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.
Mat, no offense, but I believe you are experiencing 'incredulity' not 'mood'.
I feel for you. Somone telling you that your entire belief system may cause a crisis of faith. I don't know, That isnt my intention at all.
I have a tremendous respect for faith and have some freinds who are full on "faithheads" to use Dwarkin's esppression. We never discuss faith in the argumentaive way here.
But this is an internet discussion forum
So far you have not presented much of anything I haven't already considered.
How did you work through your considerations about the doubts about the buddhas's teaching of rebbirth?
What was it that convinced you it was wrong?
You seem a clever person, so I am sure you cant mean the suttras themselves, as thats like saying the God exists because the bible says so:)
I do think it is quite plausible that aspects of the Buddhist Sutras/Suttas have been changed or do not reflect the actual Buddha's words with 100% accuracy, but they (the teachings on rebirth) are so heavily embedded in them that it seems unlikely to me that they were merely invented to conform with societal standards of the time.
So you admit the possibility of cracks in the orthodoc doctrine.
Can we just leave it that I think they may be bigger than you think?
And even if rebirth was a cultural addition, I would still like to see where the teaching of rebirth does not mesh with Buddhism on the whole.
a) This is my only life, it is short and rare and preciuous,I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can.
b)This is one of countless lives on a path to some mystical enlightenment I cannot discus or understand in this life.
If you cant see a profound difference between thouse two views, thats your call. To me, thats just about as big as it gets.
I feel for you. Somone telling you that your entire belief system may cause a crisis of faith. I don't know, That isnt my intention at all.
I appreciate your intentions, but there is no crisis of faith here. I have already I have stated that I am an agnostic on matters I have not directly realized first-hand. This includes rebirth. I'm not entirely sure about it, but that is not the actual debate we are having. We are debating whether rebirth fits in the overall system of Buddhist thought and practice and whether it was a cultural insertion that was not actually taught or believed by the Buddha. All actual evidence I have been presented with suggests that rebirth fits with overall Buddhist doctrine and that it was more-likely-than not part of the original Buddhist teachings.
Whether it is ultimately true, I'm not even discussing here.
I have a tremendous respect for faith and have some freinds who are full on "faithheads" to use Dwarkin's esppression. We never discuss faith in the argumentaive way here.
But this is an internet discussion forum
I'm certainly not a "faithhead" and I think you are reading more into my arguments than I've stated.
How did you work through your considerations about the doubts about the buddhas's teaching of rebbirth?
What was it that convinced you it was wrong?
As I've stated, my studies have led me to the conclusion that the teachings on rebirth are most likely not cultural additions or appeals to superstitions, etc. As to the objective truth of rebirth, I am not sure, but my understanding of it does not contain any contradiction with other Buddhist doctrines and principles.
You seem a clever person, so I am sure you cant mean the suttras themselves, as thats like saying the God exists because the bible says so:)
I am merely arguing that the Sutras themselves are likely representative of the original teachings of the Buddha with a larger degree of accuracy than most other religions. Also, there is a consistency and redundancy of teaching that is surprisingly supportive of rebirth as a Buddhist teaching.
So you admit the possibility of cracks in the orthodoc doctrine.
Can we just leave it that I think they may be bigger than you think?
Can we just leave it that I don't agree with you on that and that you really haven't made a very strong case for that.
a) This is my only life, it is short and rare and preciuous,I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can.
This statement works regardless of one's belief regarding the first clause of "This is my only life". To me it should read more along the following lines:
"Regardless of whether rebirth is ultimately true, this life is short and rare and preciuous, I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can."
b)This is one of countless lives on a path to some mystical enlightenment I cannot discus or understand in this life.
Nobody is saying that enlightenment is necessarily mystical. And nobody is saying you can't really discuss enlightenment or understand it in this lifetime. All the teachings of rebirth say is that conditions bring about resulting conditions. There is a clinging state and a non-clinging state. This may or may not involve multiple lives. Now, believing in post-mortem rebirth DOES require a worldview which puts consciousness/awareness in greater ontological status, so I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite the issue you're making it out to be.
If you cant see a profound difference between thouse two views, thats your call. To me, thats just about as big as it gets.
Feel free to practice and enjoy the benefits of practice while believing or not believing what you want. I am certainly not arguing that you shouldn't or can't practice Buddhism to great success.
Unto each their own:)
Mat
Agreed. But we are not talking about personal beliefs here. We are discussing rebirth in the context of the Sutras, whether they represent the Buddha's original teachings, and whether they mesh with Buddhist doctrine as a whole.
However, when you study the sutras in depth, you begin to see how often they cross-reference the same teachings and are based on the same philosophical points.
This doesnt negate the fact they may have been modified over time.
The very fact there are tens of thousandsof suttas shows that they cant all be accurate, even assume all the other error areas are ignored.
In that regard, I find it HIGHLY unlikely that rebirth teachings were falsely inserted into the sutras.
The Great Later on Con is my term for the idea that all religions manipulate the masses by a promise of reward in some later life for compromise in this life.
Its a con. Its my belief the Buddha saw this con and the middle path was his way to avoid it.
The suttas explicitly state that the Middle way is intended to avoid eternalism and annihilationism. Do you have evidence that the Buddha was trying to avoid promising a later life?
"Masculinisation", I mean the fact that the dominant male cultures through history propagate masculine cultural norms. EG epic, deep, hard and in religious terms these come out as the esoteric mystical stuff we see in all extant religions apart from the Church of The Isle of Lesbos, which currently only exists in my mind:P
Where? A reference please? I have asked for links before you didnt provide:)
Andrew Skilton, "A Concise History of Buddhism", pp. 81-82 gives an overview of the correspondences between the nikayas and the agamas. Gombrich's "How Buddhism Began" describes how scholars use the similarities and differences between the texts of different schools to estimate how and when texts were changed. I don't have the book handy so I can't give page numbers. The information can be found in many places, but Gombrich is the last place I remember reading it. The Mahasanghikas and the Sthaviras split sometime between 60 and 100 years after the Buddha died. The section of the Mahasanghika agama that we have has close parallels to the corresponding Nikaya. Rebirth was therefore an accepted part of Buddhism at some point prior to the split. So there's less than sixty years for the sangha, which was trying to preserve the Buddha's teaching without alteration, to make a major alteration in all of the monasteries where it was being preserved. And furthermore, this alteration has to occur without controversy, among people who believed it was wrong to alter the Buddha's teachings.
By the way, we have a pretty good idea what the controversies were when the sangha split. We have both the Theravada and the Mahasanghika accounts.
I think you're expressing yourself badly again. There's no evidence that he edited the gospels. I think you mean that he established a canon. The canon seems to have been created in response to the Marcionite controversy thirty years prior to Irenaeus. And this is another illustration of my point. Establishing a canon and weeding out "non-canonical" gospels was a major change. It was controversial up through the fourth century, and we have evidence of the controversy.
Can we just leave it that I don't agree with you on that and that you really haven't made a very strong case for that.
Sure:) I don't agree with me 100%.
Please be aware I am a Buddhist skeptic, I doubt it all:)
I cannot doubt what I term Core Dharma, and I would wager nor can you:)
Aint Dharma Awsome!
"Regardless of whether rebirth is ultimately true, this life is short and rare and preciuous, I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can."
I disagree with that. If I sell you something that will never exist, irrespective of how the fact you may one day own it makes you feel, I am conning you. Thats my view:)
Nobody is saying that enlightenment is necessarily mystical.
Oh Pleeease! Many many do:)
And also, literal rebirth is mysticial however you wrap it up. I cant see it any other way.
Now, believing in post-mortem rebirth DOES require a worldview which puts consciousness/awareness in greater ontological status, so I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite the issue you're making it out to be.
I have to avoid personal debate with you:) Its mutually antagonising it seems... shame.
Re the non personal stuff....
The suttas explicitly state that the Middle way is intended to avoid eternalism and annihilationism.
I read self-mortification as possibly being msyctisism. In which case the were would be the first sermon, at least
Do you have evidence that the Buddha was trying to avoid promising a later life?
The Mirror of Dharma, I think that can be understood to mean this, yes. I am sure you will disagree, that is your opinion.
Andrew Skilton, "A Concise History of Buddhism", pp. 81-82 gives an overview of the correspondences between the nikayas and the agamas.
Gombrich's "How Buddhism Began" describes how scholars use the similarities and differences between the texts of different schools to estimate how and when texts were changed.
These are commentaries. My skepticisms are just a commentary. I haven't read those but unless they show how the teachings were preserved over 1500 miles and 500 years and many dialects its irrelevant to my doubts
The suttas we have today are about as close as Homer in terms of content preservation.
The Mahasanghikas and the Sthaviras split sometime between 60 and 100 years after the Buddha died. The section of the Mahasanghika agama that we have has close parallels to the corresponding Nikaya.
But my doubts are about the entire corpus after his death. Are we clear on that?
So there's less than sixty years for the sangha, which was trying to preserve the Buddha's teaching without alteration, to make a major alteration in all of the monasteries where it was being preserved.
We dont even know that it wanst modified in the first 30 days after his death!
We dont even know that the buddha existed.
I think you're expressing yourself badly again. There's no evidence that he edited the gospels.
I think the fact that there was 20+ gospels and now there are 4 shows a certain editorial licence;)
May I suggest you read the suttas again, starting with the "obvious" ones from the PC but with the assumption they are distotions. I am doing that now with Bikku Bhodis excellent anthology.
May I ask what it is about rebirth that you think is incompatible with the Buddha's core doctrine?
Hi
I see three truths that are true of all possible systems. For me these are the start of Buddhism. For you it may be something else. I come in at the very bottom.
The Three marks are the foundation of Dharma. I cannot doubt them. Not only that, philosophically I can prove them. (The game universe essays on my site do this, I think.) I think teh Buddha must have found them while mediating and extrapolate his entire dharmic system from these three truths.
I find it amazing how many buddhists don't even really "get" them, but such is the many faceted thing that is dharma... anyways...
So from the three marks flows the four noble truths and from these flows the noble eightfold path. My philosophical mind apprehends this indubitable cascade of dharma and still gets blown away by it.
What flows through the pure cascade of dharma? It is the many to many causal relation (DO) that connects all changes at all levels:
All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are effects.
This to me is core dharma. It is truth. It needs no buddha. It was true at the big bang. It is true at every point in this and all possible (finite) universes.
It has no place I can see for systems to be "reborn".
So what happens from moment to moment? Do you see rebirth happening at that level?
Well, its a catchy metaphor that we can use to be ambiguous about the meaning of "rebirth" in Dharma, sure.
Arising, becoming....
In this sense there is a contiguity of information between moments
I have no problem with that.
But that is not the literal rebirth that many, most, Buddhists mean when they say "rebirth".
My problem with litteral rebirth and my understanding of dharma is that there is no mechanism to explain the contiguity of information between this life and the next post mortem life.
Do you agree with my sketch of Dharma? Is that how you see it?
Well, its a catchy metaphor that we can use to be ambiguous about the meaning of "rebirth" in Dharma, sure.
Arising, becoming....
In this sense there is a contiguity of information between moments
I have no problem with that.
But that is not the literal rebirth that many, most, Buddhists mean when they say "rebirth".
My problem with litteral rebirth and my understanding of dharma is that there is no mechanism to explain the contiguity of information between this life and the next post mortem life.
Do you see what I mean?:)
Mat
Have you studied the 12 links of co-dependent origination? That's the mechanism.
Have you studied the 12 links of co-dependent origination? That's the mechanism.
Yes:) Should you wish to read mythoughts on it they are here
Since writing that I have read Johanna Macey's excellent, though technical, "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory" which highly recommend if you are philosophical minded:) (Its pricey though!)
But can you explain to me how DO is the mechanism for literal rebirth, at least, it makes no sense to me how it can be.
I'm enjoying reading the exchange between you two, I just have a quick question for you Mat, about logic.
You made the following statement...
"All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are effects.
This to me is core dharma. It is truth."
(italics mine)
What does that mean " It is truth". .... just in terms of logic, please help me here.
Because this is what comes to mind when I read that
If you hold this to be the absolute truth?, and not just a truth among truths, a relative truth? , then are you not negating the very truth claim? Doesn't this mean the truth claim of Causality itself stands outside of this causality? That sounds like a first principle, a causless principle.
If you say it is a relative truth, then you must accept that holding it above all other truths is purely your decision , by whatever reason you came to it. Since yours is not a perpective from everywhere at once, it is partial.
This isnt some attempt at a gotcha, I just want to know how view this logic? I want understand where you are at.
I'm enjoying reading the exchange between you two, I just have a quick question for you Mat, about logic.
You made the following statement...
"All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are effects.
This to me is core dharma. It is truth."
(italics mine)
What does that mean " It is truth". .... just in terms of logic, please help me here.
Because this is what comes to mind when I read that
If you hold this to be the absolute truth?, and not just a truth among truths, a relative truth? , then are you not negating the very truth claim? Doesn't this mean the truth claim of Causality itself stands outside of this causality? That sounds like a first principle, a causless principle.
If you say it is a relative truth, then you must accept that holding it above all other truths is purely your decision , by whatever reason you came to it. Since yours is not a perpective from everywhere at once, it is partial.
This isnt some attempt at a gotcha, I just want to know how view this logic? I want understand where you are at.
Thanks.
Hi Richard
I mean it is is true of all possible consistent worlds:)
I cannot doubt this core Dharma, I have tried, harder than most I would imagine.
I don't light incense sticks for any mystical purpose, if I do it's to cover the stench of foul odor. If you choose to ascribe a label to me, will you please ascribe my true name - 'practical.'
I do simply breathe in and breathe out. I do contemplate information with a kind of concentration only accomplished through many years of intensive diligent training. I do meditate to habituate myself to the way of being that I imagine conduces to liberation. I do, do my best to uphold the trainings by speaking from the heart about my own imaginings and not labeling others as this or that in order to 'win'
In fact, that is an outright violation of the seventh precept in the Zen tradition. i.e 'elevating self by ridiculing others.'
I have written to you about how I will not simply abandon you, but I will continue to write about what I imagine is the issue in communication with you; not only from this one's point of view but what appears vividly as the perception of many on this site.
On the bus this morning, after reading the post here today. I imagined the story of the father coming home to find his children playing in a burning house oblivious to their danger. The father obviously lied to get his children out of danger.
This may directly answer your question. It may be that the Buddha used a provisional teaching that does not accord with relative or absolute truth under analysis with discursive reasoning. We may say he told a lie, just like the concerned father.
So, the point of reference moves from 'is rebirth true or not or does it accord with the Buddha's teachings?' to 'how is rebirth beneficial to inspiring and encouraging the ignorant and foolish to abandon the conditions leading to continuing suffering?'
Mat, by Buddhist standards, questioning any concept with analytical reasoning clearly leads to the conclusion of it being 'false.' This is directly known by all seasoned practitioners through training.
It is apparent, therefore, that the very basis of the inquiry and the wished for outcomes are both in error, by practical Buddhist standards. So, I imagine in asking a Buddhist adept the meaning of rebirth, one may get an answer such as 'higher dharma', which actually means knowing gained through practical experience 'in study, contemplation, and meditation practice, as taught in Buddhism.'
The answer cannot be approached by discursive thinking.
Anyway, are you even interested in understanding how rebirth may be of benefit, as a skillful way to inspiring and encouraging ignorant folks to relief from suffering? even if it is neither a provable relative nor absolute 'Truth.?'
I imagine this a much more fruitful path of inquiry and one many would be happy to share with you.
Sky, I have no intention of driving Mat away. I intend addressing the underlying issues I imagine presented in the posts. I wish for Mat and all of us to learn to know how to communicate more skilfully here, because I see all parts of life, including this forum, as practice - for this one there is no other moment but this very moment of practice.
Yes:) Should you wish to read mythoughts on it they are here
Since writing that I have read Johanna Macey's excellent, though technical, "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory" which highly recommend if you are philosophical minded:) (Its pricey though!)
But can you explain to me how DO is the mechanism for literal rebirth, at least, it makes no sense to me how it can be.
Well, to be very basic, DO is the mechanism for post-mortem rebirth in the exact same way it is the mechanism for moment-to-moment rebirth. Now, materialism basically considers material to have primacy over consciousness/awareness, whereas DO considers the two to be mutually exclusive. Like I said earlier, Consciousness/Awareness is given ontological status under the Buddhist framework. This is, imo, where the divide between the Batchelor and the Traditionalist Camps arises.
From here, I do not think we have any objective way of verifying this and we are left to subjective means. We are getting into things involving a "Divine Eye" and supramundane consciousness.
Now, to explain it as a logical possibility, we have to at least believe it's possible to attain states of consciousness where one is withdrawn from or is beyond the 6 sense bases (5 senses plus thought). In this refined state of consciousness, the meditator is capable of viewing sankharas (formations) arising and ceasing to the extent that the mind is capable of seeing the logical progression from one act of causation to another. It is said that the meditator can have very clear memories from childhood and even from the womb. Some go even further and say they can remember past 'lives' or 'existences' as plain as they can remember what they did last Tuesday.
Now, even if meditators can have these experiences, I don't know what an observational rationalist would make of it. The mind is capable of creating false memories, hallucinating etc. Perhaps that is all that's going on. I have no idea. But I don't have trouble thinking that the Buddha taught rebirth.
The answer cannot be approached by discursive thinking.
I think it can, you think it cant, we have different opinions.
I don't understand Zen, I don't want to. I don't see the different between it and a medieval made-up religion. If you do, thats great, that isn't my path.
Anyway, are you even interested in understanding how rebirth may be of benefit, as a skillful way to inspiring and encouraging ignorant folks to relief from suffering? even if it is neither a provable relative nor absolute 'Truth.?'
No, I am not. As I told you on the phone and elsewhere, I am not here for enlightenment, I am here to chat and philosophize.
I imagine this a much more fruitful path of inquiry and one many would be happy to share with you.
Thanks, but no thanks:)
I don't need salvation or liberation, and If I did I wouldn't come to an internet forum for it:)
Well, to be very basic, DO is the mechanism for post-mortem rebirth in the exact same way it is the mechanism for moment-to-moment rebirth.
No, because there is no causal linkage from one life to the next, or at least if there is its mystical and not for me:)
Now, materialism basically considers material to have primacy over consciousness/awareness, whereas DO considers the two to be mutually exclusive.
Not really:) Its more sophisticated that that in my view. Consciousness emerges from the subsystems, be they material or some other manifold.
They are not the same but mind is dependent on the form.
From here, I do not think we have any objective way of verifying this and we are left to subjective means. We are getting into things involving a "Divine Eye" and supramundane consciousness.
I call that mumbojumo:)
Now, to explain it as a logical possibility, we have to at least believe it's possible to attain states of consciousness where one is withdrawn from or is beyond the 6 sense bases (5 senses plus thought). In this refined state of consciousness, the meditator is capable of viewing sankharas (formations) arising and ceasing to the extent that the mind is capable of seeing the logical progression from one act of causation to another. It is said that the meditator can have very clear memories from childhood and even from the womb. Some go even further and say they can remember past 'lives' or 'existences' as plain as they can remember what they did last Tuesday.
yes yes, many religions and mystcal systems have such notions. As you note, That doesn't mean what is imagined is real.
I will not change my certainity because someone tells me they witnessed rebirth in mediation.
Hearsay is always the worst evidence.
But I don't have trouble thinking that the Buddha taught rebirth.
Thats fine:) Christians dont have trouble in believing in heaven. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with Christians telling me my view is wrong, ibid for Buddhist, because, frankly nobody knows.
'I am not here for enlightenment, I am here to chat and philosophize.'
'are you even interested in understanding how rebirth may be of benefit, as a skillful way to inspiring and encouraging ignorant folks to relief from suffering? even if it is neither a provable relative nor absolute 'Truth.?'
'No, I am not.'
and, about 'The answer cannot be approached by discursive thinking.
I think it can,'
You're posting to a Buddhist forum, Mat. The fact that answers cannot be attained by discursive thinking alone is fundamental to this discipline. Mat, you're expressing inappropriate stuff, in an inappropriate place, in an inappropriate way!
So, what do expect?
Here, I'll help, expect this!! cuz that's exactly what you'll get, from me at least.
I am a sucker for lineage etc. and always try to find the oldest source of teaching, because I have an irrational view that the older the source, the more authentic it will be in terms of what was originally taught.
I see the same behaviour all the time. If Zen is medieval then it lacks the authenticity of older schools, sects or even religions.
Surely there is an argument that more modern sects and teachers have had time to review and refine a message.
You're posting to a Buddhist forum, Mat. The fact that answers cannot be attained by discursive thinking alone is fundamental to this discipline. Mat, you're expressing inappropriate stuff, in an inappropriate place, in an inappropriate way!
Bob, keep your dogma on a leash please. Who is anyone to tell anyone else how to think or talk about Buddhism?
What right have you to decide what is appropriot?
I believe in the Radical Skeptisism as I understand from the Kalam Suttra and other suttras. That is my Dharma. I doubt everything, and that which I cannot doubt I hold. It has worked well for near a decade.
You seem a great guy but I am not interested in you being my guru:)
If you want to harang me, coolio, but its time you would be better spent practising.
Bob, keep your dogma on a leash please. Who is anyone to tell anyone else how to think or talk about Buddhism?
What right have you to decide what is appropriot?
I believe in the Radical Skeptisism as I understand from the Kalam Suttra and other suttras. That is my Dharma. I doubt everything, and that which I cannot doubt I hold. It has worked well for near a decade.
You seem a great guy but I am not interested in you being my guru:)
If you want to harang me, coolio, but its time you would be better spent practising.
Mat
Its highly inappropriate to enter a discussion forum and assert repeatedly without any evidence or valid academic research that all of our teachers are lying to us.
Whether or not you intend to do so, this is exactly what you have been doing. Entering a Buddhist forum with a consistently belittling tone and berating everyone with your juvenile interpretations of what is and is not dharma and what is and is not dogma.
You're out of line and I think you know it.
Assume the Buddha never was.
How would we discover Dharma?
Possible?
Mat
the lineage that Yeshe was referring to is the possibility.
Buddhism as a living tradition is the dharma. The active transmission of liberating insight, method, and practical methods.
The suttas spend rather a lot of space explaining that the Dhamma is neither "annihilationist" (stating that all things are fundamentally finite and will be utterly destroyed after a time) nor "eternalist" (stating that all things are fundamentally infinite and unchanging). Is this what you meant, or something different?
These are your ideas, they are not Buddhism.
thats the problem.
You can have your ideas and cling to them as desperately as you want but you shouldnt try to impose them on a vast, fluid, and sophisticated tradition.
You wont succeed.
Its highly inappropriate to enter a discussion forum and assert repeatedly without any evidence or valid academic research that all of our teachers are lying to us.
I have never said that. Do not misrepresent me please, especially over such a nasty accusation. This has nothing to do with your teacher, its to do with what happened over two millennia ago.
You're out of line and I think you know it.
I am not towing the line, that's for sure. My interntions are not mailing as you repeatedly assert in public and private.
We have different opinions, I am skeptic you are not.
I have never said that. Do not misrepresent me please, especially over such a nasty accusation. This has nothing to do with your teacher, its to do with what happened over two millennia ago.
I am not towing the line, that's for sure. My interntions are not mailing as you repeatedly assert in public and private.
We have different opinions, I am skeptic you are not.
Deal with that in your own head:)
Mat
Please Mat. its obvious what you are doing here.
You consistently assert over and over again that Buddha did not teach rebirth. By making this assertion at the expense of all reason and research you are making a direct claim that Buddhist teachers are lying, or at least willfully misleading their students. This is inappropriate and very rude.
You know nothing of my skepticism either Mat, your not a skeptic, your obsessed with presenting ideas that have no basis other than your own opinions. Thats not healthy skepticism, its something else and honestly I'm not sure what to call it.
You consistently assert over and over again that Buddha did not teach rebirth.
Its my opinion. Its certainly not certainty, nor do I claim it to be.
Its a thesis I would like to further investgate.
By making this assertion at the expense of all reason and research you are making a direct claim that Buddhist teachers are lying, or at least willfully misleading their students.
I feel exactly the same about my good freind who is a baptist minister, I do not think he is lying at all.
Please stop accusing me of this, its not fair. Im not the &^%^ you clearly think.
Its my opinion. Its certainly not certainty, nor do I claim it to be.
Its a thesis I would like to further investgate.
I feel exactly the same about my good freind who is a baptist minister, I do not think he is lying at all.
Please stop accusing me of this, its not fair. Im not the &^%^ you clearly think.
Many have tried to investigate similar ideas, they havent succeeded. Some of the biggest (healthy) skeptics in Buddhist studies would disagree with your "thesis", see Batchelor.
You're opinion is based on what? A personal discomfort with the teachings on rebirth because you are unwilling to invest the time and effort to understand where they fit into the overall system of Buddhist philosophy and study? Its very clear that you have not put in the work.
I dont think anything of you really but I've seen very little evidence that you are not a &^%^.
jhāna: 'absorption' (meditation) refers chiefly to the four meditative absorptions of the fine-material sphere (rūpa-jjhāna or rūpāvacara-jjhāna; s. avacara). They are achieved through the attainment of full (or attainment -, or ecstatic) concentration (appanā, s. samādhi), during which there is a complete, though temporary, suspension of fivefold sense-activity and of the 5 hindrances (s. nīvaraṇa). The state of consciousness, however, is one of full alertness and lucidity. This high degree of concentration is generally developed by the practice of one of the 40 subjects of tranquillity meditation (samatha-kammaṭṭhāna; s. bhāvanā). Often also the 4 immaterial spheres (arūpāyatana) are called absorptions of the immaterial sphere (arūpa-jjhāna or arūpāvacara-jjhāna). The stereotype text, often met with in the Suttas , runs as follows:
(1) "Detached from sensual objects, o monks, detached from unwholesome consciousness, attached with thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra), born of detachment (viveka ja) and filled with rapture (pīti) and joy (sukha) he enters the first absorption.
(2) "After the subsiding of thought-conception and discursive thinking, and by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind, he enters into a state free from thought-conception and discursive thinking, the second absorption, which is born of concentration (samādhi), and filled with rapture (pīti) and joy (sukha).
Mat, accomplishing this fundamental level of training is a prerequisite for clearly receiving and understanding the sutras, that's why we rely on adepts to explain stuff to us. Mat, how and when did you accomplish this level of training?
Many have tried to investigate similar ideas, they havent succeeded.
I wouldlike to try for my own:) By your own light, and all that.
Some of the biggest (healthy) skeptics in Buddhist studies would disagree with your "thesis", see Batchelor.
I have read his book if you mean Stephen. And?
You're opinion is based on what?
As said many times, its mainly philosophcial, rebirth doesn't fit with dharma in my opinion.
But there are many other reasons too... cultural, political and I think in places the suttas, eg Mirror of Dharma, first sermon....
A personal discomfort with the teachings on rebirth because you are unwilling to invest the time and effort to understand where they fit into the overall system of Buddhist philosophy and study?
I have spent far more time than you i would wager on this issue:)
I wouldlike to try for my own:) By your own light, and all that.
I have read his book if you mean Stephen. And?
As said many times, its mainly philosophcial, rebirth doesn't fit with dharma in my opinion.
But there are many other reasons too... cultural, political and I think in places the suttas, eg Mirror of Dharma, first sermon....
I have spent far more time than you i would wager on this issue:)
You seem to want to suck it and accept:)
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you mat.
I already saw your "credentials" from earlier in the thread and yes I do think youre a liar. If you werent lying you were at the very least grossly exaggerating your experience.
There is no way I am going to start posting my background under circumstances like this so you can believe whatever you want about me and my academic/practice/study history.
I still have no idea why youre allowed to post here.
As said many times, its mainly philosophcial, rebirth doesn't fit with dharma in my opinion.
And you have yet to explain how rebirth doesn't fit with Dharma. You keep saying you don't believe it, and that's your prerogative. But please, explain how the "Mirror of Dharma" negates rebirth:
From Rajagaha the Buddha, accompanied by Venerable Ananda and a large number of his disciples, started the journey to the north. They would stop a while at every city and village, and the Buddha would teach the Dharma.
They stopped at a place called the Brick Hall in a little village called Nadika. It happened that some monks and lay devotees had passed away at this village, and Venerable Ananda wanted to know the future states of those who had passed away.
The Buddha revealed that as they had been practising what he had taught, all of them had attained at least one of the stages of sainthood. He continued, "Now, it is natural for human beings to die; but if you ask this question each time a person dies, it wearies me. So I will give you a discourse called 'The Mirror of the Dharma or Truth'. With this, a noble disciple can predict for himself, 'There is no more suffering for me, no more evil and low states. I am a sotapanna and I am not subject to falling back to the lower states. I shall be assured of final enlightenment.'
"What, O Ananda, is the Mirror of the Dharma? Herein a noble disciple has absolute confidence in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Because of his confidence, he spends much time to reflect or think about the great qualities of the Triple Gem. These reflections will help him develop the great qualities within himself and the power to concentrate the mind. These results will help him attain the first stage of sainthood (sotapanna).
"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."
After delivering this discourse at Nadika, the Buddha and his disciples then proceeded to Vesali.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:
"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of stress'... 'This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended'... 'This noble truth of stress has been comprehended.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress is to be abandoned' 2 ... 'This noble truth of the origination of stress has been abandoned.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress is to be directly experienced'... 'This noble truth of the cessation of stress has been directly experienced.'
"Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.' 3
"And, monks, as long as this — my three-round, twelve-permutation knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths as they have come to be was — not pure, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its deities, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. But as soon as this — my three-round, twelve-permutation knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths as they have come to be — was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its deities, Maras & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.
And when the Blessed One had set the Wheel of Dhamma in motion, the earth devas cried out: "At Varanasi, in the Game Refuge at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by priest or contemplative, deva, Mara or God or anyone in the cosmos." On hearing the earth devas' cry, the devas of the Four Kings' Heaven took up the cry... the devas of the Thirty-three... the Yama devas... the Tusita devas... the Nimmanarati devas... the Paranimmita-vasavatti devas... the devas of Brahma's retinue took up the cry: "At Varanasi, in the Game Refuge at Isipatana, the Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by priest or contemplative, deva, Mara, or God or anyone at all in the cosmos."
So in that moment, that instant, the cry shot right up to the Brahma worlds. And this ten-thousand fold cosmos shivered & quivered & quaked, while a great, measureless radiance appeared in the cosmos, surpassing the effulgence of the devas.
Then the Blessed One exclaimed: "So you really know, Kondañña? So you really know?" And that is how Ven. Kondañña acquired the name Añña-Kondañña — Kondañña who knows.
I already saw your "credentials" from earlier in the thread and yes I do think youre a liar. If you werent lying you were at the very least grossly exaggerating your experience.
And you have yet to explain how rebirth doesn't fit with Dharma. You keep saying you don't believe it, and that's your prerogative. But please, explain how the "Mirror of Dharma" negates rebirth:
My take on the Mirror of dharma is that the buddha is saying "to start enlightenment one must renounce any future rebirth"
Thats the start of the path, once that is done one is bound.
Do you at least understand my take? (Search for it on this forum, I have discussed it at length)
My take on the Mirror of dharma is that the buddha is saying "to start enlightenment one must renounce any future rebirth"
Thats the start of the path, once that is done one is bound.
Do you at least understand my take? (Search for it on this forum, I have discussed it at length)
But that's not what it's saying at all. I really wish you could just briefly explain things on the thread we're on instead of making me go to some other source all the time. And based on the last 2 sources of yours I've checked out, I'm not so sure it's going to answer my question anyway.
Look, i've searched both the threads you've started and a general forum search and there's nothing that obviously contains your analysis on the Mirror of Dharma. And no, I'm not going to look through all the threads that come up.
My take on the Mirror of dharma is that the buddha is saying "to start enlightenment one must renounce any future rebirth"
Well that is an interesting take and I can understand how it could be read that way, but I have to say it seems very biased. If that is what was meant, then why are only the lower realms mentioned? You seem to be going completely out of your way to interpret it according to your own views.
Also, what does it meant to "start enlightenment"?
But that's not what it's saying at all. I really wish you could just briefly explain things on the thread we're on instead of making me go to some other source all the time. And based on the last 2 sources of yours I've checked out, I'm not so sure it's going to answer my question anyway.
OK, I know, how about a new paradigm for buddhist chat, inspired by your post. How about nether you nor I quote any other source. That we disucuss Dharma and Buddhism without disussing suttras or commentaries or anything but Dharma.
Ie. We pretend we are living in the Buddhas time when there was no cannon, no orthodoxy, just the Dharma, the Sanga and the Buddha.
We start again. Define terms we agree on. Doubnt everything and start from first principles and see what we can agree on and better understand.
How can that be a bad thing? For a buddhist to go back to the time of the buddhas life when they contemplate. Pure dharma without culture and history?
That response is so off the mark, it's kind of sad. I'm asking you to link and provide relevant quotes for your references instead of making me do extra work when you could simply explain what you mean.
That response is so off the mark, it's kind of sad. I'm asking you to link and provide relevant quotes for your references instead of making me do extra work when you could simply explain what you mean.
No... hang on, be cool here. I am saying why not try this? why would you not?
Also, it's important to understand the teachings in the way they are presented. You can make your own personal decisions from there. There is no need to change what the Sutras state and the traditions state. You are free to disagree with interpretations. So, if we took these old scriptures and threw away all the meaning that was intended for them to begin with, that would be throwing away the original meaning.
Like I've said multiple times. You are free to believe what you want, but don't be fooled into thinking you've made a very good case to the rest of us.
Well that is an interesting take and I can understand how it could be read that way,
Thanks!:)
but
Doh!
I have to say it seems very biased. If that is what was meant, then why are only the lower realms mentioned?
I thought that but then the answer is clear I reckon, "nor in any realm of woe." This clearly means ALL REALMS. We know that suffering is true of all conditioned realms ergo all realms of suffering include this one:)
You seem to be going completely out of your way to interpret it according to your own views.
Without doubt I am clutching at straws. This is the most compelling evidence I have found explicit in the suttas so I want to test it to the max:)
For example, in the passages before he is talking to ananda about all tehse people who are at diffrnt stages in terms of rebirth. This seems completly supporting rebirth. But then see how the Buddha hands over the subject to say "Thinking about death in any of these realm is troubling"..... and then... then coms the bombshell, he gives this gift to Ananda that will stop all such troubles.
I think this may be the point where the Buddha, without conflict, hands over from the Hindu view to the rebirthless buddhist view without. From andadas concerns about rebirth of him and others to the end of the toubles. How?
by simply renoucing rebirth.
There is no long teaching on meditation and philosophy, it is a simple defninitve gesture in two parts, I declare that this is my last birth.
I know this is my last birth.
Its beautiful. Nobody gets hurt.
Also, what does it meant to "start enlightenment"?
Well, once the declaration is made and the knoweldge known, then he tells andanda that he will be bound for enlightenment.
I take that as meaning enlightenment has started:)
I dont think my views are that outlandish really:)
Comments
In reference to your teaching Buddhism in philosophy, have you encountered Nagarjuna's work?
Also, please quit assuming ill-will here. None is intended on my part, despite how much my responses aren't falling into line with your expectations.
I feel for you. Somone telling you that your entire belief system may cause a crisis of faith. I don't know, That isnt my intention at all.
I have a tremendous respect for faith and have some freinds who are full on "faithheads" to use Dwarkin's esppression. We never discuss faith in the argumentaive way here.
But this is an internet discussion forum
How did you work through your considerations about the doubts about the buddhas's teaching of rebbirth?
What was it that convinced you it was wrong?
You seem a clever person, so I am sure you cant mean the suttras themselves, as thats like saying the God exists because the bible says so:)
So you admit the possibility of cracks in the orthodoc doctrine.
Can we just leave it that I think they may be bigger than you think?
a) This is my only life, it is short and rare and preciuous,I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can.
b)This is one of countless lives on a path to some mystical enlightenment I cannot discus or understand in this life.
If you cant see a profound difference between thouse two views, thats your call. To me, thats just about as big as it gets.
Unto each their own:)
Mat
I appreciate your intentions, but there is no crisis of faith here. I have already I have stated that I am an agnostic on matters I have not directly realized first-hand. This includes rebirth. I'm not entirely sure about it, but that is not the actual debate we are having. We are debating whether rebirth fits in the overall system of Buddhist thought and practice and whether it was a cultural insertion that was not actually taught or believed by the Buddha. All actual evidence I have been presented with suggests that rebirth fits with overall Buddhist doctrine and that it was more-likely-than not part of the original Buddhist teachings.
Whether it is ultimately true, I'm not even discussing here.
I'm certainly not a "faithhead" and I think you are reading more into my arguments than I've stated.
As I've stated, my studies have led me to the conclusion that the teachings on rebirth are most likely not cultural additions or appeals to superstitions, etc. As to the objective truth of rebirth, I am not sure, but my understanding of it does not contain any contradiction with other Buddhist doctrines and principles.
I am merely arguing that the Sutras themselves are likely representative of the original teachings of the Buddha with a larger degree of accuracy than most other religions. Also, there is a consistency and redundancy of teaching that is surprisingly supportive of rebirth as a Buddhist teaching.
Can we just leave it that I don't agree with you on that and that you really haven't made a very strong case for that.
This statement works regardless of one's belief regarding the first clause of "This is my only life". To me it should read more along the following lines:
"Regardless of whether rebirth is ultimately true, this life is short and rare and preciuous, I must live it to the best by following Dharma, and increasing truth, peace and happiness in all I can."
Nobody is saying that enlightenment is necessarily mystical. And nobody is saying you can't really discuss enlightenment or understand it in this lifetime. All the teachings of rebirth say is that conditions bring about resulting conditions. There is a clinging state and a non-clinging state. This may or may not involve multiple lives. Now, believing in post-mortem rebirth DOES require a worldview which puts consciousness/awareness in greater ontological status, so I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's quite the issue you're making it out to be.
Feel free to practice and enjoy the benefits of practice while believing or not believing what you want. I am certainly not arguing that you shouldn't or can't practice Buddhism to great success.
Agreed. But we are not talking about personal beliefs here. We are discussing rebirth in the context of the Sutras, whether they represent the Buddha's original teachings, and whether they mesh with Buddhist doctrine as a whole.
This doesnt negate the fact they may have been modified over time.
The very fact there are tens of thousandsof suttas shows that they cant all be accurate, even assume all the other error areas are ignored.
Fine:) That's your opinion, not mine.
Once again, where?
The suttas explicitly state that the Middle way is intended to avoid eternalism and annihilationism. Do you have evidence that the Buddha was trying to avoid promising a later life?
Relevance?
Yes, and I've pointed out the evidence.
Andrew Skilton, "A Concise History of Buddhism", pp. 81-82 gives an overview of the correspondences between the nikayas and the agamas. Gombrich's "How Buddhism Began" describes how scholars use the similarities and differences between the texts of different schools to estimate how and when texts were changed. I don't have the book handy so I can't give page numbers. The information can be found in many places, but Gombrich is the last place I remember reading it. The Mahasanghikas and the Sthaviras split sometime between 60 and 100 years after the Buddha died. The section of the Mahasanghika agama that we have has close parallels to the corresponding Nikaya. Rebirth was therefore an accepted part of Buddhism at some point prior to the split. So there's less than sixty years for the sangha, which was trying to preserve the Buddha's teaching without alteration, to make a major alteration in all of the monasteries where it was being preserved. And furthermore, this alteration has to occur without controversy, among people who believed it was wrong to alter the Buddha's teachings.
By the way, we have a pretty good idea what the controversies were when the sangha split. We have both the Theravada and the Mahasanghika accounts.
I think you're expressing yourself badly again. There's no evidence that he edited the gospels. I think you mean that he established a canon. The canon seems to have been created in response to the Marcionite controversy thirty years prior to Irenaeus. And this is another illustration of my point. Establishing a canon and weeding out "non-canonical" gospels was a major change. It was controversial up through the fourth century, and we have evidence of the controversy.
Sure:) I don't agree with me 100%.
Please be aware I am a Buddhist skeptic, I doubt it all:)
I cannot doubt what I term Core Dharma, and I would wager nor can you:)
Aint Dharma Awsome!
I disagree with that. If I sell you something that will never exist, irrespective of how the fact you may one day own it makes you feel, I am conning you. Thats my view:)
Oh Pleeease! Many many do:)
And also, literal rebirth is mysticial however you wrap it up. I cant see it any other way.
If isnt for you thats fine, it is for me:)
Peace:)
Mat
I have to avoid personal debate with you:) Its mutually antagonising it seems... shame.
Re the non personal stuff....
I read self-mortification as possibly being msyctisism. In which case the were would be the first sermon, at least
The Mirror of Dharma, I think that can be understood to mean this, yes. I am sure you will disagree, that is your opinion.
These are commentaries. My skepticisms are just a commentary. I haven't read those but unless they show how the teachings were preserved over 1500 miles and 500 years and many dialects its irrelevant to my doubts
The suttas we have today are about as close as Homer in terms of content preservation.
But my doubts are about the entire corpus after his death. Are we clear on that?
We dont even know that it wanst modified in the first 30 days after his death!
We dont even know that the buddha existed.
I think the fact that there was 20+ gospels and now there are 4 shows a certain editorial licence;)
May I suggest you read the suttas again, starting with the "obvious" ones from the PC but with the assumption they are distotions. I am doing that now with Bikku Bhodis excellent anthology.
Bye
Mat
May I ask what it is about rebirth that you think is incompatible with the Buddha's core doctrine?
Hi
I see three truths that are true of all possible systems. For me these are the start of Buddhism. For you it may be something else. I come in at the very bottom.
The Three marks are the foundation of Dharma. I cannot doubt them. Not only that, philosophically I can prove them. (The game universe essays on my site do this, I think.) I think teh Buddha must have found them while mediating and extrapolate his entire dharmic system from these three truths.
I find it amazing how many buddhists don't even really "get" them, but such is the many faceted thing that is dharma... anyways...
So from the three marks flows the four noble truths and from these flows the noble eightfold path. My philosophical mind apprehends this indubitable cascade of dharma and still gets blown away by it.
What flows through the pure cascade of dharma? It is the many to many causal relation (DO) that connects all changes at all levels:
All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are effects.
This to me is core dharma. It is truth. It needs no buddha. It was true at the big bang. It is true at every point in this and all possible (finite) universes.
It has no place I can see for systems to be "reborn".
mat
So what happens from moment to moment? Do you see rebirth happening at that level?
Well, its a catchy metaphor that we can use to be ambiguous about the meaning of "rebirth" in Dharma, sure.
Arising, becoming....
In this sense there is a contiguity of information between moments
I have no problem with that.
But that is not the literal rebirth that many, most, Buddhists mean when they say "rebirth".
My problem with litteral rebirth and my understanding of dharma is that there is no mechanism to explain the contiguity of information between this life and the next post mortem life.
Do you see what I mean?:)
Mat
Have you studied the 12 links of co-dependent origination? That's the mechanism.
Yes:) Should you wish to read mythoughts on it they are here
Since writing that I have read Johanna Macey's excellent, though technical, "Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory" which highly recommend if you are philosophical minded:) (Its pricey though!)
But can you explain to me how DO is the mechanism for literal rebirth, at least, it makes no sense to me how it can be.
You made the following statement...
"All causes have many effects.
All effects have many causes.
All causes are effects.
This to me is core dharma. It is truth."
(italics mine)
What does that mean " It is truth". .... just in terms of logic, please help me here.
Because this is what comes to mind when I read that
If you hold this to be the absolute truth?, and not just a truth among truths, a relative truth? , then are you not negating the very truth claim? Doesn't this mean the truth claim of Causality itself stands outside of this causality? That sounds like a first principle, a causless principle.
If you say it is a relative truth, then you must accept that holding it above all other truths is purely your decision , by whatever reason you came to it. Since yours is not a perpective from everywhere at once, it is partial.
This isnt some attempt at a gotcha, I just want to know how view this logic? I want understand where you are at.
Thanks.
Hi Richard
I mean it is is true of all possible consistent worlds:)
I cannot doubt this core Dharma, I have tried, harder than most I would imagine.
As you know I see no sense in relative truth.
Mat
I don't light incense sticks for any mystical purpose, if I do it's to cover the stench of foul odor. If you choose to ascribe a label to me, will you please ascribe my true name - 'practical.'
I do simply breathe in and breathe out. I do contemplate information with a kind of concentration only accomplished through many years of intensive diligent training. I do meditate to habituate myself to the way of being that I imagine conduces to liberation. I do, do my best to uphold the trainings by speaking from the heart about my own imaginings and not labeling others as this or that in order to 'win'
In fact, that is an outright violation of the seventh precept in the Zen tradition. i.e 'elevating self by ridiculing others.'
I have written to you about how I will not simply abandon you, but I will continue to write about what I imagine is the issue in communication with you; not only from this one's point of view but what appears vividly as the perception of many on this site.
On the bus this morning, after reading the post here today. I imagined the story of the father coming home to find his children playing in a burning house oblivious to their danger. The father obviously lied to get his children out of danger.
This may directly answer your question. It may be that the Buddha used a provisional teaching that does not accord with relative or absolute truth under analysis with discursive reasoning. We may say he told a lie, just like the concerned father.
So, the point of reference moves from 'is rebirth true or not or does it accord with the Buddha's teachings?' to 'how is rebirth beneficial to inspiring and encouraging the ignorant and foolish to abandon the conditions leading to continuing suffering?'
Mat, by Buddhist standards, questioning any concept with analytical reasoning clearly leads to the conclusion of it being 'false.' This is directly known by all seasoned practitioners through training.
It is apparent, therefore, that the very basis of the inquiry and the wished for outcomes are both in error, by practical Buddhist standards. So, I imagine in asking a Buddhist adept the meaning of rebirth, one may get an answer such as 'higher dharma', which actually means knowing gained through practical experience 'in study, contemplation, and meditation practice, as taught in Buddhism.'
The answer cannot be approached by discursive thinking.
Anyway, are you even interested in understanding how rebirth may be of benefit, as a skillful way to inspiring and encouraging ignorant folks to relief from suffering? even if it is neither a provable relative nor absolute 'Truth.?'
I imagine this a much more fruitful path of inquiry and one many would be happy to share with you.
Sky, I have no intention of driving Mat away. I intend addressing the underlying issues I imagine presented in the posts. I wish for Mat and all of us to learn to know how to communicate more skilfully here, because I see all parts of life, including this forum, as practice - for this one there is no other moment but this very moment of practice.
Well, to be very basic, DO is the mechanism for post-mortem rebirth in the exact same way it is the mechanism for moment-to-moment rebirth. Now, materialism basically considers material to have primacy over consciousness/awareness, whereas DO considers the two to be mutually exclusive. Like I said earlier, Consciousness/Awareness is given ontological status under the Buddhist framework. This is, imo, where the divide between the Batchelor and the Traditionalist Camps arises.
From here, I do not think we have any objective way of verifying this and we are left to subjective means. We are getting into things involving a "Divine Eye" and supramundane consciousness.
Now, to explain it as a logical possibility, we have to at least believe it's possible to attain states of consciousness where one is withdrawn from or is beyond the 6 sense bases (5 senses plus thought). In this refined state of consciousness, the meditator is capable of viewing sankharas (formations) arising and ceasing to the extent that the mind is capable of seeing the logical progression from one act of causation to another. It is said that the meditator can have very clear memories from childhood and even from the womb. Some go even further and say they can remember past 'lives' or 'existences' as plain as they can remember what they did last Tuesday.
Now, even if meditators can have these experiences, I don't know what an observational rationalist would make of it. The mind is capable of creating false memories, hallucinating etc. Perhaps that is all that's going on. I have no idea. But I don't have trouble thinking that the Buddha taught rebirth.
I think it can, you think it cant, we have different opinions.
I don't understand Zen, I don't want to. I don't see the different between it and a medieval made-up religion. If you do, thats great, that isn't my path.
No, I am not. As I told you on the phone and elsewhere, I am not here for enlightenment, I am here to chat and philosophize.
Thanks, but no thanks:)
I don't need salvation or liberation, and If I did I wouldn't come to an internet forum for it:)
Well wishes
Mat
No, because there is no causal linkage from one life to the next, or at least if there is its mystical and not for me:)
Not really:) Its more sophisticated that that in my view. Consciousness emerges from the subsystems, be they material or some other manifold.
They are not the same but mind is dependent on the form.
I call that mumbojumo:)
yes yes, many religions and mystcal systems have such notions. As you note, That doesn't mean what is imagined is real.
I will not change my certainity because someone tells me they witnessed rebirth in mediation.
Hearsay is always the worst evidence.
Thats fine:) Christians dont have trouble in believing in heaven. I have no problem with that, I have a problem with Christians telling me my view is wrong, ibid for Buddhist, because, frankly nobody knows.
Doubt everything, be your own light,
Peace
mat
'I am not here for enlightenment, I am here to chat and philosophize.'
'are you even interested in understanding how rebirth may be of benefit, as a skillful way to inspiring and encouraging ignorant folks to relief from suffering? even if it is neither a provable relative nor absolute 'Truth.?'
'No, I am not.'
and, about 'The answer cannot be approached by discursive thinking.
I think it can,'
You're posting to a Buddhist forum, Mat. The fact that answers cannot be attained by discursive thinking alone is fundamental to this discipline. Mat, you're expressing inappropriate stuff, in an inappropriate place, in an inappropriate way!
So, what do expect?
Here, I'll help, expect this!! cuz that's exactly what you'll get, from me at least.
I see the same behaviour all the time. If Zen is medieval then it lacks the authenticity of older schools, sects or even religions.
Surely there is an argument that more modern sects and teachers have had time to review and refine a message.
Bob, keep your dogma on a leash please. Who is anyone to tell anyone else how to think or talk about Buddhism?
What right have you to decide what is appropriot?
I believe in the Radical Skeptisism as I understand from the Kalam Suttra and other suttras. That is my Dharma. I doubt everything, and that which I cannot doubt I hold. It has worked well for near a decade.
You seem a great guy but I am not interested in you being my guru:)
If you want to harang me, coolio, but its time you would be better spent practising.
Mat
In you own words - 'What right have you to decide what is appropriot?'
And, by the way. It's apparent you are not interested in Buddhism but chatting and Philosophizing as you practice it.
Whether or not you intend to do so, this is exactly what you have been doing. Entering a Buddhist forum with a consistently belittling tone and berating everyone with your juvenile interpretations of what is and is not dharma and what is and is not dogma.
You're out of line and I think you know it.
I think its about 1000 years after the Buddhas life. As I understand it we have lost the first 500 years of the written Pali Cannon.
"I told ya we shoulda used som'in other than palm fronds!"
I have that view too, it seems very rational. Sadly for all of us there is this immense cataract in early Buddhism.
There may be but I dont think its a very conving argument.
I think as buddhist we should all try this:
Assume the Buddha never was.
How would we discover Dharma?
Possible?
Mat
Why not nihilism and mysticism?
Why not both?
Buddhism as a living tradition is the dharma. The active transmission of liberating insight, method, and practical methods.
The suttas spend rather a lot of space explaining that the Dhamma is neither "annihilationist" (stating that all things are fundamentally finite and will be utterly destroyed after a time) nor "eternalist" (stating that all things are fundamentally infinite and unchanging). Is this what you meant, or something different?
So how do you really understand or presume to know anything about this discipline?
Please get a few years of practical experience in the actual discipline, then come back to stir stuff up on forums like this.
thats the problem.
You can have your ideas and cling to them as desperately as you want but you shouldnt try to impose them on a vast, fluid, and sophisticated tradition.
You wont succeed.
I have never said that. Do not misrepresent me please, especially over such a nasty accusation. This has nothing to do with your teacher, its to do with what happened over two millennia ago.
I am not towing the line, that's for sure. My interntions are not mailing as you repeatedly assert in public and private.
We have different opinions, I am skeptic you are not.
Deal with that in your own head:)
Mat
You consistently assert over and over again that Buddha did not teach rebirth. By making this assertion at the expense of all reason and research you are making a direct claim that Buddhist teachers are lying, or at least willfully misleading their students. This is inappropriate and very rude.
You know nothing of my skepticism either Mat, your not a skeptic, your obsessed with presenting ideas that have no basis other than your own opinions. Thats not healthy skepticism, its something else and honestly I'm not sure what to call it.
Its my opinion. Its certainly not certainty, nor do I claim it to be.
Its a thesis I would like to further investgate.
I feel exactly the same about my good freind who is a baptist minister, I do not think he is lying at all.
Please stop accusing me of this, its not fair. Im not the &^%^ you clearly think.
You're opinion is based on what? A personal discomfort with the teachings on rebirth because you are unwilling to invest the time and effort to understand where they fit into the overall system of Buddhist philosophy and study? Its very clear that you have not put in the work.
I dont think anything of you really but I've seen very little evidence that you are not a &^%^.
jhāna: 'absorption' (meditation) refers chiefly to the four meditative absorptions of the fine-material sphere (rūpa-jjhāna or rūpāvacara-jjhāna; s. avacara). They are achieved through the attainment of full (or attainment -, or ecstatic) concentration (appanā, s. samādhi), during which there is a complete, though temporary, suspension of fivefold sense-activity and of the 5 hindrances (s. nīvaraṇa). The state of consciousness, however, is one of full alertness and lucidity. This high degree of concentration is generally developed by the practice of one of the 40 subjects of tranquillity meditation (samatha-kammaṭṭhāna; s. bhāvanā). Often also the 4 immaterial spheres (arūpāyatana) are called absorptions of the immaterial sphere (arūpa-jjhāna or arūpāvacara-jjhāna). The stereotype text, often met with in the Suttas , runs as follows:
(1) "Detached from sensual objects, o monks, detached from unwholesome consciousness, attached with thought-conception (vitakka) and discursive thinking (vicāra), born of detachment (viveka ja) and filled with rapture (pīti) and joy (sukha) he enters the first absorption.
(2) "After the subsiding of thought-conception and discursive thinking, and by gaining inner tranquillity and oneness of mind, he enters into a state free from thought-conception and discursive thinking, the second absorption, which is born of concentration (samādhi), and filled with rapture (pīti) and joy (sukha).
http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_j.htm
Mat, accomplishing this fundamental level of training is a prerequisite for clearly receiving and understanding the sutras, that's why we rely on adepts to explain stuff to us. Mat, how and when did you accomplish this level of training?
I wouldlike to try for my own:) By your own light, and all that.
I have read his book if you mean Stephen. And?
As said many times, its mainly philosophcial, rebirth doesn't fit with dharma in my opinion.
But there are many other reasons too... cultural, political and I think in places the suttas, eg Mirror of Dharma, first sermon....
I have spent far more time than you i would wager on this issue:)
You seem to want to suck it and accept:)
I already saw your "credentials" from earlier in the thread and yes I do think youre a liar. If you werent lying you were at the very least grossly exaggerating your experience.
There is no way I am going to start posting my background under circumstances like this so you can believe whatever you want about me and my academic/practice/study history.
I still have no idea why youre allowed to post here.
And you have yet to explain how rebirth doesn't fit with Dharma. You keep saying you don't believe it, and that's your prerogative. But please, explain how the "Mirror of Dharma" negates rebirth:
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_25lbud.htm
Or is there some other Mirror of Dharma?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
Whats the lie?
My take on the Mirror of dharma is that the buddha is saying "to start enlightenment one must renounce any future rebirth"
Thats the start of the path, once that is done one is bound.
Do you at least understand my take? (Search for it on this forum, I have discussed it at length)
But that's not what it's saying at all. I really wish you could just briefly explain things on the thread we're on instead of making me go to some other source all the time. And based on the last 2 sources of yours I've checked out, I'm not so sure it's going to answer my question anyway.
Also, what does it meant to "start enlightenment"?
OK, I know, how about a new paradigm for buddhist chat, inspired by your post. How about nether you nor I quote any other source. That we disucuss Dharma and Buddhism without disussing suttras or commentaries or anything but Dharma.
Ie. We pretend we are living in the Buddhas time when there was no cannon, no orthodoxy, just the Dharma, the Sanga and the Buddha.
We start again. Define terms we agree on. Doubnt everything and start from first principles and see what we can agree on and better understand.
How can that be a bad thing? For a buddhist to go back to the time of the buddhas life when they contemplate. Pure dharma without culture and history?
You and me and anyone else who wants to?
up for it:)
Mat
No... hang on, be cool here. I am saying why not try this? why would you not?
anyone else?
Mat
Like I've said multiple times. You are free to believe what you want, but don't be fooled into thinking you've made a very good case to the rest of us.
Thanks!:)
but
Doh!
I thought that but then the answer is clear I reckon, "nor in any realm of woe." This clearly means ALL REALMS. We know that suffering is true of all conditioned realms ergo all realms of suffering include this one:)
Without doubt I am clutching at straws. This is the most compelling evidence I have found explicit in the suttas so I want to test it to the max:)
For example, in the passages before he is talking to ananda about all tehse people who are at diffrnt stages in terms of rebirth. This seems completly supporting rebirth. But then see how the Buddha hands over the subject to say "Thinking about death in any of these realm is troubling"..... and then... then coms the bombshell, he gives this gift to Ananda that will stop all such troubles.
I think this may be the point where the Buddha, without conflict, hands over from the Hindu view to the rebirthless buddhist view without. From andadas concerns about rebirth of him and others to the end of the toubles. How?
by simply renoucing rebirth.
There is no long teaching on meditation and philosophy, it is a simple defninitve gesture in two parts, I declare that this is my last birth.
I know this is my last birth.
Its beautiful. Nobody gets hurt.
Well, once the declaration is made and the knoweldge known, then he tells andanda that he will be bound for enlightenment.
I take that as meaning enlightenment has started:)
I dont think my views are that outlandish really:)
Mat