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.
Rebirth....No doubt many of you have been down this path before! (pun intended)
@xabir said:
" Yet you tell me that because I claim a belief in reincarnation was not necessary for me to comprehend the Dharma"
Understanding rebirth is necessary to comprehend dharma since the beginningless suffering from samsara and need to end rebirth etc is a core principle of Dharma.
", I am not a good Buddhist. I'm Buddhist-lite or some such."
I think labeling people is not necessary. But the term 'Dharma-lite' is actually quite applicable to a particular trend of teachings, since this trend is about trying to get something out of Buddha's teaching but never really understand the full import of it. It is watered down dharma about how to live more happily. It does not really offer anything novel beyond some mundane self-help advices or relaxation techniques. It aims for some immediate benefits and eschews the need for hardcore practice aimed at removing specific root causes that drives the cycles of samsara.
"I've wondered what it is about the need to feel immortal, that even Buddhists tapdance around their own understanding of impermanence and the self to invent some method that our consciousness manages to live forever?"
Buddhists do not love being immortal, Buddhists want to put an end to rebirth. If there is no rebirth, then there is no point for Buddhism, since everyone enters 'Nirvana' at death. 'Living forever' is not a Buddhist goal.
I think you labor under several misapprehensions. I understand rebirth very much, as the sutras talk about it. Not that they ever really explain how it works, because it's assumed you hold the same beliefs.
Understanding and accepting are two entirely different things. That's like Christians are always trying to explain the resurrection to me, as if I'd believe if only someone told me about the metaphor of the sacrificial lamb and such.
As for the "nobody gets anywhere unless they put in a lifetime of hard work" philosophy, that's one side of the story. Now from my perspective, a lot of that "hard work" is mostly useless or at least needs to be examined. It's the type of Buddhism where monks locked themselves behind temple walls and only the select few were fortunate enough to devote their lives to rooting out all those defilements and being rewarded, while the second-class layman Buddhists could maybe generate some karma by supporting the temple. Might be good for the monks, but it was almost the death of Buddhism.
An honest look at the world shows you that Buddhism was dying out as a religion until the West came along and some smart monks took the opportunity to inject a little light into the temple. Buddhism was gone from the land that gave it birth, and only hung on in little isolated pockets of populations like Thailand and such. Both Islam and Christianity were rapidly expanding at the same time into Eastern areas, not to mention the state-religion of Communism. It was only a social revolution or two from Buddhism being wiped out completely or relegated to funeral ceremonies like happened in Japan. Now why is that? Don't try to blame the people. The Dharma is supposed to be transforming for everyone, not just the old grey-haired monk in the temple. The Buddhism you describe, what does it have to offer the layman? I see making people's lives a bit happier as an important goal to Buddhism, not something to be avoided.
There will always be a place for tradition and monks in Buddhism. But both beliefs and practices have changed in the past, and will continue to do so. And even back then, there were those who didn't much like those changes. I worry about some of them. But when you're riding a boat down a river, you can paddle a bit, but you can't stop the boat.
@Dakini said:
There's no need to accept that there are 31 realms of existence, of that hell is located under the Himalayas, or other faith-based teachings, in order to benefit from the 4 NT's, the 8-Fold Path, meditation, mindfulness, practicing compassion and the Middle Way, and other principles the Buddha taught.
That is, provided, that you have a correct understanding of what all those teachings are actually meant to convey.
As a light way Buddhist, I luvs the dark corners ripe for rebirth in this very Bodhi.
As someone who cherry picks (I eats animals, such a bad Buddhist I iz), it is imperative I am not distracted by those denying my inclination to what I have the temerity to call 'Buddhism' . . .
When I am reborn tomorrow into a more accepting and favourable dharma I will believe [insert Buddhist teaching of preferred focus] . . . until then I will slink into a corner destined for the lowly women, lowly lay people, dharmically challenged . . . let us hope there is some possibility for progress . . . rebirth one might say . . . .
@Cinorjer said:
I understand rebirth very much, as the sutras talk about it. Not that they ever really explain how it works, because it's assumed you hold the same beliefs.
Actually it is explained in the teachings about the 12 Links of Interdependence or Nidanas.
Warning Some of the contents is recycled material...
Some believe rebirth is for real, they say that they have memories of a past life, or some might take a more scientific approach, every thing in the universe is recycled material, including our bodies-(but it does get a little complex when the mind is thrown into the mix) whilst others might think it's all a load of codswallop....
So....Have you been this way before ? What's your thoughts on rebirth? (and are they really your thoughts ?) . ..
I'm in the camp of the "more of a scientific approach" (perhaps with a touch of flowing "mind karma" thrown in)
Metta Shoshin . ..
I fall on the "science" side in terms of conventional reality. We live, we die. The end. It is ego that wants more. However, in terms of ultimate reality ... all things are empty. Nothing is born, nothing dies, nothing is created, nothing ceases. No beginning, no end.
@Daozen said:
I fall on the "science" side in terms of conventional reality. We live, we die. The end. It is ego that wants more.
I'm not so sure about this, science-wise, anymore. Some very interesting things are coming out of Science regarding the nature of consciousness, and what happens to "individual" consciousness when we die. It may not be "the end". Stay tuned for further news and developments. The jury is out on this question.
@Dakini said:
I'm not so sure about this, science-wise, anymore. Some very interesting things are coming out of Science regarding the nature of consciousness, and what happens to "individual" consciousness when we die. It may not be "the end". Stay tuned for further news and developments. The jury is out on this question.
Hi Dakini, do you have links to this new science? I would be genuinely interested to read it. Until now I have never seen anything supporting that idea.
@Daozen said:
Hi Dakini, do you have links to this new science? I would be genuinely interested to read it. Until now I have never seen anything supporting that idea.
I mentioned a couple of key terms to look up, at the beginning of the thread. The thing is, what little I've seen on the internet can be very dry and difficult to follow. There's a book called "Entangled Minds" that's good (about entanglement theory and consciousness, and about scientific studies done on various psi phenomena). I just got a book today called, "Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience". It's by a European MD who's studied the science, and NDE reports, and weaves in his own theories to connect the two. (Kind of goes out on a limb, but it makes a lot of sense.)
Anyway, physicists would say it's a leap, at this point, to draw any inferences re: rebirth, NDE's and the like, which is why I said ' stay tuned for further developments'. But the theories quantum physics offers so far are intriguing.
@upekka said:
victorious,
malli following is the link
i started to translate
if you can translate the dhamma talk do so please (from 8:00 to 45:50 is relevant to this thread)
then we can see where we should make changes and bring up a good translation before we post it for others to read
theruwan saranai
Bohoma istuti!
I started listening and must say I have lost a lot of touch listening to Formal Singhala. I think I am of little or no use in translating this Akka. But I will listen closely and try to understand.
And I can assist in proofreading if you will? I will PM you my email. Otherwise we can just use the PM function.
@Chaz said:
Actually it is explained in the teachings about the 12 Links of Interdependence or Nidanas.
I did misspeak on that point. The Nidanas do give a very detailed description of how reincarnation is supposed to work. It breaks down into exhaustive detail how ignorance leads to incarnations in various realms for more suffering. The problem is, none of this reincarnation can be observed, unlike the reality of the Noble Truths. The sutra first assumes that of course people are reincarnated and are rewarded or punished by being sent to various realms and such. And then they sat down and started making diagrams.
People are born, they live, they die, and in between they suffer. Once the Truth of suffering and the cause of suffering is pointed out, it's obvious if you look around. Ask how we know people are reincarnated and the answer is, because Buddha said so. I am more than willing to admit it's a failing on my part that this answer isn't good enough. I've never been able to take anything on faith, especially when it deals with the supernatural.
But the term 'Dharma-lite' is actually quite applicable to a particular trend of teachings, since this trend is about trying to get something out of Buddha's teaching but never really understand the full import of it. It is watered down dharma about how to live more happily. It does not really offer anything novel beyond some mundane self-help advices or relaxation techniques. It aims for some immediate benefits and eschews the need for hardcore practice aimed at removing specific root causes that drives the cycles of samsara.
To be fair, I think that is all some people are really looking for anyway. Of course it depends on the individual person. Reminds me of the differences between bompu zen and daijo or saijojo zen. Depending on how you look at it, one can say that Bompu zen is zen, but at the same time one could say "Well, not really" because it's not going to result in enlightenment.
If one actually does want to get enlightenment now, or sometime in the near future, then I think you could say the "hardcore practices" become necessary. So as for what is necessary, I think it really depends on what a person's intentions in practicing are. So what does one want out of the practice? Just a pleasant relaxed life? If so, then I think one can say Dharma-lite would suffice. But if one thinks Dharma-lite is the way out of samsara, I think it's appropriate to make the distinction that it's not really. But at the same time, Dharma-lite is better than no dharma at all!
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I agree with @seeker242 but at the same time do not really like the term "dharma lite" as it takes away from why I practice in the first place.
If ones understanding of the dharma helps them see and express compassion for the sake of others as well as themselves, helps them live a more mindful life without clinging then the teachings on rebirth could have no merit. There can't be a lot to learn from lives we can't remember.
If one is lacking a moral compass and for all the teachings can't see or express compassion then maybe letting them in on rebirth could open their eyes to the fact they are hurting themselves by hurting others.
I do hope nobody thinks that because we say rebirth does not conflict with science is the same as saying it is a scientific endeavor. There is no empirical observation to study.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2014
@vinlyn said:
That's cool...but then they ought to say it differently.
I agree wholeheartedly and it's no more cute when the likes of Einstein and Hawking do it.
If there was ever a "time" of "nothing" then there would never have been the potential for anything and even if there was a time without anything there still must have been the potential for absolutely everything within the realm of possibility.
It seems to me that the dharma lite vs. serious dharma discussion is somewhat different from the rebirth vs. agnosticism discussion. There may be points of overlap, but they aren't the same topic.
How serious a dharma practitioner is, say, an ordinary householder in Thailand or Sri Lanka who has never read a sutta in his or her life, but knows some Jataka stories and goes to the temple on festival occasions to pray for a good rebirth?
How "lite" is an agnostic Buddhist who practices meditation daily, attends retreats, may have experienced the first jhana, has deeply engaged with the suttas or sutras, practices right action, right speech and right livelihood, recognizes the causes of dukkha -- but is skeptical about rebirth?
@vinlyn said:
It ain over till the fat Buddha sings!
Cute. I was thinking....there are a lot of depictions of the Buddha, but not a singing one.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Chaz said:
Cute. I was thinking....there are a lot of depictions of the Buddha, but not a singing one.
That made me think of Jerry Garcia playing Uncle Johns Band.
So what does one want out of the practice? Just a pleasant relaxed life? If so, then I think one can say Dharma-lite would suffice. But if one thinks Dharma-lite is the way out of samsara, I think it's appropriate to make the distinction that it's not really.
Just a pleasant relaxed life… chopping wood, carrying water…the end of suffering…
Where exactly is the line that distinguishes the serious practitioner from the dharma-lite following dilettante?
Where do you (and where do I) draw the line of superiority?
Is there really such superiority in doing exhausting retreats? In following super-strict moral discipline? Or is it about the true faith (the faith in rebirth)?
About “escaping samsara” there is a catch. We mentioned the difference between aversion and dispassion in this thread. I like a saying of Seung Sahn which can be read as a saying about overcoming aversion or about escaping samsara:
“If you want to cross the ocean of suffering, you must take the ship with no bottom.”
@zenff said:
Where exactly is the line that distinguishes the serious practitioner from the dharma-lite following dilettante?
I think it's intention, the intention to actually get enlightenment. Not just a pleasant life. Of course an enlightened life is pleasant, but a pleasant life is not necessarily an enlightened one.
@zenff said:
Is there really such superiority in doing exhausting retreats?
Sure. If you and your friends place a high value on retreats, the more strenuous retreat is likely to be seen as "superior". I do solitary retreats and I think those are superior to group or home retreats. I think the depth of practice you get is greater. It can be exhausting. By the end of the retreat your knees, hips and back hurt like hell and I go on retreaat about 3.5 hours from home. That's a long drive after a week in retreat. Thankfully there's a hot springs spa on the road home. It contains more Lithia than any other spring in Colorado. I leave that spa feeling very superior.
In following super-strict moral discipline?
If you read up on any thread about Chogyam Trungpa, or the 5 Precepts, you'd think there was.
Or is it about the true faith (the faith in rebirth)?
No. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Buddhism isn't about what you believe. Rebirth will happen, or not, regardless of what you believe. The Buddha didn't teach beliefs. He taught practice.
I don’t think super-strict ever was the topic with Chogyam Trungpa.
Super-strict is when you refuse a bonbon because it contains alcohol; or when you reprimand someone for laughing in a monastery.
Milarepa was a famous yogi who became a Buddha. He had performed black magic and he knew he had bad karma. This is an example of how fear of hell motivates one to practice. And maybe black magic is not real but it is just an example.
My teacher says that people from traditional Buddhist countries already believe Buddhism can bring liberation thus the only thing needed is to have fear of wasting time and the hell belief provides that. My teachers guru taught about the hells and my teacher asked why he did that. He said that he didn't want his students to waste their time in the market place. My teacher doesn't mention hell because she finds western students to be already feeling bad about themselves and telling them about hell only makes it worse. She starts with meditation and confidence in the nature of our minds.
@Dakini said:
No, I wish! All I can say is, I've learned a lot about the sutras here on this forum, it's been wonderful! But I'm not a pro. .
Buddhas last words were study hard monks for all composite things decay. Earlier he had said to be an island or lamp unto oneself.
Just using reasoning ones faith has to be in their own mind though it can temporarily be fooled. If you cannot trust your mind then how can you make any kind of progress? You would have no basis to say that x teacher is right and y teacher is wrong. This is just my own reasoning. But if the mind did not have the nature of knowing then there could be no dharma.
14
You are like a yellow leaf.
The minions of the Lord of Death await you:
You stand in the jaws of death
with no provisions for your journey.
Make of yourself an island—
quickly become vigorous and wise.
Clear away your impurities and faults,
and you will reach the heavens of the saints.
@Federica are we just looking for teachings ascribed to the Buddha or can I quote the Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is the Lam Rim text for a school of Tibetan Buddhism?
"Rebirth of what? The self? The same self which causes so much pain by our clinging to it?
What possible benefit can there be from searching for that same illusory self back thru time?
It's just more self making. It works against the effort to see through the self as empty, a mirage."
I have to say that this comment sums up my thinking on this matter.
I would just add that to me rebirth is not some religious dogma you have to try to force yourself to belief in. Unlike reincarnation that requires belief in a separate, permanent me which somehow magically goes from one body to another at physical death, rebirth simply explains the process of how I become me in this present moment. I come with strings attached. Well chains actually. Chains that I create by clinging to the idea of me. How to end this process of rebirth is the question. Which is why someone who is fully awakened, that sees dependent origination and anatta (no self) in every arising, is no longer reborn. Freedom.
@Jeffrey said:
In Tibetan Buddhism traditionally there are three motivations to practice. All three are good and have the same taste of dharma.
1 happiness in this life
2 not being reborn into samsara
3 leading beings into the deathless
there is no difference in Teravada if one goes in deep
1. do good avoid bad, you will lead a happy life
2. there is a slight difference (born into five pure abode, not coming back to other plains = Anagamin , the third stage)
3. Arahnthood (final and fourth stage)
Comments
I think you labor under several misapprehensions. I understand rebirth very much, as the sutras talk about it. Not that they ever really explain how it works, because it's assumed you hold the same beliefs.
Understanding and accepting are two entirely different things. That's like Christians are always trying to explain the resurrection to me, as if I'd believe if only someone told me about the metaphor of the sacrificial lamb and such.
As for the "nobody gets anywhere unless they put in a lifetime of hard work" philosophy, that's one side of the story. Now from my perspective, a lot of that "hard work" is mostly useless or at least needs to be examined. It's the type of Buddhism where monks locked themselves behind temple walls and only the select few were fortunate enough to devote their lives to rooting out all those defilements and being rewarded, while the second-class layman Buddhists could maybe generate some karma by supporting the temple. Might be good for the monks, but it was almost the death of Buddhism.
An honest look at the world shows you that Buddhism was dying out as a religion until the West came along and some smart monks took the opportunity to inject a little light into the temple. Buddhism was gone from the land that gave it birth, and only hung on in little isolated pockets of populations like Thailand and such. Both Islam and Christianity were rapidly expanding at the same time into Eastern areas, not to mention the state-religion of Communism. It was only a social revolution or two from Buddhism being wiped out completely or relegated to funeral ceremonies like happened in Japan. Now why is that? Don't try to blame the people. The Dharma is supposed to be transforming for everyone, not just the old grey-haired monk in the temple. The Buddhism you describe, what does it have to offer the layman? I see making people's lives a bit happier as an important goal to Buddhism, not something to be avoided.
There will always be a place for tradition and monks in Buddhism. But both beliefs and practices have changed in the past, and will continue to do so. And even back then, there were those who didn't much like those changes. I worry about some of them. But when you're riding a boat down a river, you can paddle a bit, but you can't stop the boat.
Just my own opinion.
That is, provided, that you have a correct understanding of what all those teachings are actually meant to convey.
As a light way Buddhist, I luvs the dark corners ripe for rebirth in this very Bodhi.
As someone who cherry picks (I eats animals, such a bad Buddhist I iz), it is imperative I am not distracted by those denying my inclination to what I have the temerity to call 'Buddhism' . . .
When I am reborn tomorrow into a more accepting and favourable dharma I will believe [insert Buddhist teaching of preferred focus] . . . until then I will slink into a corner destined for the lowly women, lowly lay people, dharmically challenged . . . let us hope there is some possibility for progress . . . rebirth one might say . . .
.
@victorious,
malli following is the link
i started to translate
if you can translate the dhamma talk do so please (from 8:00 to 45:50 is relevant to this thread)
then we can see where we should make changes and bring up a good translation before we post it for others to read
theruwan saranai
I just wanted to say, this is the most civil discussion we've had on rebirth in years!
GO, team! :clap: .
It ain't over till the fat Buddha sings!
Actually it is explained in the teachings about the 12 Links of Interdependence or Nidanas.
I fall on the "science" side in terms of conventional reality. We live, we die. The end. It is ego that wants more. However, in terms of ultimate reality ... all things are empty. Nothing is born, nothing dies, nothing is created, nothing ceases. No beginning, no end.
I believe by "nothing" they refer to "no permanent thing" (ie emptiness), which is of course is different to "no-thing" (ie nihilism).
I'm not so sure about this, science-wise, anymore. Some very interesting things are coming out of Science regarding the nature of consciousness, and what happens to "individual" consciousness when we die. It may not be "the end". Stay tuned for further news and developments. The jury is out on this question.
That's cool...but then they ought to say it differently.
Hi Dakini, do you have links to this new science? I would be genuinely interested to read it. Until now I have never seen anything supporting that idea.
I mentioned a couple of key terms to look up, at the beginning of the thread. The thing is, what little I've seen on the internet can be very dry and difficult to follow. There's a book called "Entangled Minds" that's good (about entanglement theory and consciousness, and about scientific studies done on various psi phenomena). I just got a book today called, "Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience". It's by a European MD who's studied the science, and NDE reports, and weaves in his own theories to connect the two. (Kind of goes out on a limb, but it makes a lot of sense.)
Anyway, physicists would say it's a leap, at this point, to draw any inferences re: rebirth, NDE's and the like, which is why I said ' stay tuned for further developments'. But the theories quantum physics offers so far are intriguing.
When I was young and
Bohoma istuti!
I started listening and must say I have lost a lot of touch listening to Formal Singhala. I think I am of little or no use in translating this Akka. But I will listen closely and try to understand.
And I can assist in proofreading if you will? I will PM you my email. Otherwise we can just use the PM function.
/Victor
I did misspeak on that point. The Nidanas do give a very detailed description of how reincarnation is supposed to work. It breaks down into exhaustive detail how ignorance leads to incarnations in various realms for more suffering. The problem is, none of this reincarnation can be observed, unlike the reality of the Noble Truths. The sutra first assumes that of course people are reincarnated and are rewarded or punished by being sent to various realms and such. And then they sat down and started making diagrams.
People are born, they live, they die, and in between they suffer. Once the Truth of suffering and the cause of suffering is pointed out, it's obvious if you look around. Ask how we know people are reincarnated and the answer is, because Buddha said so. I am more than willing to admit it's a failing on my part that this answer isn't good enough. I've never been able to take anything on faith, especially when it deals with the supernatural.
But the term 'Dharma-lite' is actually quite applicable to a particular trend of teachings, since this trend is about trying to get something out of Buddha's teaching but never really understand the full import of it. It is watered down dharma about how to live more happily. It does not really offer anything novel beyond some mundane self-help advices or relaxation techniques. It aims for some immediate benefits and eschews the need for hardcore practice aimed at removing specific root causes that drives the cycles of samsara.
To be fair, I think that is all some people are really looking for anyway. Of course it depends on the individual person. Reminds me of the differences between bompu zen and daijo or saijojo zen. Depending on how you look at it, one can say that Bompu zen is zen, but at the same time one could say "Well, not really" because it's not going to result in enlightenment.
If one actually does want to get enlightenment now, or sometime in the near future, then I think you could say the "hardcore practices" become necessary. So as for what is necessary, I think it really depends on what a person's intentions in practicing are. So what does one want out of the practice? Just a pleasant relaxed life? If so, then I think one can say Dharma-lite would suffice. But if one thinks Dharma-lite is the way out of samsara, I think it's appropriate to make the distinction that it's not really. But at the same time, Dharma-lite is better than no dharma at all!
I agree with @seeker242 but at the same time do not really like the term "dharma lite" as it takes away from why I practice in the first place.
If ones understanding of the dharma helps them see and express compassion for the sake of others as well as themselves, helps them live a more mindful life without clinging then the teachings on rebirth could have no merit. There can't be a lot to learn from lives we can't remember.
If one is lacking a moral compass and for all the teachings can't see or express compassion then maybe letting them in on rebirth could open their eyes to the fact they are hurting themselves by hurting others.
I do hope nobody thinks that because we say rebirth does not conflict with science is the same as saying it is a scientific endeavor. There is no empirical observation to study.
I agree wholeheartedly and it's no more cute when the likes of Einstein and Hawking do it.
If there was ever a "time" of "nothing" then there would never have been the potential for anything and even if there was a time without anything there still must have been the potential for absolutely everything within the realm of possibility.
Sorry, that's my pet peeve acting up again.
It seems to me that the dharma lite vs. serious dharma discussion is somewhat different from the rebirth vs. agnosticism discussion. There may be points of overlap, but they aren't the same topic.
How serious a dharma practitioner is, say, an ordinary householder in Thailand or Sri Lanka who has never read a sutta in his or her life, but knows some Jataka stories and goes to the temple on festival occasions to pray for a good rebirth?
How "lite" is an agnostic Buddhist who practices meditation daily, attends retreats, may have experienced the first jhana, has deeply engaged with the suttas or sutras, practices right action, right speech and right livelihood, recognizes the causes of dukkha -- but is skeptical about rebirth?
Cute. I was thinking....there are a lot of depictions of the Buddha, but not a singing one.
That made me think of Jerry Garcia playing Uncle Johns Band.
So what does one want out of the practice? Just a pleasant relaxed life? If so, then I think one can say Dharma-lite would suffice. But if one thinks Dharma-lite is the way out of samsara, I think it's appropriate to make the distinction that it's not really.
Just a pleasant relaxed life… chopping wood, carrying water…the end of suffering…
Where exactly is the line that distinguishes the serious practitioner from the dharma-lite following dilettante?
Where do you (and where do I) draw the line of superiority?
Is there really such superiority in doing exhausting retreats? In following super-strict moral discipline? Or is it about the true faith (the faith in rebirth)?
About “escaping samsara” there is a catch. We mentioned the difference between aversion and dispassion in this thread. I like a saying of Seung Sahn which can be read as a saying about overcoming aversion or about escaping samsara:
“If you want to cross the ocean of suffering, you must take the ship with no bottom.”
I think it's intention, the intention to actually get enlightenment. Not just a pleasant life. Of course an enlightened life is pleasant, but a pleasant life is not necessarily an enlightened one.
Oh, that's easy. Just to the left of wherever their position of superiority is.
Sure. If you and your friends place a high value on retreats, the more strenuous retreat is likely to be seen as "superior". I do solitary retreats and I think those are superior to group or home retreats. I think the depth of practice you get is greater. It can be exhausting. By the end of the retreat your knees, hips and back hurt like hell and I go on retreaat about 3.5 hours from home. That's a long drive after a week in retreat. Thankfully there's a hot springs spa on the road home. It contains more Lithia than any other spring in Colorado. I leave that spa feeling very superior.
If you read up on any thread about Chogyam Trungpa, or the 5 Precepts, you'd think there was.
No. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Buddhism isn't about what you believe. Rebirth will happen, or not, regardless of what you believe. The Buddha didn't teach beliefs. He taught practice.
@Chaz
lol !
I don’t think super-strict ever was the topic with Chogyam Trungpa.
Super-strict is when you refuse a bonbon because it contains alcohol; or when you reprimand someone for laughing in a monastery.
>
Milarepa was a famous yogi who became a Buddha. He had performed black magic and he knew he had bad karma. This is an example of how fear of hell motivates one to practice. And maybe black magic is not real but it is just an example.
My teacher says that people from traditional Buddhist countries already believe Buddhism can bring liberation thus the only thing needed is to have fear of wasting time and the hell belief provides that. My teachers guru taught about the hells and my teacher asked why he did that. He said that he didn't want his students to waste their time in the market place. My teacher doesn't mention hell because she finds western students to be already feeling bad about themselves and telling them about hell only makes it worse. She starts with meditation and confidence in the nature of our minds.
Buddhas last words were study hard monks for all composite things decay. Earlier he had said to be an island or lamp unto oneself.
Just using reasoning ones faith has to be in their own mind though it can temporarily be fooled. If you cannot trust your mind then how can you make any kind of progress? You would have no basis to say that x teacher is right and y teacher is wrong. This is just my own reasoning. But if the mind did not have the nature of knowing then there could be no dharma.
Dhammapada:
14
You are like a yellow leaf.
The minions of the Lord of Death await you:
You stand in the jaws of death
with no provisions for your journey.
Make of yourself an island—
quickly become vigorous and wise.
Clear away your impurities and faults,
and you will reach the heavens of the saints.
@Federica are we just looking for teachings ascribed to the Buddha or can I quote the Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is the Lam Rim text for a school of Tibetan Buddhism?
In Tibetan Buddhism traditionally there are three motivations to practice. All three are good and have the same taste of dharma.
1 happiness in this life
2 not being reborn into samsara
3 leading beings into the deathless
Personally I find rebirth easier to believe than that a serial killer hung out with the Buddha several months and became an arhat.
"Rebirth of what? The self? The same self which causes so much pain by our clinging to it?
What possible benefit can there be from searching for that same illusory self back thru time?
It's just more self making. It works against the effort to see through the self as empty, a mirage."
I have to say that this comment sums up my thinking on this matter.
I would just add that to me rebirth is not some religious dogma you have to try to force yourself to belief in. Unlike reincarnation that requires belief in a separate, permanent me which somehow magically goes from one body to another at physical death, rebirth simply explains the process of how I become me in this present moment. I come with strings attached. Well chains actually. Chains that I create by clinging to the idea of me. How to end this process of rebirth is the question. Which is why someone who is fully awakened, that sees dependent origination and anatta (no self) in every arising, is no longer reborn. Freedom.
there is no difference in Teravada if one goes in deep
1. do good avoid bad, you will lead a happy life
2. there is a slight difference (born into five pure abode, not coming back to other plains = Anagamin , the third stage)
3. Arahnthood (final and fourth stage)
arguing in our spare time are we?
Ha ha ha.
No, we're not!