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.
Does it matter to Dharma Practice if Rebirth is true or false?
The irony is that the argument that we are reborn moment by moment is not at all inconsistent with the view that 'after the break-up of the body' there is a post-mortem rebirth.
Either view may be rejected or accepted but for the purposes of this thread we do not have to make a choice between them. Both supporters of the 'one life' assertion and the 'post mortem rebirth' assertion leads to the conclusion that we shoud practice urgently and diligently to achieve a positive outcome.
So my answer is 'no' it does not matter in terms of the motivation to practice.
The irony is that the argument that we are reborn moment by moment is not at all inconsistent with the view that 'after the break-up of the body' there is a post-mortem rebirth.
Post-mortem "rebirth" of what kind? Consciousness?
Post-mortem "rebirth" of what kind? Consciousness?
It depends on the view. I'm not advocating either view, just seeking to establish that they are not mutually exclusive.
The view in some Tibetan schools is that what continues is a very subtle aspect of mind which is not 'consciousness' but carries the result of karma from being to being in the rebirth process. Some schools believe the Bardo Thodol to describe the journey from being to being, from dead body to new womb.
I personally believe that the Buddha taught both theories according to his audience as skilfull means.
what made buddha's teaching different from the many indian mystics and teachers who came before him, who all pretty much (as far as i know) ascribed to transmigration? was it that something or nothing was being reincarnated, or what the nature of that thing was, which was being reincarnated, all of it so bound up with consciousness and life?
what made buddha's teaching different from the many indian mystics and teachers who came before him, who all pretty much (as far as i know) ascribed to transmigration? was it that something or nothing was being reincarnated, or what the nature of that thing was, which was being reincarnated, all of it so bound up with consciousness and life?
The irony is that the argument that we are reborn moment by moment is not at all inconsistent with the view that 'after the break-up of the body' there is a post-mortem rebirth.
Either view may be rejected or accepted but for the purposes of this thread we do not have to make a choice between them. Both supporters of the 'one life' assertion and the 'post mortem rebirth' assertion leads to the conclusion that we shoud practice urgently and diligently to achieve a positive outcome.
So my answer is 'no' it does not matter in terms of the motivation to practice.
This is more or less the position I take as well.
When I first became interested in Buddhism, I was skeptical about literal rebirth. After some time, however, I came to accept the traditional multiple-life interpretation as presented in Theravada. Now I'm more or less agnostic about the subject; I tend to read the teachings on rebirth as references to mental states, which seems the most pragmatic to me, but I can also see the logic of literal rebirth as presented by most schools.
Nevertheless, no matter which view I take in regard to the teachings on rebirth, my motivation for practicing is essentially the same—the desire for happiness in the here and now.
I have come to the conclusion that it makes little difference to practice, but I should add that I realise there are exceptions, such as 'phowa' performed as a ceremony for the dead or dying, which aims to help the successful transference of consciousness to the next birth - and of course relies upon a belief in that rebirth. (And it is a beautiful and wise practice IMHO.)
Buddha very skilfully taught rebirth according to his audience - we don't need to disagree over interpretation IMHO, as I believe he was teaching us that what we believe about rebirth makes no difference to our path to enlightenment.
Having been around many forums, I'm sure Buddha was right not to emphasise rebirth theories. LOL
As soon as we mention 'literal rebirth' there may be a comment that all rebirth is literal. So we change to an examination of 'post-mortem rebirth' - and someone asks how we define the exact moment a being's life begins and ends. And what is a 'mental continuum' and 'consciousness'? And what is claimed for its transference, based on what external evidence or self-verification? And isn't the view I disagree with just speculation? etc. etc.
You could sit and ponder that lot for a decade or two!
And at the end of it you may reach your death-bed and still question your life's meaning. Epitaph: 'Well, what was THAT all about?'.
Yet nowadays, His Holiness pointed out, there are many who have adopted the Buddhist path but still harbor serious doubts about the existence of past and future lives. With no conviction in future lives, naturally there is no genuine concern about falling into the lower realms. Indeed there are many who lack conviction in the very existence of these lower realms. If our fear of suffering does not extend to future lives, but is merely limited to the sufferings of this life, all our actions are inevitably bound up with the concern for this life. Our practice of the Dharma itself is likely to be motivated by the eight worldly concerns, and if that is the case, it becomes doubtful whether our practice actually qualifies as a Dharma practice.
Depends, jinzang. I don't think that any Buddhist that has at least achieved stream-entry would live for this life. It might make a difference only to Buddhists who are still walking the path attempting to reach states of awakening. In that case the whole issue of rebirth becomes more a matter of whether the concept attracts people to the path, or turns them from it.
"If our fear of suffering does not extend to future lives, but is merely limited to the sufferings of this life, all our actions are inevitably bound up with the concern for this life."
And he says:
"Thus at an absolute minimum, our practice of refuge must look beyond this life and be based in a concern for the suffering of future lives. "
And millenia before the Buhhda says:
"... the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn.. but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it..."
And so I think the signpost is there, clearly given by The Buddha in the Last Sermon (MPS). We should look to the discourses and see iof such claims fit rather than just accepting them:)
My personal view is that they do not, that Buddhism has been radically distorted on Rebirth - I think there is much evidence for this, textual, empirical and philosophical.
I invite those interested in this issue (And this thread) to try find where in the discourses rebirth is directly supported, rather than merely mentioned. I just don't see it is there, especially in the early cannon.
I am happy to be called ignorant of Dharma for this view, equally I would say the Emperor was naked when he seemed so:)
Thanks
mat
PS I am not being confrontational or ****kicking here, this is a genuine concern I have held for many years. Please don't reply if you cannot follow the Buddhas clear advice... that way is the way shouting not thinking:)
First, why would it even be mentioned if it isn't an issue? Was that to confuse everybody?
Second, you seem to be saying 'I've done my homework and can't find anything, you do so too'. Tell you what, I'll assume there isn't anything, because you've done all the research. So now what?
Third, if this has been going on for many years as you say, then you have something to prove. Good luck in having your mind changed, having anyone else do any research or finding an answer.
If it isn't any evidence of support, what does it actually imply?
>>First, why would it even be mentioned if it isn't an issue? Was that to confuse everybody?
I think it clearly was an issue, as Anandda highlights the text before the quoted passage:)
Its also interesting why the buddha would mention "discourses" when these were not extant at that time:) But thats another point:)
>>>Second, you seem to be saying 'I've done my homework and can't find anything, you do so too'.
No, I am saying, we should be weary of dogma and The Buddha gives us instruictions to deal with it:)
>>>Tell you what, I'll assume there isn't anything, because you've done all the research. So now what?
I haven't even scratched the surface. Note that I am not proposing any doctrine as certain, other than the three marks and the four noble truths. I am not asking you to believe me, quite the opposite:)
>>Third, if this has been going on for many years as you say, then you have something to prove.
I have nothing to prove much to doubt, but I cannot doubt Dharma at all, i do doubt that rebirth is poart of Dharma. But that is ametaphycial question.
Do you see the issue here?
It one thing to say it doesn't matter to practice if rebirth is or is not. It is another thing to say as The Karmapa says and others seem to belive that it does matter and that if you dont belive in Rebirth you are not on the path.
Without rebirth, the discussion of mind having no beginning and no end becomes meaningless. Without beginningless and endless mind, the entire presentation of karma falls apart. This is because the karmic results of our actions most frequently do not ripen in the same lifetime in which we commit the actions. Without the presentation of karmic cause and effect over the span of many lifetimes, the discussion of the voidness of cause and effect and of dependent arising likewise falls apart.
Moreover, in terms of the three scopes of lam-rim motivation, how can we sincerely aim for benefiting future lives without belief in the existence of future lives? How can we sincerely aim for gaining liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth (samsara) without belief in rebirth? How can we sincerely aim for enlightenment and the ability to help others gain liberation from rebirth without belief that rebirth is a fact?
In terms of bodhichitta meditation, how can we sincerely recognize all beings as having been our mothers in previous lives without believing in previous lives? In terms of anuttarayoga tantra, how can we sincerely meditate in analogy with death, bardo, and rebirth to purify ourselves of uncontrollably experiencing them if we do not believe that bardo and rebirth occur?
(From Berzin Archives)
The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation from suffering, and the Buddha makes it abundantly clear that the suffering from which liberation is needed is the suffering of bondage to samsara, the round of repeated birth and death. To be sure, the Dhamma does have an aspect which is directly visible and personally verifiable. By direct inspection of our own experience we can see that sorrow, tension, fear and grief always arise from our greed, aversion and ignorance, and thus can be eliminated with the removal of those defilements. The importance of this directly visible side of Dhamma practice cannot be underestimated, as it serves to confirm our confidence in the liberating efficacy of the Buddhist path. However, to downplay the doctrine of rebirth and explain the entire import of the Dhamma as the amelioration of mental suffering through enhanced self-awareness is to deprive the Dhamma of those wider perspectives from which it derives its full breadth and profundity. By doing so one seriously risks reducing it in the end to little more than a sophisticated ancient system of humanistic psychotherapy.
The Buddha himself has clearly indicated that the root problem of human existence is not simply the fact that we are vulnerable to sorrow, grief and fear, but that we tie ourselves through our egoistic clinging to a constantly self-regenerating pattern of birth, aging, sickness and death within which we undergo the more specific forms of mental affliction. He has also shown that the primary danger in the defilements is their causal role in sustaining the round of rebirths. As long as they remain unabandoned in the deep strata of the mind, they drag us through the round of becoming in which we shed a flood of tears "greater than the waters of the ocean." When these points are carefully considered, we then see that the practice of Dhamma does not aim at providing us with a comfortable reconciliation with our present personalities and our situation in the world, but at initiating a far-reaching inner transformation which will issue in our deliverance from the cycle of worldly existence in its entirety.
(Bikkhu Bodhi - Dhamma Without Rebirth)
Do not join in
with the flock of that present-day worldly bunch with false opinions, who are
ignorant of cause and effect, who are in the dark about karmic retribution from
deliberate acts, who know nothing of the three temporal periods, and who do not
know the difference between good and evil.
What we call the three temporal periods are the three time periods in which
we receive the retribution from our good and evil acts. These are, first, the
retribution experienced in one’s present life; second, the retribution experienced in
one’s next life; and third, the retribution experienced in some later future life.
Through your practice of the Way of the Buddhas and Ancestors you learn, first
off, to clarify what the principle of karmic retribution in these three time periods is.
If you do not do so, you will make many errors and fall into false views. You will
not just fall into false views, you will also give rise to evil ways and undergo
suffering for a long time
I don't think anybody is contesting that Buddhism supports the doctrine of Rebirth:) I certainly am not:)
What I am questioning is whether or not the Buddha believed in Rebirth and moreover whether he actually taught that Rebirth was embedded but wrong view.
I have been going over and over the Mirror of Dharma passage and the parts before it. I am starting to think it is more profound than I had considered. It could be the handover between the old embedded ways of Rebirth to the Enlightened path without Rebirth, and yet it is not a destruction of the past ways but a birth of the new path, i.e. The Buddha is saying, what is important is you declare and know you will not be reborn - only then are you "bound for Enlightenment":)
To ignore this passage and assume it is not what it seems to be seems a bit "head in the sand" about the issue:)
That is a new idea for me. What makes you think it could be wrong view? Could you point to sources?
My initial reasons are philosopcial and historical, as discussed much on my www.salted.net.
Rebirth simply doesn't fit in with the beautiful, crystaline Dharmic structure that starts with the Three marks and ends with The Noble Eightfold Path.
I think you can see this yourself by thinking about the single point and asking what things are true of this. And then devloping from there through the heircachy of reality up to human experiences and seeing that if impermanence, emptiness, interconnectedness are Foundational then where does whatever is rebirth, ephemeral as it may supposedly be, fit in with this Dharmic reality.
I believe absolutely the Buddha was not a mystic, and so any account of Rebirth, for me at least, needs to cohere with that, other wise, franky, I would rather belive that when I die I am in eternal paradise than yet more rebirth - note how there is no differnces between the structure of those views:)
But these are my long considered understandings rather than scriptual reasons, which I suspect is what you expect.
Notwithstanding my believe in the epic inaccuracy of the suttras even assuming they are 100% verbatim it seems to me that rebirth is never explained, it is only mentioned. There is no scriptural support to connect Rebirth with Dharma save for in the Ahibdharma and later texts which I consider as redundant for reason mentioned:)
I urge you to reread the key suttras of the Suttra Pitaka, as I am doing now, and try to see if there is any evidence that the Buddha connected rebirth with Dharma.
I am doing the same - so far I become more sure not less:)
I do not see any mention of rebirth in the four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path, so I wonder what makes people think believing in rebirth is essential to Buddhism.
I do not see any mention of rebirth in the four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path, so I wonder what makes people think believing in rebirth is essential to Buddhism.
Exactly! This is what first perplexed me about it!:)
And then when you take into account that rebirth was the dominant notion for millennia before the Buddha, and that Dharma sans rebirth seems so consistent, one starts to legitimally question if in fact the Buddha was saying that the start of the path is the rejection of ones Rebirth (The Mirror of Dharma).
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by Applepie I do not see any mention of rebirth in the four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path, so I wonder what makes people think believing in rebirth is essential to Buddhism.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Exactly! This is what first perplexed me about it!:)
That is odd, he talks about rebirth on the discourse on Right View:
25. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
one starts to legitimally question if in fact the Buddha was saying that the start of the path is the rejection of ones Rebirth (The Mirror of Dharma).
This doesn't seem to reject rebirth very much, unless you are talking about other text with the same name:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Possessing this Mirror of Dharma, a noble disciple shall be able to predict for himself that he shall not fall back to lower states like hell, the animal world, the ghost world and other sorrowful and unhappy states."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After delivering this discourse at Nadika, the Buddha and his disciples then proceeded to Vesali."[/FONT]
25. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
Err... That's Birth Not Rebirth:p
I'm being pernikkity (Though perhaps that's signifigant?). My point is, I am seeking a place in the discourses where its explained how rebirth connects to Dharma.
Can you explain how it connects?
Can you explain how it connects in a way specific to Dharma? If DHarma is compatible with rebirth why is it not compatible with Christain Heaven?
These are not trivial questions if one seeks the truth, rather than the remnant teachings, about what the Buddha discovered.
"Possessing this Mirror of Dharma, a noble disciple shall be able to predict for himself that he shall not fall back to lower states like hell, the animal world, the ghost world and other sorrowful and unhappy states."
How symbolic, we have a fracture in the Mirror Of Dharma!:)
How do you interpret that? How do you interpret what he says when he offers the Gift?
It is an ignorance to think there is no question on what the Buddha thought about Rebirth:)
I do not see any mention of rebirth in the four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path, so I wonder what makes people think believing in rebirth is essential to Buddhism.
You are addressing something that I feel I need to write something about. It is clear that Buddhism comes with Karma\Rebirth teachings. It is written all over the canon of all schools. In that sense, it is not a discussion over how essential it is: it is just a part of what constitutes the teachings of the Buddha. It is that simple.
What many people end up with is a crooked idea of Buddhism, like this: "Oh, Rebirth wasn't proven to me, so it can't be proven ever, so it is necessarily wrong. If it is wrong, than the Buddha would have not accepted it, because the Buddha is always right, even though I can't prove it (oops, looks like logic has a loophole?). If the Buddha is always right and rebirth is obviously wrong than: a) the Pali Canon is wrong or b) The Pali Canon HAS to, by whatever means of interpretation, agree with me, because I understand what the Buddha has to say, and not those people that believe in rebirth and rituals and karma, and the monks and whatever, how silly of them. They transmitted the teaching but know nothing of it."
People have the tendency to say the Buddha agrees with whatever they agree with, and disagrees with whatever they disagree with, and that the Pali Canon is wrong, the Lineage holders are wrong, everybody is wrong, except for you and Buddha, which I find to be the weirdest thing ever for a person that 'only believes in logic'.
If the Pali Canon and the Sangha are wrong, then Honey, you have no connection whatsoever to Buddha, because the ones without credibility passed the information on, so you don't have any means to decide whatever it was that the Buddha said or didn't say. If the Sangha has no credibility, than the whole concept of the Buddha and Dharma falls to the ground. Think about it.
You are addressing something that I feel I need to write something about. It is clear that Buddhism comes with Karma\Rebirth teachings. It is written all over the canon of all schools. In that sense, it is not a discussion over how essential it is: it is just a part of what constitutes the teachings of the Buddha. It is that simple.
Not to me. And please don't confuse karma with Rebirth, they are distinct. One is super natural and the other is not.
Also, please don't accept the authenticity of the Suttras, that's just bad practice and demonstrably fallacious methodology.
>>If the Buddha is always right and rebirth is obviously wrong than: a) the Pali Canon is wrong or b)...
I think The Pali cannon is wrong:)
>>People have the tendency to say the Buddha agrees with whatever they agree with, and disagrees with whatever they disagree with, and that the Pali Canon is wrong, the Lineage holders are wrong, everybody is wrong, except for you and Buddha, which I find to be the weirdest thing ever for a person that 'only believes in logic'.
That is because you dont understand what I am saying, then.
Imagine the Buddha never lived.... and there was no buddhism. Would there still be Dahrma?
That is... would anataman, annica, dukka be true of all possible universes?
I believe with utmost certainty it would. Its demonstable and self evident that The Three Marks are necessary truths of all consistent realities.
Do you agree with that?
I cannot doubt them and Had the Buddha not found them then somone would have. (In fact at about the same time in ancient Greece people were finding similar truths as the dharmic truths.)
Can we assume the dharmic truths are true of all worlds?
Lets assume so...
Now we can ask... how do these truths this particular universe? And then higher in abstraction we can ask how do these truths condition human expeince? Even without the Buddha I think it becomes clear that the Dharmnic truths fundamentally condition out expeirnces and entail suffering for the reasons the buddha cites.
Equally by removing the fetters and illusions that are created from our sense of experience (the ego) we can understand how the inevitable negative doesn't need to be so. isn't this what the eightfold path is?
>>>If the Pali Canon and the Sangha are wrong, then Honey, you have no connection whatsoever to Buddha, because the ones without credibility passed the information on, so you don't have any means to decide whatever it was that the Buddha said or didn't say. If the Sangha has no credibility, than the whole concept of the Buddha and Dharma falls to the ground. Think about it.
I have thought about this more than anything else, so against your patronisations I will simply say... The cannon may be wrong but Dharma is truth, with or without The Buddha:)
If it is only a simple birth, than it doesn't need anything to make it cease.
Can you explain how it connects?
I tried to in post #65 (the number on top of each post), containing quotes from a Theravada Monk, A Scholar on Tibetan Buddhism and the Founder of Soto Zen school.
If DHarma is compatible with rebirth why is it not compatible with Christain Heaven?
I am not worried about Christian Heaven
How do you interpret that? How do you interpret what he says when he offers the Gift?
Dharma is a mirror in the sense that it shows us what are our faults, how far are we in the path, and so on. It is a means to analyze ourselves and reality.
It is an ignorance to think there is no question on what the Buddha thought about Rebirth:)
I think that best way to question it is in terms of whether he was right or wrong, and not bending the suttas to make it sound like he believed in whatever exotic theory people have these days. Aren't you agnostic? If it so why can't the Buddha be wrong? He said himself he was only human afterall.
Well friends I'm not sure but I do believe the story of the Buddha's life and enlightenment contains descriptions of his seeing and knowing all of his rebirths. I think this was a part of what he realized as he sat under the Bodhi Tree.
'The Buddha's first words after enlightenment were these: "Seeking but not finding the house builder, I traveled through the round of countless births. [BB-Hum?] Oh, painful is birth ever and again! House builder you have now been seen. You shall not build the house again. Your rafters have been broken down; your ridge-pole is demolished too. My mind has now attained the unformed nibbana and reached the end of every kind of craving." (Dh. 153-54.)' http://www.vipassanadhura.com/buddha.htm
Gahakaraka ditthosi4
puna geham na kahasi5
sabba te phasuka bhagga6
gahakotam visankhatam7
visankharagatam cittam8
tanhanam khayamajjhaga9.
Verse 153: I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!
Verse 154: Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.
1. Footnotes to Verses 153 and 154: These two verses are expressions of intense and sublime joy the Buddha felt at the very moment of his attainment of Enlightenment; as such, they are replete with a wealth of sublime meaning and deep feeling.
2. gahakaram gavesanto: lit., "I who have tried to find the builder of the house" The house is the body, the builder is Craving (Tanha). The meaning of Verse (153) as given in the Commentary is as follows:
I who have been seeking the builder of this house, knowing that he could be seen only with a certain wisdom, have been trying to attain such wisdom (Bodhi nana) ever since Dipankara Buddha prophesied that I would, one day, become a Buddha like him. But failing to attain Bodhi nana, I have wandered through this course of hundreds of thousands of existences in the endless round of rebirths.
3. dukkha jati punappunam: To be born again and again is dukkha. This is the reason for trying to find the builder of this house, the Carpenter Craving.
Birth which comes together with aging, disease and death is dukkha; that is why I have been incessantly looking for the Householder Craving.
4. ditthosi: You are seen: I have seen you now that I have attained Enlightenment or Bodhi nana, the all comprehending wisdom, with my own Insight.
5. puna geham na kahasi: No house shall be built again: You shall not build another house (for me) in this round of rebirths.
6. sabba te phasuka bhagga: All your rafters are broken: I have destroyed all the remaining defilements.
7. gahakutam visankhatam The roof-tree has been destroyed: I have dispelled Ignorance.
8. visankharagatam cittam: lit., my mind has reached the Unconditioned, having Nibbana as its object, my mind has realized Nibbana.
9. tanhanam khayamajjhaga: The end of craving has been attained. I have attained Arahatta Fruition.
Now this may all be fiction. If so how can we say this is so when in fact we don't have the Buddhas words, from his own mouth, either. It seems to me all we have is the words of the elders who passed on the teachings; including those on rebirth.
I think that best way to question it is in terms of whether he was right or wrong, and not bending the suttas to make it sound like he believed in whatever exotic theory people have these days. Aren't you agnostic? If it so why can't the Buddha be wrong? He said himself he was only human afterall.
Try taking the Buddha and the suttras out of Dharma for a while, and seeing what makes cannot be doubted from first principles?
I think a novel approach would be to have faith on this one issue. Not faith that it's true, but faith that in time you will know. I initially chose to have a bit of faith that the entire content of the Buddha's teachings were true; after a time I found that some seemed unnecessary, but upon further _reflection_, I realize that though I have some wisdom I do not possess ultimate wisdom and so thus who am I to say at this point?
I think if there are any who could with right view discuss rebirth, it is the Arahants. The rest of us should simply practice due diligence toward the goal and leave the question to answer itself.
Further, if we choose to have views that we feel must be answered before we can move on, we become as the man who is shot with a poisoned arrow and demands way too much information before allowing the doctor to treat him.
Believing in rebirth is dukkha. Disbelieving in rebirth is dukkha. In either case, we are attached to a view that we can not fully understand; a part of us does not move forward without the answer, and others practicing what we believe is wrong view causes us suffering as well.
The proper way to deal with this is to trust the doctor. If we find out differently in the future when we reach higher levels of realization, it hasn't harmed us to keep an open mind, has it?
Question; if you doubt the authenticity of the suttas, and you do not accept other peoples meditative insights (ie monastic lineage holders), what proof would you accept that Buddha did not denounce rebirth? (Might save many posters some time!)
Question; if you doubt the authenticity of the suttas, and you do not accept other peoples meditative insights (ie monastic lineage holders), what proof would you accept that Buddha did not denounce rebirth? (Might save many posters some time!)
Nios.
Hi Nios:)
We cant really talk proof in either way - note that my point is not that "I AM RIGHT" but that the posters here who are "SURE I AM WRONG" simply cannot be sure:) I may well be wrong, but after many years with this issue I remain to be shown...
But to try to answer your question.. what would show me I am wrong?
This is simple, I want to be shown how rebirth connects with dharma.
Note that this is not "suttra fishing" for mentions of rebirth and realms but a way to explain the connection that fits rebirth into the perfect (for I belive it is so) Dharmic system that starts with the three marks and ends with the eightfold path.
Ity is a simple request. for comparisons, we can see how karma fits in, or mind, or ego, or suffering, or craving, or impermanence, or emptiness....
Where does rebirth fit into the perferct dharmic system?
Where does rebirth fit into the perferct dharmic system?
The reason I ask is that many people would quote suttas, give examples of personal experiences and insights, or quote teachers. Based on what you want other people to show you, I wonder how could it be done. My knowledge of Buddhism is relatively small, so I too, would be interested in what more learned members of the forum have to say.
I have spent an amount of my time here quoting sutras here and salted.net that i think supprt my view. I am rereading the many now and will try to collate something whole.
Give examples of personal experiences and insights
About five years ago I was in my favourite place on the planet, Gangaramaya Temple in Sri Lanka. Without doubt it is the place I first started connecting with Buddha’s teachings and its spiritual (not mystical) side.
I had this doubt with me from the very first moments I tried to understand Dharma. It started off with unclarity that I assumed was my lack of understanding. But the harder I tried to understand where Rebirth connected with Dharma the more unclear and tenuous any connection seemed. I imagine this is a question Many Buddhists have but I think I saw it slightly differently with my more contemplative than meditative take on Dharma.
I could see the what I thought was the structre of Dharma that started with the Three Marks of Existence. The Last mark, Dukka, connected (or was) the Four Noble Truths and the last of these connected with (or was) the Noble Eightfold. I could see how this really sophisticated casual theory (I had studied Philosophy to PHD level) entailed these Karmic Truths that connected the world of experience with the world outside, or below experience. And what really blew me away was the way that the actual instantiation of that experience that we call the mind was described and structured in ways I believed no modern cognitive scientist or psychologist or neuroscientist could fault.
And all of these truths were not just about my experiences but all experiences to form this moral whole that frankly, blew me away. All the hippy-dippy stuff I had been hearing for years, “Its all connected, man” was true, and not in trivial ways but profound life changing ways. There were no edges, there was only the now.
But then amongst this beautiful, evident, procession of ideas that the Buddha had arranged was this runt of an idea. An idea that is civilizations crack. Call it what you will.. an after life, paradise, heaven , reincarnation, other planes of existence, rebirth. The idea that this is not my last life.
There it was, in Buddhism, an idea that simply didn’t fit. I started reading up on this, asking my Sri Lankan Buddhist friends, reading books and sutras and the more I inquired the more it seemed that nobody could say how Rebirth connects with Dharma.
The epiphany for me on the matter was in gangaramaya temple. I had gone there to meditate but also to ask one of the head monks, who I had met, about the “Rebirth Mystery”. I found him and asked him plain and simple, “Where does rebirth fit with the four noble truths?”
He looked a bit perplexed and I clarified what I meant as a summary of above and he thought some more on this and answered, “Higher Dharma.”
I looked confused and asked him “Ahbidharma?” Which is what I thought he meant. This is a later addition to Buddhism that tries to create a philosophical/mystical freame work for Dharma. Its pretty bloated and intractable but more importantly it was much much much later than the Buddha. There is no reason to believe the Buddha taught Ahibdhrama.
“Yes, yes, Ahibdharma, “ He said. And that was that. We chatted a bit more me trying to find some more out from him, but nothing came. As I left the Temple I was certain that there is something "not right" in the connection between Rebirth and Dharma.
How could the Venerable Monk not be able to answer that question when had I asked him to explain the 12 Niddanyas or the Five Aggrigates and their relation to Dharma I am sure he could have talked for hours.
So that's one experience:) Do you think I am wrong, as a Buddhist, to not consider that as a significant experience on my personal Path?
Sorry Mat, I was talking about other peoples experiences and other people quoting suttas. Not yourself. Perhaps I should have made it more clear.
I shall re-iterate...
When people have quoted suttas to give you examples of rebirth and how it connects with Dharma you have, usually, replied with "doubt" on the authenticity of the sutta or you interpret the sutta differently to everyone else.
When people have used their personal experience and/or meditative insights, you have told them to not use their own experience and believes but instead show you how it connects with (what you believe to be) dharma.
You have also asked people to prove you wrong.
Based on that frame-work, I wonder how can it be done!? And I'll continue to read this thread with interest.
Sorry Mat, I was talking about other peoples experiences and other people quoting suttas. Not yourself. Perhaps I should have made it more clear.
I shall re-iterate...
Can you curtiously at least answer my question as to whether I should consider that as a significant episode in my practice and understanding of Dharma?
Can you curtiously at least answer my question as to whether I should consider that as a significant episode in my practice and understanding of Dharma?
In either case, we are attached to a view that we can not fully understand
Umm.. no, I can fully understand that is is my only life; it is the rest of a crazy fluke amongst countless accidents of reality that have made the galaxies and Bhodi Trees. There is no magic in a magnet or afterlife. Its just the evolutions of universe and galaxy and planet and you and me.
What is so hard to understand about the view of Science? Buddha Dharma is completely compatible with Science. Mystcial Dharma is not.
a part of us does not move forward without the answer
No, I have totally moved forwards with my answer. I have no doubt at all in my mind that this is my only life, there is no heaven or rebirth or soul. There are few things I am so certain of.
There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe...
I didn't mean what you think I meant. I didn't mean to not believe in rebirth is dukkha, but to *dis*-believe... I meant an active denial of it. How can you say you've moved on if it is still an issue to be argued? Clearly you hold very firmly to an idea that others hold very firmly against; does this not cause you suffering?
Just take posts #78 and #79 for what they're worth. I have no stake in this argument other than to help people not entrench themselves in views. I still do not know about rebirth myself, but out of wisdom I will find that answer in myself, not in arguing over the suttas or what other people think.
How can you say you've moved on if it is still an issue to be argued?
Its one of the biggest debates in buddhist philsopophy, surely? What is wrong with debating it?
I think the biggest debate in Buddhism isn't "Rebirth/Death" but "skeptic/mystic."
>>Clearly you hold very firmly to an idea that others hold very firmly against; does this not cause you suffering?
Yes it does. I dont mind the petty insults at all but I know many people who "attack" my views doesnt really try to understand them. So I find it irksome that people argue without trying to reason:)
>>>But out of wisdom I will find that answer in myself, not in arguing over the suttas or what other people think.
Yes totally. But frankly, if you dont like the chat dont join in:) Dont read.. move on, its not worth ot for you yada yada:P
Nevermind then. Posts #78 and #79 still stand as my final suggested solution to this whole debate. You will never find or create a consensus among Buddhists on this subject by debate/discussion/argument, but by working so hard to convince others that they're wrong, you invest even more into the attachment and cause yourself further dukkha.
(That goes for anyone who argues the other side of the coin as well, I don't intend any of this as being directed personally to you Mat.)
Consider me outta this one. I have nothing better to contribute.
... but by working so hard to convince others that they're wrong, you invest even more into the attachment and cause yourself further dukkha.
No this is absoultly right, and I have to be mindfull of it, I imagine we all do. Right now I am finding it helpful for me personally, but its so very hard to keep the egoillusion dead, especially when you are talking about the very foundations of your world view and path:)
>>Consider me outta this one. I have nothing better to contribute.
To answer the question posed in the title of the thread (Does it matter to Dharma practice if Rebirth is true or false?), the short answer is: no. One does not need to believe that one is literally reborn after death in order to follow the Eightfold Path. To be quite honest, I agree with Aldrisang. I meet too many people (mostly on internet forums) more concerned with arguing over what is right view than actually practicing the right conduct, action and mindfulness that would have more of an immediate and tangible effect on their own life and the lives of those they come into contact with (not to mention, better answer questions such as that posed in the thread).
The Eightfold Path is not a linear sequence; all parts of the path work in concert with each other. It might be better represented as a flower with eight petals that unfold together. Spending an inordinate amount of time obsessing over one particular aspect of the path is like taking a detour off to the side instead of forward towards nirvana. MatSalted, your time is better spent away from the computer and either on the cushion/mat or in your workaday interaction with the earth and its beings. One cannot hope to understand the dharma in a vacuum.
MatSalted, your time is better spent away from the computer and either on the cushion/mat or in your workaday interaction with the earth and its beings. One cannot hope to understand the dharma in a vacuum.
We need some asshats like me to make the arhants like you guys seem so right;p
That is odd, he talks about rebirth on the discourse on Right View:
25. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
And where is the word rebirth in that quote? The Buddha described self-identification and the seals and such as subject to birth. MN117 clearly defines literal rebirth as right view with asava, not leading to nibbana, but rather to further becoming.
And where is the word rebirth in that quote? The Buddha described self-identification and the seals and such as subject to birth. MN117 clearly defines literal rebirth as right view with asava, not leading to nibbana, but rather to further becoming.
its clearly implied.
Rebirth is an axiom, an accepted truth that is implied throughout the scriptures.
I'm having some disagreement with the word 'rebirth' as a correct label for the axiom spoken of.
This disagreement comes from analysis of the word itself, particularly with the prefix - 're'.
I don't imagine the Buddhadharma pointing toward a 're' of any kind; actually just the opposite. Therefor, one may assert that the correct Buddhadharma does not contain the concept of 'rebirth'; although that word is used in translation and brings with it an incorrect concept.
I imagine we may need to investigate this and find a more suitable label.
Also, I've heard it said, "For those who know, no answer is needed. For those who don't know, no answer is understood' or something like that.
its clearly implied.
Rebirth is an axiom, an accepted truth that is implied throughout the scriptures.
LOL!
Can you tell me who told you it was an Axiom? Why would you think that? Even if it was an Axiom, why would you not question it as the Kalama Sutra specifically instructs.
You may be on the right track if you change "axiom" for "Enttrenched Notion that was the othodoxy for millennia before the time of the Buddha"...
Please lets pass each other in silence if you cannot be critical and use reason:)
Can you tell me who told you it was an Axiom? Why would you think that? Even if it was an Axiom, why would you not question it as the Kalama Sutra specifically instructs.
You may be on the right track if you change "axiom" for "Enttrenched Notion that was the othodoxy for millennia before the time of the Buddha"...
Please lets pass each other in silence if you cannot be critical and use reason:)
wow.
there used to be a Buddhist forum that would shut down threads like this and ban posters like you.
it was a good set of policies and good forum.
Comments
Either view may be rejected or accepted but for the purposes of this thread we do not have to make a choice between them. Both supporters of the 'one life' assertion and the 'post mortem rebirth' assertion leads to the conclusion that we shoud practice urgently and diligently to achieve a positive outcome.
So my answer is 'no' it does not matter in terms of the motivation to practice.
Post-mortem "rebirth" of what kind? Consciousness?
It depends on the view. I'm not advocating either view, just seeking to establish that they are not mutually exclusive.
The view in some Tibetan schools is that what continues is a very subtle aspect of mind which is not 'consciousness' but carries the result of karma from being to being in the rebirth process. Some schools believe the Bardo Thodol to describe the journey from being to being, from dead body to new womb.
I personally believe that the Buddha taught both theories according to his audience as skilfull means.
is not Dharma enough difference?:)
Is rebirth part of Dharma or external to it?
This is more or less the position I take as well.
When I first became interested in Buddhism, I was skeptical about literal rebirth. After some time, however, I came to accept the traditional multiple-life interpretation as presented in Theravada. Now I'm more or less agnostic about the subject; I tend to read the teachings on rebirth as references to mental states, which seems the most pragmatic to me, but I can also see the logic of literal rebirth as presented by most schools.
Nevertheless, no matter which view I take in regard to the teachings on rebirth, my motivation for practicing is essentially the same—the desire for happiness in the here and now.
Buddha very skilfully taught rebirth according to his audience - we don't need to disagree over interpretation IMHO, as I believe he was teaching us that what we believe about rebirth makes no difference to our path to enlightenment.
Having been around many forums, I'm sure Buddha was right not to emphasise rebirth theories. LOL
As soon as we mention 'literal rebirth' there may be a comment that all rebirth is literal. So we change to an examination of 'post-mortem rebirth' - and someone asks how we define the exact moment a being's life begins and ends. And what is a 'mental continuum' and 'consciousness'? And what is claimed for its transference, based on what external evidence or self-verification? And isn't the view I disagree with just speculation? etc. etc.
You could sit and ponder that lot for a decade or two!
And at the end of it you may reach your death-bed and still question your life's meaning. Epitaph: 'Well, what was THAT all about?'.
Or you could just get on with practice.
"If our fear of suffering does not extend to future lives, but is merely limited to the sufferings of this life, all our actions are inevitably bound up with the concern for this life."
And he says:
"Thus at an absolute minimum, our practice of refuge must look beyond this life and be based in a concern for the suffering of future lives. "
And millenia before the Buhhda says:
"... the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn.. but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it..."
And so I think the signpost is there, clearly given by The Buddha in the Last Sermon (MPS). We should look to the discourses and see iof such claims fit rather than just accepting them:)
My personal view is that they do not, that Buddhism has been radically distorted on Rebirth - I think there is much evidence for this, textual, empirical and philosophical.
I invite those interested in this issue (And this thread) to try find where in the discourses rebirth is directly supported, rather than merely mentioned. I just don't see it is there, especially in the early cannon.
I am happy to be called ignorant of Dharma for this view, equally I would say the Emperor was naked when he seemed so:)
Thanks
mat
PS I am not being confrontational or ****kicking here, this is a genuine concern I have held for many years. Please don't reply if you cannot follow the Buddhas clear advice... that way is the way shouting not thinking:)
Second, you seem to be saying 'I've done my homework and can't find anything, you do so too'. Tell you what, I'll assume there isn't anything, because you've done all the research. So now what?
Third, if this has been going on for many years as you say, then you have something to prove. Good luck in having your mind changed, having anyone else do any research or finding an answer.
If it isn't any evidence of support, what does it actually imply?
>>First, why would it even be mentioned if it isn't an issue? Was that to confuse everybody?
I think it clearly was an issue, as Anandda highlights the text before the quoted passage:)
Its also interesting why the buddha would mention "discourses" when these were not extant at that time:) But thats another point:)
>>>Second, you seem to be saying 'I've done my homework and can't find anything, you do so too'.
No, I am saying, we should be weary of dogma and The Buddha gives us instruictions to deal with it:)
>>>Tell you what, I'll assume there isn't anything, because you've done all the research. So now what?
I haven't even scratched the surface. Note that I am not proposing any doctrine as certain, other than the three marks and the four noble truths. I am not asking you to believe me, quite the opposite:)
>>Third, if this has been going on for many years as you say, then you have something to prove.
I have nothing to prove much to doubt, but I cannot doubt Dharma at all, i do doubt that rebirth is poart of Dharma. But that is ametaphycial question.
Do you see the issue here?
It one thing to say it doesn't matter to practice if rebirth is or is not. It is another thing to say as The Karmapa says and others seem to belive that it does matter and that if you dont belive in Rebirth you are not on the path.
That is dogma. Plane, simple, esoteric, Dogma.
Mat
(Bikkhu Bodhi - Dhamma Without Rebirth)
.
(Dogen - Sanji Go)
I don't think anybody is contesting that Buddhism supports the doctrine of Rebirth:) I certainly am not:)
What I am questioning is whether or not the Buddha believed in Rebirth and moreover whether he actually taught that Rebirth was embedded but wrong view.
I have been going over and over the Mirror of Dharma passage and the parts before it. I am starting to think it is more profound than I had considered. It could be the handover between the old embedded ways of Rebirth to the Enlightened path without Rebirth, and yet it is not a destruction of the past ways but a birth of the new path, i.e. The Buddha is saying, what is important is you declare and know you will not be reborn - only then are you "bound for Enlightenment":)
To ignore this passage and assume it is not what it seems to be seems a bit "head in the sand" about the issue:)
Mat
That is a new idea for me. What makes you think it could be wrong view? Could you point to sources?
My initial reasons are philosopcial and historical, as discussed much on my www.salted.net.
Rebirth simply doesn't fit in with the beautiful, crystaline Dharmic structure that starts with the Three marks and ends with The Noble Eightfold Path.
I think you can see this yourself by thinking about the single point and asking what things are true of this. And then devloping from there through the heircachy of reality up to human experiences and seeing that if impermanence, emptiness, interconnectedness are Foundational then where does whatever is rebirth, ephemeral as it may supposedly be, fit in with this Dharmic reality.
I believe absolutely the Buddha was not a mystic, and so any account of Rebirth, for me at least, needs to cohere with that, other wise, franky, I would rather belive that when I die I am in eternal paradise than yet more rebirth - note how there is no differnces between the structure of those views:)
But these are my long considered understandings rather than scriptual reasons, which I suspect is what you expect.
Notwithstanding my believe in the epic inaccuracy of the suttras even assuming they are 100% verbatim it seems to me that rebirth is never explained, it is only mentioned. There is no scriptural support to connect Rebirth with Dharma save for in the Ahibdharma and later texts which I consider as redundant for reason mentioned:)
I urge you to reread the key suttras of the Suttra Pitaka, as I am doing now, and try to see if there is any evidence that the Buddha connected rebirth with Dharma.
I am doing the same - so far I become more sure not less:)
Mat
Exactly! This is what first perplexed me about it!:)
And then when you take into account that rebirth was the dominant notion for millennia before the Buddha, and that Dharma sans rebirth seems so consistent, one starts to legitimally question if in fact the Buddha was saying that the start of the path is the rejection of ones Rebirth (The Mirror of Dharma).
That is odd, he talks about rebirth on the discourse on Right View:
25. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands birth, the origin of birth, the cessation of birth, and the way leading to the cessation of birth, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
This doesn't seem to reject rebirth very much, unless you are talking about other text with the same name:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Possessing this Mirror of Dharma, a noble disciple shall be able to predict for himself that he shall not fall back to lower states like hell, the animal world, the ghost world and other sorrowful and unhappy states."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Err... That's Birth Not Rebirth:p
I'm being pernikkity (Though perhaps that's signifigant?). My point is, I am seeking a place in the discourses where its explained how rebirth connects to Dharma.
Can you explain how it connects?
Can you explain how it connects in a way specific to Dharma? If DHarma is compatible with rebirth why is it not compatible with Christain Heaven?
These are not trivial questions if one seeks the truth, rather than the remnant teachings, about what the Buddha discovered.
"Possessing this Mirror of Dharma, a noble disciple shall be able to predict for himself that he shall not fall back to lower states like hell, the animal world, the ghost world and other sorrowful and unhappy states."
How symbolic, we have a fracture in the Mirror Of Dharma!:)
How do you interpret that? How do you interpret what he says when he offers the Gift?
It is an ignorance to think there is no question on what the Buddha thought about Rebirth:)
Mat
What many people end up with is a crooked idea of Buddhism, like this: "Oh, Rebirth wasn't proven to me, so it can't be proven ever, so it is necessarily wrong. If it is wrong, than the Buddha would have not accepted it, because the Buddha is always right, even though I can't prove it (oops, looks like logic has a loophole?). If the Buddha is always right and rebirth is obviously wrong than: a) the Pali Canon is wrong or b) The Pali Canon HAS to, by whatever means of interpretation, agree with me, because I understand what the Buddha has to say, and not those people that believe in rebirth and rituals and karma, and the monks and whatever, how silly of them. They transmitted the teaching but know nothing of it."
People have the tendency to say the Buddha agrees with whatever they agree with, and disagrees with whatever they disagree with, and that the Pali Canon is wrong, the Lineage holders are wrong, everybody is wrong, except for you and Buddha, which I find to be the weirdest thing ever for a person that 'only believes in logic'.
If the Pali Canon and the Sangha are wrong, then Honey, you have no connection whatsoever to Buddha, because the ones without credibility passed the information on, so you don't have any means to decide whatever it was that the Buddha said or didn't say. If the Sangha has no credibility, than the whole concept of the Buddha and Dharma falls to the ground. Think about it.
Not to me. And please don't confuse karma with Rebirth, they are distinct. One is super natural and the other is not.
Also, please don't accept the authenticity of the Suttras, that's just bad practice and demonstrably fallacious methodology.
>>If the Buddha is always right and rebirth is obviously wrong than: a) the Pali Canon is wrong or b)...
I think The Pali cannon is wrong:)
>>People have the tendency to say the Buddha agrees with whatever they agree with, and disagrees with whatever they disagree with, and that the Pali Canon is wrong, the Lineage holders are wrong, everybody is wrong, except for you and Buddha, which I find to be the weirdest thing ever for a person that 'only believes in logic'.
That is because you dont understand what I am saying, then.
Imagine the Buddha never lived.... and there was no buddhism. Would there still be Dahrma?
That is... would anataman, annica, dukka be true of all possible universes?
I believe with utmost certainty it would. Its demonstable and self evident that The Three Marks are necessary truths of all consistent realities.
Do you agree with that?
I cannot doubt them and Had the Buddha not found them then somone would have. (In fact at about the same time in ancient Greece people were finding similar truths as the dharmic truths.)
Can we assume the dharmic truths are true of all worlds?
Lets assume so...
Now we can ask... how do these truths this particular universe? And then higher in abstraction we can ask how do these truths condition human expeince? Even without the Buddha I think it becomes clear that the Dharmnic truths fundamentally condition out expeirnces and entail suffering for the reasons the buddha cites.
Equally by removing the fetters and illusions that are created from our sense of experience (the ego) we can understand how the inevitable negative doesn't need to be so. isn't this what the eightfold path is?
>>>If the Pali Canon and the Sangha are wrong, then Honey, you have no connection whatsoever to Buddha, because the ones without credibility passed the information on, so you don't have any means to decide whatever it was that the Buddha said or didn't say. If the Sangha has no credibility, than the whole concept of the Buddha and Dharma falls to the ground. Think about it.
I have thought about this more than anything else, so against your patronisations I will simply say... The cannon may be wrong but Dharma is truth, with or without The Buddha:)
Mat
I tried to in post #65 (the number on top of each post), containing quotes from a Theravada Monk, A Scholar on Tibetan Buddhism and the Founder of Soto Zen school.
I am not worried about Christian Heaven
Dharma is a mirror in the sense that it shows us what are our faults, how far are we in the path, and so on. It is a means to analyze ourselves and reality.
I think that best way to question it is in terms of whether he was right or wrong, and not bending the suttas to make it sound like he believed in whatever exotic theory people have these days. Aren't you agnostic? If it so why can't the Buddha be wrong? He said himself he was only human afterall.
'The Buddha's first words after enlightenment were these: "Seeking but not finding the house builder, I traveled through the round of countless births. [BB-Hum?] Oh, painful is birth ever and again! House builder you have now been seen. You shall not build the house again. Your rafters have been broken down; your ridge-pole is demolished too. My mind has now attained the unformed nibbana and reached the end of every kind of craving." (Dh. 153-54.)' http://www.vipassanadhura.com/buddha.htm
'Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154
Udana Vatthu
Anekajatisamsaram
sandhavissam anibbisam
gahakaram gavesanto2
dukkha jati punappunam3.
Gahakaraka ditthosi4
puna geham na kahasi5
sabba te phasuka bhagga6
gahakotam visankhatam7
visankharagatam cittam8
tanhanam khayamajjhaga9.
Verse 153: I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!
Verse 154: Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.
1. Footnotes to Verses 153 and 154: These two verses are expressions of intense and sublime joy the Buddha felt at the very moment of his attainment of Enlightenment; as such, they are replete with a wealth of sublime meaning and deep feeling.
2. gahakaram gavesanto: lit., "I who have tried to find the builder of the house" The house is the body, the builder is Craving (Tanha). The meaning of Verse (153) as given in the Commentary is as follows:
I who have been seeking the builder of this house, knowing that he could be seen only with a certain wisdom, have been trying to attain such wisdom (Bodhi nana) ever since Dipankara Buddha prophesied that I would, one day, become a Buddha like him. But failing to attain Bodhi nana, I have wandered through this course of hundreds of thousands of existences in the endless round of rebirths.
3. dukkha jati punappunam: To be born again and again is dukkha. This is the reason for trying to find the builder of this house, the Carpenter Craving.
Birth which comes together with aging, disease and death is dukkha; that is why I have been incessantly looking for the Householder Craving.
4. ditthosi: You are seen: I have seen you now that I have attained Enlightenment or Bodhi nana, the all comprehending wisdom, with my own Insight.
5. puna geham na kahasi: No house shall be built again: You shall not build another house (for me) in this round of rebirths.
6. sabba te phasuka bhagga: All your rafters are broken: I have destroyed all the remaining defilements.
7. gahakutam visankhatam The roof-tree has been destroyed: I have dispelled Ignorance.
8. visankharagatam cittam: lit., my mind has reached the Unconditioned, having Nibbana as its object, my mind has realized Nibbana.
9. tanhanam khayamajjhaga: The end of craving has been attained. I have attained Arahatta Fruition.
http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=153
Is this incorrect? Have you read this?
Now this may all be fiction. If so how can we say this is so when in fact we don't have the Buddhas words, from his own mouth, either. It seems to me all we have is the words of the elders who passed on the teachings; including those on rebirth.
Try taking the Buddha and the suttras out of Dharma for a while, and seeing what makes cannot be doubted from first principles?
Whats so wrong with even attempting that?
Mat:)
I think if there are any who could with right view discuss rebirth, it is the Arahants. The rest of us should simply practice due diligence toward the goal and leave the question to answer itself.
Believing in rebirth is dukkha. Disbelieving in rebirth is dukkha. In either case, we are attached to a view that we can not fully understand; a part of us does not move forward without the answer, and others practicing what we believe is wrong view causes us suffering as well.
The proper way to deal with this is to trust the doctor. If we find out differently in the future when we reach higher levels of realization, it hasn't harmed us to keep an open mind, has it?
Question; if you doubt the authenticity of the suttas, and you do not accept other peoples meditative insights (ie monastic lineage holders), what proof would you accept that Buddha did not denounce rebirth? (Might save many posters some time!)
Nios.
Hi Nios:)
We cant really talk proof in either way - note that my point is not that "I AM RIGHT" but that the posters here who are "SURE I AM WRONG" simply cannot be sure:) I may well be wrong, but after many years with this issue I remain to be shown...
But to try to answer your question.. what would show me I am wrong?
This is simple, I want to be shown how rebirth connects with dharma.
Note that this is not "suttra fishing" for mentions of rebirth and realms but a way to explain the connection that fits rebirth into the perfect (for I belive it is so) Dharmic system that starts with the three marks and ends with the eightfold path.
Ity is a simple request. for comparisons, we can see how karma fits in, or mind, or ego, or suffering, or craving, or impermanence, or emptiness....
Where does rebirth fit into the perferct dharmic system?
Peace:)
mat
The reason I ask is that many people would quote suttas, give examples of personal experiences and insights, or quote teachers. Based on what you want other people to show you, I wonder how could it be done. My knowledge of Buddhism is relatively small, so I too, would be interested in what more learned members of the forum have to say.
Nios.
Quote Suttas
I have spent an amount of my time here quoting sutras here and salted.net that i think supprt my view. I am rereading the many now and will try to collate something whole.
Give examples of personal experiences and insights
About five years ago I was in my favourite place on the planet, Gangaramaya Temple in Sri Lanka. Without doubt it is the place I first started connecting with Buddha’s teachings and its spiritual (not mystical) side.
I had this doubt with me from the very first moments I tried to understand Dharma. It started off with unclarity that I assumed was my lack of understanding. But the harder I tried to understand where Rebirth connected with Dharma the more unclear and tenuous any connection seemed. I imagine this is a question Many Buddhists have but I think I saw it slightly differently with my more contemplative than meditative take on Dharma.
I could see the what I thought was the structre of Dharma that started with the Three Marks of Existence. The Last mark, Dukka, connected (or was) the Four Noble Truths and the last of these connected with (or was) the Noble Eightfold. I could see how this really sophisticated casual theory (I had studied Philosophy to PHD level) entailed these Karmic Truths that connected the world of experience with the world outside, or below experience. And what really blew me away was the way that the actual instantiation of that experience that we call the mind was described and structured in ways I believed no modern cognitive scientist or psychologist or neuroscientist could fault.
And all of these truths were not just about my experiences but all experiences to form this moral whole that frankly, blew me away. All the hippy-dippy stuff I had been hearing for years, “Its all connected, man” was true, and not in trivial ways but profound life changing ways. There were no edges, there was only the now.
But then amongst this beautiful, evident, procession of ideas that the Buddha had arranged was this runt of an idea. An idea that is civilizations crack. Call it what you will.. an after life, paradise, heaven , reincarnation, other planes of existence, rebirth. The idea that this is not my last life.
There it was, in Buddhism, an idea that simply didn’t fit. I started reading up on this, asking my Sri Lankan Buddhist friends, reading books and sutras and the more I inquired the more it seemed that nobody could say how Rebirth connects with Dharma.
The epiphany for me on the matter was in gangaramaya temple. I had gone there to meditate but also to ask one of the head monks, who I had met, about the “Rebirth Mystery”. I found him and asked him plain and simple, “Where does rebirth fit with the four noble truths?”
He looked a bit perplexed and I clarified what I meant as a summary of above and he thought some more on this and answered, “Higher Dharma.”
I looked confused and asked him “Ahbidharma?” Which is what I thought he meant. This is a later addition to Buddhism that tries to create a philosophical/mystical freame work for Dharma. Its pretty bloated and intractable but more importantly it was much much much later than the Buddha. There is no reason to believe the Buddha taught Ahibdhrama.
“Yes, yes, Ahibdharma, “ He said. And that was that. We chatted a bit more me trying to find some more out from him, but nothing came. As I left the Temple I was certain that there is something "not right" in the connection between Rebirth and Dharma.
How could the Venerable Monk not be able to answer that question when had I asked him to explain the 12 Niddanyas or the Five Aggrigates and their relation to Dharma I am sure he could have talked for hours.
So that's one experience:) Do you think I am wrong, as a Buddhist, to not consider that as a significant experience on my personal Path?
Mat
I shall re-iterate...
When people have quoted suttas to give you examples of rebirth and how it connects with Dharma you have, usually, replied with "doubt" on the authenticity of the sutta or you interpret the sutta differently to everyone else.
When people have used their personal experience and/or meditative insights, you have told them to not use their own experience and believes but instead show you how it connects with (what you believe to be) dharma.
You have also asked people to prove you wrong.
Based on that frame-work, I wonder how can it be done!? And I'll continue to read this thread with interest.
Nios.
Can you curtiously at least answer my question as to whether I should consider that as a significant episode in my practice and understanding of Dharma?
All experiences are valuable. Even this one
I completely agree!
I disagree!
Umm.. no, I can fully understand that is is my only life; it is the rest of a crazy fluke amongst countless accidents of reality that have made the galaxies and Bhodi Trees. There is no magic in a magnet or afterlife. Its just the evolutions of universe and galaxy and planet and you and me.
What is so hard to understand about the view of Science? Buddha Dharma is completely compatible with Science. Mystcial Dharma is not.
No, I have totally moved forwards with my answer. I have no doubt at all in my mind that this is my only life, there is no heaven or rebirth or soul. There are few things I am so certain of.
There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe...
And that ain't a bad thing;)
Just take posts #78 and #79 for what they're worth. I have no stake in this argument other than to help people not entrench themselves in views. I still do not know about rebirth myself, but out of wisdom I will find that answer in myself, not in arguing over the suttas or what other people think.
No, its all good, thats how I thought you meant it:) My points above stand.
Its one of the biggest debates in buddhist philsopophy, surely? What is wrong with debating it?
I think the biggest debate in Buddhism isn't "Rebirth/Death" but "skeptic/mystic."
>>Clearly you hold very firmly to an idea that others hold very firmly against; does this not cause you suffering?
Yes it does. I dont mind the petty insults at all but I know many people who "attack" my views doesnt really try to understand them. So I find it irksome that people argue without trying to reason:)
>>>But out of wisdom I will find that answer in myself, not in arguing over the suttas or what other people think.
Yes totally. But frankly, if you dont like the chat dont join in:) Dont read.. move on, its not worth ot for you yada yada:P
Have fun
Mat
(That goes for anyone who argues the other side of the coin as well, I don't intend any of this as being directed personally to you Mat.)
Consider me outta this one. I have nothing better to contribute.
No this is absoultly right, and I have to be mindfull of it, I imagine we all do. Right now I am finding it helpful for me personally, but its so very hard to keep the egoillusion dead, especially when you are talking about the very foundations of your world view and path:)
>>Consider me outta this one. I have nothing better to contribute.
Right on:)
Peace,
Mat
Indulging in invidious namecalling, then claiming it's in the service of reducing tension. Sheesh.
The Eightfold Path is not a linear sequence; all parts of the path work in concert with each other. It might be better represented as a flower with eight petals that unfold together. Spending an inordinate amount of time obsessing over one particular aspect of the path is like taking a detour off to the side instead of forward towards nirvana. MatSalted, your time is better spent away from the computer and either on the cushion/mat or in your workaday interaction with the earth and its beings. One cannot hope to understand the dharma in a vacuum.
We need some asshats like me to make the arhants like you guys seem so right;p
Thanks for the concern,
Mat
And where is the word rebirth in that quote? The Buddha described self-identification and the seals and such as subject to birth. MN117 clearly defines literal rebirth as right view with asava, not leading to nibbana, but rather to further becoming.
Rebirth is an axiom, an accepted truth that is implied throughout the scriptures.
I'm having some disagreement with the word 'rebirth' as a correct label for the axiom spoken of.
This disagreement comes from analysis of the word itself, particularly with the prefix - 're'.
I don't imagine the Buddhadharma pointing toward a 're' of any kind; actually just the opposite. Therefor, one may assert that the correct Buddhadharma does not contain the concept of 'rebirth'; although that word is used in translation and brings with it an incorrect concept.
I imagine we may need to investigate this and find a more suitable label.
Also, I've heard it said, "For those who know, no answer is needed. For those who don't know, no answer is understood' or something like that.
LOL!
Can you tell me who told you it was an Axiom? Why would you think that? Even if it was an Axiom, why would you not question it as the Kalama Sutra specifically instructs.
You may be on the right track if you change "axiom" for "Enttrenched Notion that was the othodoxy for millennia before the time of the Buddha"...
Please lets pass each other in silence if you cannot be critical and use reason:)
dukkha, dukkha, dukkha
ain't it grand!?!
there used to be a Buddhist forum that would shut down threads like this and ban posters like you.
it was a good set of policies and good forum.