body. Just like a child playing with a toy until is breaks, then picking up a new one and doing the same thing. Its our focus that is shifting...hence non-self and impermanence. We are so engaged in our playing with this toy (5 aggregates) that we forget we are not the toy. We are absorbed by character (ego) we create, we think we are the character. And because we are so attached to this character play, we create a new character when the current one dies.
As for what is playing with this toy... I do not have that level of understanding.
Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.
Reincarnation is the religious or philosophical concept that the soul or spirit, after biological death, begins a new life in a new body that may be human, animal or spiritual depending on the moral quality of the previous life's actions. This doctrine is a central tenet of the Indian religions and is a belief that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates. It is also a common belief of pagan religions such as Druidism, Spiritism, Theosophy, and Eckankar and is found in many tribal societies around the world, in places such as Siberia, West Africa, North America, and Australia.
Going back to the title of this thread -- "The problem with rebirth" -- this thread pretty well sums up the problem to me. 4 pages of discussion and very little agreement on the concept.
@vinlyn I understand why it would matter (the way you put it). I'm not saying any "one" has it right or wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it's a subject that is better off set aside. And if someone does not want to, they have the freewill to choose which "one" they would like to agree with since "it" matters.
People opposed to rebirth/reincarnation sometimes remind me of Roman Emperor Justinian's wife Empress Theodora (a former prostitute), sort of like, "If I don't believe in it—it ain't true" which frankly speaking is the attitude of a self-willed brat. Reincarnation had always been a part of Christianity. Emperor Justinian found a way to make reincarnation an anathema so his wife wouldn't suffer rebirth for all of her sins. Source: http://goo.gl/4u1YO
People opposed to rebirth/reincarnation sometimes remind me of Roman Emperor Justinian's wife Empress Theodora (a former prostitute), sort of like, "If I don't believe in it—it ain't true" which frankly speaking is the attitude of a self-willed brat. Reincarnation had always been a part of Christianity. Emperor Justinian found a way to make reincarnation an anathema so his wife wouldn't suffer rebirth for all of her sins. Source: http://goo.gl/4u1YO
There's a huge difference between the 3 options: I believe it. I don't believe it. I don't know (yet).
We're not politicians, we're not here for agreement.
When there is so much disagreement about what rebirth "is" and even whether it happens, then coming to some sort of consensus is rather significant.
What for?
I think it's good discussing to arouse inspiration and perhaps some slight insights in people, but more than that is very unlikely and also not the goal.
We're not politicians, we're not here for agreement.
When there is so much disagreement about what rebirth "is" and even whether it happens, then coming to some sort of consensus is rather significant.
What for?
I think it's good discussing to arouse inspiration and perhaps some slight insights in people, but more than that is very unlikely and also not the goal.
Look, if you just want to swallow the whole idea, fine. Go to it.
We're not politicians, we're not here for agreement.
When there is so much disagreement about what rebirth "is" and even whether it happens, then coming to some sort of consensus is rather significant.
What for?
I think it's good discussing to arouse inspiration and perhaps some slight insights in people, but more than that is very unlikely and also not the goal.
Look, if you just want to swallow the whole idea, fine. Go to it.
Thought you wanted some consensus? But ok
If you want to swallow the idea of no rebirth, that's also fine.
Sabre, I've said it several times now in this discussion, but I'll say it one more time. I am not agreeing with the concept of rebirth, nor am I disagreeing with it. My mind is totally open to the possibility (providing it is rebirth to the same species).
... If you have ever noticed, Buddhist statements are, empirically, neither true nor false. I should add, such statements can never add up to call to dogma or to be dogmatic.
"Ehipassika," viz., the invitation 'to come and see,' can only be understood as an invitation to practice the Buddha's course (patipâda) not to verify certain sentences, empirically, as being true or not true in the case of rebirth.
All of us here are invited to come and to see, to practice the course. That's not dogmatic to me and to many other Buddhists. The statements in Buddhism arise from those who have personal knowledge (attanâ va jâneyyâtha) and personal higher knowledge (sâmam yea dhammam abhiññâya). This type of knowledge is outside of the realm of modernity. ...
Higher knowledge? No, I don’t think so. The idea of rebirth is correct or incorrect as a simple “modern” matter of fact.
Buddhist practice can change our perspective on life, and it probably is intended to do so. (It is what I’d say is the meaning of Buddhism for us in the 21st century). But spiritual growth is not a scientific method of establishing facts. Rebirth – If it is a correct description of reality – needs proof like any other attempt of understanding the world that we live in.
Buddhism was constructed in an era in which science as a method was not available. So of course it has flaws in the way it substantiates its theories. No problem. We can take what is valuable about Buddhism and leave out the ancient misconceptions.
That’s not a dogmatic thing to do; there is room for criticism and for change in the scientific world. Solid proof of Rebirth actually happening is welcome. Also please provide some rudimentary theory of how it works, and how it fits into the rest of our understanding of biology. It would be worth a Nobel-prize.
Sabre, I've said it several times now in this discussion, but I'll say it one more time. I am not agreeing with the concept of rebirth, nor am I disagreeing with it. My mind is totally open to the possibility (providing it is rebirth to the same species).
I admire your openmindedness but what sort of proof would you consider?
Obviously, you place great value in empirical verification (the principle of excluding from language propositions that cannot verified by sense experience). However, it is not possible to attain bodhicitta or enlightenment through empirical verification because what is attained is outside of sensory consciousness. In the end, one will end up like Stephen Batcherlor pumping out secular Buddhism which is Buddhism in name only.
Buddhism was constructed in an era in which science as a method was not available.
@zenff I would be interested to know exactly what you are referring to when you say "science as a method" (the scientific method?) and your evidence for this statement.
Obviously, you place great value in empirical verification (the principle of excluding from language propositions that cannot verified by sense experience). However, it is not possible to attain bodhicitta or enlightenment through empirical verification because what is attained is outside of sensory consciousness. In the end, one will end up like Stephen Batcherlor pumping out secular Buddhism which is Buddhism in name only.
I know people who tend to see Buddhism more as a philosophy than as a religion...and essentially, that is what you are referring to here. While it may not be your personal viewpoint, what's wrong with secular Buddhism?
Buddhism was constructed in an era in which science as a method was not available.
@zenff I would be interested to know exactly what you are referring to when you say "science as a method" (the scientific method?) and your evidence for this statement.
I'm not going to try to speak for Zenff or answer the question you are asking. But I will just point out in a related nature that part of the issue here (in my view) is that we as practitioners often fall into the trap of believing the false modern tale that Buddhism is the scientific religion. While Buddhism may very slightly approach the concept of science, it is not a scientific religion. It wasn't 2,500 years ago, and it's not today.
Secular Buddhism, as a concept, is far more scientific than the other branches of Buddhism.
@vinlyn my question was not a value judgement in disguise. I was a genuine interest in what basis he made this claim. Its seems (i.e. my bs detector was going off) like one of those things that is easy to say, but is based on our own assumptions about history. I wasn't there, I don't know how the people of the buddha's time thought and viewed the world.
On that note, I started another threat about knowledge and evidence for buddhism so we can take this discussion over there. I would encourage you to read the articles I posted, as they address about what you are speaking.
The literal truth of Rebirth or otherwise is not my business. I have far more pressing concerns. Right now I am breathing in and out and much of the time I am doing that without awareness.. I am thinking thoughts that lack compassion, I am indolent.....that is my business right now.
No criticism was intended in my response, @tmottes.
Nor on my end. If I feel my words could be interpreted as a value judgement, I just want to make sure that people realize I am not questioning to teach, but to learn
Read Stephen Batchelor's book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. It is not Buddhism. Where in his book does he elaborate on nirvana the most important element of Buddhism? In an earlier book by him, Alone With Others, he even said:
"Samsara and nirvana are two antithetical conditions of existence both of which hinder the fullest possible actualization of human potential."
Obviously, you place great value in empirical verification (the principle of excluding from language propositions that cannot verified by sense experience). However, it is not possible to attain bodhicitta or enlightenment through empirical verification because what is attained is outside of sensory consciousness. In the end, one will end up like Stephen Batcherlor pumping out secular Buddhism which is Buddhism in name only.
In my mind this perceived tension is solved in – what I understand as – the Two Truths.
In relative truth there is a Buddhist teaching which may – or may not – include literal rebirth. This Buddhism we can shape and alter. I think it should be different in different circumstances. In the 21st century our understanding of the world is different from that of Gautama’s days, and that’s no big deal. It is only relative truth anyways.
Absolute truth is always the same. Just don’t ask me what it is. Words and concepts are fingers pointing at the moon. Silence is futile, explanations are futile. That’s the spiritual part.
The trick is not to mess things up. When we talk about relative truth, we conform to the rules of that game. Modern science is the best thing we have on this field; is my opinion. When science contradicts Buddhism that’s too bad for Buddhism. When we use phrases to point at absolute truth however; everything goes. But don’t think of this kind of language as being superior to (or even in the same league as) scientific understanding.
Read Stephen Batchelor's book, Buddhism Without Beliefs. It is not Buddhism. Where in his book does he elaborate on nirvana the most important element of Buddhism? In an earlier book by him, Alone With Others, he even said:
"Samsara and nirvana are two antithetical conditions of existence both of which hinder the fullest possible actualization of human potential."
That's pretty outrageous.
I didn't ask you about one particular author. I asked you about secular Buddhism, in general. And, from your perspective is secular Buddhism the same as philosophical Buddhism (as opposed to religious Buddhism)?
Obviously, you place great value in empirical verification (the principle of excluding from language propositions that cannot verified by sense experience). However, it is not possible to attain bodhicitta or enlightenment through empirical verification because what is attained is outside of sensory consciousness. In the end, one will end up like Stephen Batcherlor pumping out secular Buddhism which is Buddhism in name only.
In my mind this perceived tension is solved in – what I understand as – the Two Truths.
In relative truth there is a Buddhist teaching which may – or may not – include literal rebirth. This Buddhism we can shape and alter. I think it should be different in different circumstances. In the 21st century our understanding of the world is different from that of Gautama’s days, and that’s no big deal. It is only relative truth anyways.
Absolute truth is always the same. Just don’t ask me what it is. Words and concepts are fingers pointing at the moon. Silence is futile, explanations are futile. That’s the spiritual part.
The trick is not to mess things up. When we talk about relative truth, we conform to the rules of that game. Modern science is the best thing we have on this field; is my opinion. When science contradicts Buddhism that’s too bad for Buddhism. When we use phrases to point at absolute truth however; everything goes. But don’t think of this kind of language as being superior to (or even in the same league as) scientific understanding.
I can't help but feel that the two truths fall into dualistic thinking. We know from our experience of the world, that things aren't solely back and white (and rather rare for things to be purely black or purely white): there are many shades of grey (and really a whole rainbow). I suspect-but have no evidence, that the two truths are not different. Relative and absolute truths are the two ends, but real truth (what the finger points to) is shades of grey.
While Buddhism may very slightly approach the concept of science, it is not a scientific religion. It wasn't 2,500 years ago, and it's not today.
No, but it's a reasonable religion. Many, if not all of its followers have proved through the ages, beginning with the Buddha, that they are prepared and able to engage with views from a wide variety of systems, with intellectual discipline and competence.
The Dalai Lama is a good example, as was Nagarjuna, Dogen. There is no shortage of ancient or modern Buddhist scholars and practitioners who have tried to find common ground with other ways of seeing.
While Buddhism may very slightly approach the concept of science, it is not a scientific religion. It wasn't 2,500 years ago, and it's not today.
No, but it's a reasonable religion. Many, if not all of its followers have proved through the ages, beginning with the Buddha, that they are prepared and able to engage with views from a wide variety of systems, with intellectual discipline and competence.
The Dalai Lama is a good example, as was Nagarjuna, Dogen. There is no shortage of ancient or modern Buddhist scholars and practitioners who have tried to find common ground with other ways of seeing.
I don't think I disagree with what you said, although I don't see what that has to do with my point.
Just that I don't think it's a dead end talking about rebirth, or other concepts, from both perspectives, and encouraging dialogue. But don't sell science short - what does science really say about rebirth? Not what do materialists say, what do scientists say? Does the scientific data really point us away from rebirth, or is that an assumption made by people who aren't trained in the relevant scientific fields?
I didn't ask you about one particular author. I asked you about secular Buddhism, in general. And, from your perspective is secular Buddhism the same as philosophical Buddhism (as opposed to religious Buddhism)?
As I recall you didn't make any stipulations as to how to answer the question. Stephen Batchelor is pretty much the go-to guy when it comes to secular Buddhism.
As to the next point, there is no such thing as philosophical Buddhism, at least in my book. This term might apply to Taoism since it is broken up into philosophical and religious. Buddhism is mysticism, a term, by the way, that Western Buddhists tend to be uneasy with.
I didn't ask you about one particular author. I asked you about secular Buddhism, in general. And, from your perspective is secular Buddhism the same as philosophical Buddhism (as opposed to religious Buddhism)?
As I recall you didn't make any stipulations as to how to answer the question. Stephen Batchelor is pretty much the go-to guy when it comes to secular Buddhism.
As to the next point, there is no such thing as philosophical Buddhism, at least in my book. This term might apply to Taoism since it is broken up into philosophical and religious. Buddhism is mysticism, a term, by the way, that Western Buddhists tend to be uneasy with.
One of the great overarching discussions in Buddhism is whether it's a religion or a philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search of "buddhism religion or philosophy".
vinlyn: Did a thorough Google search. This is what I came up with. Buddhism has all the earmarks of being mysticism. The modern notion of "philosophy" is so diffuse so as to be worthless for any serious discussion.
vinlyn: Did a thorough Google search. This is what I came up with. Buddhism has all the earmarks of being mysticism. The modern notion of "philosophy" is so diffuse so as to be worthless for any serious discussion.
While it may not be your personal viewpoint, what's wrong with secular Buddhism?
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, though I'm not convinced people are always clear enough about why they're rejecting certain aspects of what the suttas describe - in some cases I suspect because they haven't spent enough time reading the suttas and therefore have to rely on second hand interpretation.
While it may not be your personal viewpoint, what's wrong with secular Buddhism?
I don't think there's anything wrong with it, though I'm not convinced people are always clear enough about why they're rejecting certain aspects of what the suttas describe - in some cases I suspect it's because they haven't spent enough time reading the suttas and therefore have to rely on second hand interpretation.
From my readings of the Pali Canon, I'm of the opinion that the Buddha, when referring to things like 'the all' (sabba) or 'the world' (or 'the cosmos') (loka), was often using these terms as metaphors for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience
I think the meaning of such words varies with context, and there are different levels of description in the suttas. Some suttas describe the "big picture", some are concerned with our individual experience via the sense bases. I think problems can arise when we try to impose a singular meaning across the suttas, or assume metaphor when it wasn't intended.
From my readings of the Pali Canon, I'm of the opinion that the Buddha, when referring to things like 'the all' (sabba) or 'the world' (or 'the cosmos') (loka), was often using these terms as metaphors for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience
I think the meaning of such words varies with context, and there are different levels of description in the suttas. Some suttas describe the "big picture", some are concerned with our individual experience via the sense bases. I think problems can arise when we try to impose a singular meaning across the suttas, or assume metaphor when it wasn't intended.
Allegorically, rebirth is a powerful force ... I find - what do other's think?
There are at least two ways of approaching the issue...probably more. One is the view that the Buddha was referring to literal post mortem rebirth. It is possible to find much in the Suttas that appears to corroborate that view..that the kandhas/skandhas take a series of serial rupic forms. This is called the Three Births Model. not that births are restricted to three in number..but the reference is to past, present and future births. Another interpretation, which despite some suggestions is NOT " modern " but has a well established pedigree. is the One Birth Model..which to be clear does not rule out multiple births in a dogmatic way..this model says that Dependent Origination happens on a moment to moment basis, and that what is reborn is a process. That karma/kamma is the means by which this processes reaches resolution. A process which happens both in time and atemporally.
The point it seems to me, is that whether one ascribes to a Three Birth or One Birth model..the Dharma is the same IN ITS ACTUALISATION. In other words one keeps the precepts as a means of training..one practices on the cushion..one seeks appropriate instruction, and cultivates ( or discovers ) a good heart. None of this is dependent on a belief system. We start..we recollect ourselves over and over again. We downplay the importance of goals. We stick at it without expecting immediate reward. Because it is the right thing to do.
Understanding dependent origination is actually quite important, because it is the underlying process that keeps suffering going. In the suttas it's said that "whoever sees dependent origination sees the dhamma" and vice versa. So to say that the dhamma is the same in actualization independent of our view of dependent origination is not really true.
Dependent upon our view, the meaning of the second noble truth "craving leads to suffering" also changes significantly, and of course also the meaning of suffering itself. So when one sees dependent origination, one understands the four noble truths, not before that. It's all intertwined. Dependent origination and the four noble truths are basically the same thing. It's important we know fully what the Buddha meant with this and to take an interpretation that doesn't fit the suttas is not wise. And honestly, a momentary interpretation doesn't really fit.
Not saying such a view can't be useful somehow, or that it is wrong to not know, but finally one has to come to know d.o fully.
There is another way of approaching the issue, and that is to acknowledge that in some areas, the sutras simply got it wrong. They were great thinkers and enlightened, but not gods. They operated within the framework of what they were taught and assumed about the world.
If you feel my saying something in the sutras can be honestly, simply wrong is sacrilegious or disqualifies me from claiming I'm a Buddhist, I'm sorry about that but it doesn't mean I'm going to change my own deeply held beliefs. Buddhism transformed my life and this is my understanding of the dharma after many years of meditation and contemplation and discussion with other Buddhists and even a few Masters.
I'm not saying this is how you must understand the dharma. I don't go around preaching it to other Buddhists or insisting you have a problem. I'm just a voice on a board like this that tells people who say, "I like what Buddhism says but can't get past reincarnation beliefs" that you don't have to in order to practice Buddhism.
For some of us, there is a problem with what the sutras and many Buddhists claim about literal reincarnation and the other teachings on impermanence and no-self and emptiness. On the deepest level, they are incompatible. That doesn't make the rest of the dharma invalid.
Extract from Kalama Sutta ( "[...]" inserted by me):
The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.
'Suppose there is a hereafter [rebirth] and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill [kamma]. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.
'Suppose there is no hereafter [no rebirth] and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill [no kamma]. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.
It's nice to know that the Buddha's teachings provide "solace" for both believers and non-belivers of rebirth and kamma.
Understanding dependent origination is actually quite important, because it is the underlying process that keeps suffering going. In the suttas it's said that "whoever sees dependent origination sees the dhamma" and vice versa. So to say that the dhamma is the same in actualization independent of our view of dependent origination is not really true.
Dependent upon our view, the meaning of the second noble truth "craving leads to suffering" also changes significantly, and of course also the meaning of suffering itself. So when one sees dependent origination, one understands the four noble truths, not before that. It's all intertwined. Dependent origination and the four noble truths are basically the same thing. It's important we know fully what the Buddha meant with this and to take an interpretation that doesn't fit the suttas is not wise. And honestly, a momentary interpretation doesn't really fit.
Not saying such a view can't be useful somehow, or that it is wrong to not know, but finally one has to come to know d.o fully.
D.O. is the process that keeps suffering going anyway...whether in this life or in the Three Births or Three Lifetime model. It does not only become operative post mortem. Its operative right now. Its truth can be directly seen in this life. The truth of D.O. does not depend on a literal understanding of Rebirth...
Comments
While you may not find these things as persuasive as I do, I suggest checking out excerpts from Buddhasa Bhikkhu's Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination, Linda Blancard's article in the May 2012 edition of the Journal for the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies, this blog post from Jayarava's Raves, and Piya Tan's translations and annotations of AN 4.45 and SN 35.116. I think the latter is especially relevant and enlightening.
I have heard it best described this way: rebirth happens on a moment to moment basis both physically and mentally. At the last moment when we die. The moment to moment rebirth is still happening; however, because the current body is no longer working, the rebirth occurs to another body. Just like a child playing with a toy until is breaks, then picking up a new one and doing the same thing. Its our focus that is shifting...hence non-self and impermanence. We are so engaged in our playing with this toy (5 aggregates) that we forget we are not the toy. We are absorbed by character (ego) we create, we think we are the character. And because we are so attached to this character play, we create a new character when the current one dies.
As for what is playing with this toy... I do not have that level of understanding.
This is from Wikipedia "Reincarnation."
I'm not clear what your point is.
I understand why it would matter (the way you put it). I'm not saying any "one" has it right or wrong or anything. I'm just saying that it's a subject that is better off set aside. And if someone does not want to, they have the freewill to choose which "one" they would like to agree with since "it" matters.
I think it's good discussing to arouse inspiration and perhaps some slight insights in people, but more than that is very unlikely and also not the goal.
So how do you plan on knowing? Is it by empirical verification?
If you want to swallow the idea of no rebirth, that's also fine.
So now we have those useless posts out of the way, let's move on, ok?
No, I don’t think so.
The idea of rebirth is correct or incorrect as a simple “modern” matter of fact.
Buddhist practice can change our perspective on life, and it probably is intended to do so. (It is what I’d say is the meaning of Buddhism for us in the 21st century). But spiritual growth is not a scientific method of establishing facts. Rebirth – If it is a correct description of reality – needs proof like any other attempt of understanding the world that we live in.
Buddhism was constructed in an era in which science as a method was not available. So of course it has flaws in the way it substantiates its theories. No problem.
We can take what is valuable about Buddhism and leave out the ancient misconceptions.
That’s not a dogmatic thing to do; there is room for criticism and for change in the scientific world.
Solid proof of Rebirth actually happening is welcome. Also please provide some rudimentary theory of how it works, and how it fits into the rest of our understanding of biology. It would be worth a Nobel-prize.
Obviously, you place great value in empirical verification (the principle of excluding from language propositions that cannot verified by sense experience). However, it is not possible to attain bodhicitta or enlightenment through empirical verification because what is attained is outside of sensory consciousness. In the end, one will end up like Stephen Batcherlor pumping out secular Buddhism which is Buddhism in name only.
Secular Buddhism, as a concept, is far more scientific than the other branches of Buddhism.
On that note, I started another threat about knowledge and evidence for buddhism so we can take this discussion over there. I would encourage you to read the articles I posted, as they address about what you are speaking.
In relative truth there is a Buddhist teaching which may – or may not – include literal rebirth.
This Buddhism we can shape and alter. I think it should be different in different circumstances. In the 21st century our understanding of the world is different from that of Gautama’s days, and that’s no big deal. It is only relative truth anyways.
Absolute truth is always the same. Just don’t ask me what it is. Words and concepts are fingers pointing at the moon. Silence is futile, explanations are futile.
That’s the spiritual part.
The trick is not to mess things up. When we talk about relative truth, we conform to the rules of that game. Modern science is the best thing we have on this field; is my opinion. When science contradicts Buddhism that’s too bad for Buddhism.
When we use phrases to point at absolute truth however; everything goes. But don’t think of this kind of language as being superior to (or even in the same league as) scientific understanding.
I didn't ask you about one particular author. I asked you about secular Buddhism, in general. And, from your perspective is secular Buddhism the same as philosophical Buddhism (as opposed to religious Buddhism)?
The Dalai Lama is a good example, as was Nagarjuna, Dogen. There is no shortage of ancient or modern Buddhist scholars and practitioners who have tried to find common ground with other ways of seeing.
The Dalai Lama is a good example, as was Nagarjuna, Dogen. There is no shortage of ancient or modern Buddhist scholars and practitioners who have tried to find common ground with other ways of seeing.
I don't think I disagree with what you said, although I don't see what that has to do with my point.
As to the next point, there is no such thing as philosophical Buddhism, at least in my book. This term might apply to Taoism since it is broken up into philosophical and religious. Buddhism is mysticism, a term, by the way, that Western Buddhists tend to be uneasy with.
As to the next point, there is no such thing as philosophical Buddhism, at least in my book. This term might apply to Taoism since it is broken up into philosophical and religious. Buddhism is mysticism, a term, by the way, that Western Buddhists tend to be uneasy with.
One of the great overarching discussions in Buddhism is whether it's a religion or a philosophy. Suggest you do a Google search of "buddhism religion or philosophy".
Allegorically, rebirth is a powerful force ... I find - what do other's think?
Another interpretation, which despite some suggestions is NOT " modern " but has a well established pedigree. is the One Birth Model..which to be clear does not rule out multiple births in a dogmatic way..this model says that Dependent Origination happens on a moment to moment basis, and that what is reborn is a process.
That karma/kamma is the means by which this processes reaches resolution.
A process which happens both in time and atemporally.
The point it seems to me, is that whether one ascribes to a Three Birth or One Birth model..the Dharma is the same IN ITS ACTUALISATION.
In other words one keeps the precepts as a means of training..one practices on the cushion..one seeks appropriate instruction, and cultivates ( or discovers ) a good heart.
None of this is dependent on a belief system.
We start..we recollect ourselves over and over again. We downplay the importance of goals. We stick at it without expecting immediate reward.
Because it is the right thing to do.
Dependent upon our view, the meaning of the second noble truth "craving leads to suffering" also changes significantly, and of course also the meaning of suffering itself. So when one sees dependent origination, one understands the four noble truths, not before that. It's all intertwined. Dependent origination and the four noble truths are basically the same thing. It's important we know fully what the Buddha meant with this and to take an interpretation that doesn't fit the suttas is not wise. And honestly, a momentary interpretation doesn't really fit.
Not saying such a view can't be useful somehow, or that it is wrong to not know, but finally one has to come to know d.o fully.
If you feel my saying something in the sutras can be honestly, simply wrong is sacrilegious or disqualifies me from claiming I'm a Buddhist, I'm sorry about that but it doesn't mean I'm going to change my own deeply held beliefs. Buddhism transformed my life and this is my understanding of the dharma after many years of meditation and contemplation and discussion with other Buddhists and even a few Masters.
I'm not saying this is how you must understand the dharma. I don't go around preaching it to other Buddhists or insisting you have a problem. I'm just a voice on a board like this that tells people who say, "I like what Buddhism says but can't get past reincarnation beliefs" that you don't have to in order to practice Buddhism.
For some of us, there is a problem with what the sutras and many Buddhists claim about literal reincarnation and the other teachings on impermanence and no-self and emptiness. On the deepest level, they are incompatible. That doesn't make the rest of the dharma invalid.
It's nice to know that the Buddha's teachings provide "solace" for both believers and non-belivers of rebirth and kamma.
It does not only become operative post mortem. Its operative right now.
Its truth can be directly seen in this life.
The truth of D.O. does not depend on a literal understanding of Rebirth...