the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:08 pm

Hey tilt


But given that the Four Noble Truth also includes Eightfold Path that is not even an issue. Also, you are trying to down play rebirth as some sort of lesser teaching; do you feel that way about kamma, the ethical expression of paticcasamuppada?


All i am saying is the buddhas own teachings dont include it, by his own teachings i mean that which is "special to the buddhas" i.e. 4nt, paticcasamuppada


This doesnt make sense, anicca dukkha and anatta are all verifiable.

So is rebirth - no less so.


This is still coming from the view of "rebirth is" and so can eventualy be verified instead of seing how its a speculation

Pure speculation of rebirth? It is no more “pure speculation” than is nibbana, kamma, paticcasamuppada, anicca and the rest


How are these things pure speculation?

Thats your misunderstanding

Well, if it a misunderstanding, it is grounded in your far less than clear musings.


What i am saying is clear, the Buddhas teachings go beyond all speculative views, opinions and mind-sets and are all about what is and investigation into that

There is no speculation about rebirth in the Buddha’s teachings. It is part of the structure of his teachings, and it is included in the full version of paticcasamuppada (with out even resorting to the 3 lives reading of it). If he did not know it to be true, he would not taught as being true. As for being part of the backdrop of the Buddha’s time, that is also not quite correct. Metempsychosis was one among a number of points of view current, and not necessarily the predominate one.


The Buddhas teachings dont contain any speculative view (which rebirth view/stance/belief is) since he has seen with correct wisdom

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

When there is non-identification there are no more speculative views of rebirth, non-rebirth, eternalism etc....


Your claiming that rebirth is a speculative is meaningless. It is no more speculative -- or no less speculative -- than is paticcasamuppada or nibbana or any of the rest.


Its speculative but i didnt say meaningless, it is conductive to wholesome intentions, actions etc

paticcasamuppada is directly verifiable, you can investigate it, reconize it, work with it even, thus with the understanding of paticcasamuppada one can understand nibbana (on some level) which doesnt make it a pure speculative view which rebirth view is

Out curiosity, if I were to say, based upon my dirtect experiennce, I know rebirth to be true, the way the universe functions. Am I deluded any more than if I were to claim that I know by direct experience there is no self?


This is a hypothetical scenario, have you such knowledge?

Saying there is no-self is incorrect since its still liable to have identification with this stance, all conditioned things are not-self

So, what happens when we die? The Buddha never really directly addressed that? These texts that you give a figurative, non-literal, reading to do not address that? When we die, we die? There is no literal rebirth according to the Buddha's teachings?


This is speculation again, what happens when "I" die? will "I" exsist? will "I" cease to exsist? will "I" exsist and not exsist?, this all comes from self view via identification with the khandas and is to attend unwisely and ask the wrong questions. Instead the Buddha focues on dukkha and its quenching, not what may or not be

He taught one should attend to what is and so see the khandas as they are, let go of any identification with them and so be released from all dukkha and also all speculative views (which no longer apply since there is no sense of self)

There is no literal rebirth according to the Buddha's teachings? How is it that you have this great insight into the truly true truth of the Buddha's teachings that contradicts so many others? Should I come and sit at your feet?


What I am saying is the Buddha understood how such speculative views come to be, that the Buddhas own noble teachings dont include them/it. That noble right view doesnt require one to have a view of being reborn after physical death. That the Buddhas teachings are based on what is, what is verifiable and investigated and not what may or not be and no of couse you shouldnt "sit at my feet" and nor would i want you to

Im also stating that rebirth view is actualy attending unwisely

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

Snip

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Actually, have you done much real intensive practice to see what the nature of the the "birth and death and rebirth" of the "I am" in a moment to moment arising and falling is really like, what it really feels like?


If your asking if i actualy practice then yes i do


What i am saying is that the Buddhas teachings show how dukkha comes to be and how to end it. This includes how speculative views come to be (via clinging) and the dukkha inherent in them and how to end that dukkha and speculative view

Im not saying rebirth is or isnt, since this is away from the middle path and back into speculative extremes

Metta
Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:13 pm

Ngawang Drolma wrote:I have also heard some folks claim that the rebirth teachings were given only to encourage development of sila.
I think that if the Buddha believed that when the aggregates break up and die we are no longer subject to birth, he would have just said so. Why would a Buddha deceive us so we'll behave ourselves? There's other ways to promote morality. No one has said that in this thread specifically, but I hear it a lot.

:quote:



Because its a speculative view based on clinging to the aggregates as self and so, pure specualtive, a cause for dukkha and unwise

"after death i wont exsist" is clinging to an aggregate or more and identifiying with it

"I will exsist after death " is the same

The Buddha taught the middle way between all speculative views

He taught how such views come to be via clinging to the aggregates as self and so with correct wisdom, one will cease to identify with the khandas and so all speculative views fall away as they are now meaningless, since there is no sense of "I am" to age, die or have any kind of after life

Why would a Buddha deceive us so we'll behave ourselves? There's other ways to promote morality.


So the only reason people dont run around shooting each other is because of a threat of rebirth? :guns:

And he did teach a way to live a moral life without mentioning rebirth at all

Metta
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby pink_trike » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:26 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Ngawang Drolma wrote:I have also heard some folks claim that the rebirth teachings were given only to encourage development of sila.
I think that if the Buddha believed that when the aggregates break up and die we are no longer subject to birth, he would have just said so. Why would a Buddha deceive us so we'll behave ourselves? There's other ways to promote morality. No one has said that in this thread specifically, but I hear it a lot.

:quote:


The Buddha taught the middle way between all speculative views


This is the essence of the Dharma. In the middle gap between the rising of phenomenas (dharmas) (speculative "appearances") is the fruition of path and goal.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:30 pm

And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.


"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.







Now in light of this quite straightforward teaching, this noble and direct approach, is rebirth inappropriate attention (and so speculation) or not?

Is focusing on dukkha, cause, quenching and way to end the correct view/outlook?

Metta to all
Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:34 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Unless one verifies the moment to moment rise and fall -- birth, death, and rebirth -- of expeince, it is naught more than speculation, like kamma and nibbana. Craig's momen to moment business no no less speculative than anything else.

Yes, this is worth highlighting. Just reading about rise and fall, and so on, doing a few retreats, and seeing that various odd things happen when one tries to follow what the mind is getting up to (which is what I have done so far) is not "verifying the moment to moment rise and fall". It's still just speculative view and needs a lot more work.

See:
Page 345 of: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxo ... ry_s&cad=0
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Pro ... gress.html

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby pink_trike » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:38 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Unless one verifies the moment to moment rise and fall -- birth, death, and rebirth -- of expeince, it is naught more than speculation, like kamma and nibbana. Craig's momen to moment business no no less speculative than anything else.

Yes, this is worth highlighting. Just reading about rise and fall, and so on, doing a few retreats, and seeing that various odd things happen when one tries to follow what the mind is getting up to (which is what I have done so far) is not "verifying the moment to moment rise and fall". It's still just speculative view and needs a lot more work.

See:
Page 345 of: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=hxo ... ry_s&cad=0
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Mahasi/Pro ... gress.html

Mike


But it is a path that leads to verification, whereas the speculation re: literal rebirth is without means of verification. Practice does produce verification in real time, past a certain point in practice.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:42 pm

But it is a path that leads to verification, whereas the speculation re: literal rebirth is without means of verification. Practice does produce verification in real time, past a certain point in practice.



I agree and the practice is done so with correct outlook/understanding/appropriation/investigation of dukkha, cause, ending and way to end

Not inappropriate attention of what may or not be (speculation)
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:43 pm

pink_trike wrote:But it is a path that leads to verification, whereas the speculation re: literal rebirth is without means of verification. Practice does produce verification in real time, past a certain point in practice.

Yes, but for me (and I suspect many others here) this is something we actually take on faith (with some confidence from knowing our teachers, etc.). It's easy to overestimate meditative attainments...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby pink_trike » Fri Apr 24, 2009 9:54 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
pink_trike wrote:But it is a path that leads to verification, whereas the speculation re: literal rebirth is without means of verification. Practice does produce verification in real time, past a certain point in practice.

Yes, but for me (and I suspect many others here) this is something we actually take on faith (with some confidence from knowing our teachers, etc.). It's easy to overestimate meditative attainments...

Metta
Mike

Yes, you're right, Mike...and I don't mean to overstate my position. The teachings are valuable in the form that they are in to many people. I'm only suggesting that in our more educated, and more psychologically sophisticated era, that practitioners are able to take the medicine straight - and able to work the verifiable path with attention and for perhaps more direct results. What was an optimal form for the teachings back then during a specific/time and place can conceivably be inappropriate for the people/circumstances of an era 2500ish years later.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Apr 24, 2009 11:15 pm

Craig: How are these things pure speculation?


I read what you say. You'll need to clarify what you mean by speculation. It makes no sense at all. Much of what you write does not make any sense.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19211
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Jechbi » Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:51 am

Howdy clw,

Thanks for the responses. Sorry I missed them till today. Haven't been following this thread too closely.

clw_uk wrote:
Jechbi wrote:Second, the Buddha frequently talked about his time when he was "still an unenlightened bodhisatta." At that time when he was still an unenlightened bodhisatta, it seems pretty clear that he had not yet attained to perfect right understanding.

In that sense, we all start with what you might describe as "wrong view/understanding." There is no other place to start, unless you already are enlightened.


Really? so no one starts with Right/correct/noble understanding? Before Buddhadhamma many of us would have "wrong" view but when we practice we adopt "right" view since this is essential to the whole practice. Wrong "view" at begining, wrong intention, effort etc

Right "View" is the very begining, if you start with "wrong" view then nibbana will never be "reached"

Well, there's a modicum of "right understanding" in the realization that this (whatever it is) is not "right understanding." And obviously the 8fold path involves the practice of "right understanding" to the best of our ability. But, until we are fully enlightened, part of that practice will inolve the frequent recognition that this (whatever it is) is not "right understanding."

Actually, I think that's similar to the point you're trying to make with regard to "post-mortem rebirth view."

clw_uk wrote:Im also stating that rebirth view is actualy attending unwisely
"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

When I read this passage, my understanding is that the "unwise attendance" is due to the frequent conjecture about "I." The entire focus is wrong. "Was I in the past? Am I? Am I not?" Etc. It's completely unwise, because every one of those questions assumes some status of "I." At least that's how I read it.

I think I kind of get what you and Pink are saying, but I'm not really sure I see the underlying point. Your underlying point does NOT seem to be either of the following:
(a) post-mortem rebirth is false.
(b) post-mortem rebirth is not a teaching of the Buddha.
I don't think either one of those things is what you're saying, unless I'm missing something (which is very possible).

I think it's possible that your underlying point is perhaps one of the following:
(a) it's not necessary to adopt any particular viewpoint regarding rebirth in order to practice Buddhism.
(b) it's counterproductive for someone else to insist that you adopt some type of rebirth view.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if none of this is on target, then set me straight. Regardless, it seems to me that there's something wrong with the basic notion that we have complete control over the opinions and viewpoints that we hold. Like anything else, "my" opinions and "my" beliefs are going to be the product of past and present kamma. Those beliefs and opinions are subject to change over time. To regard those beliefs and opinions somehow as "mine" or as difinitive of oneself in some respect is probably a mistake. To get too attached to them probably is a mistake.

The way I see it, I'm going to recognize whatever beliefs or doubts I have in this moment for what they are, and I'm not going to beat myself up about them. Instead, I'm just going to do the best I can in this moment to practice all 8 folds of the 8fold path. That means if I have a strong opinion about what will happen after physical death, I recognize, this is the viewpoint and belief that has come up at this stage. Ok, fine. Then just keep on going.

What's this debate about exactly? I don't think anyone's telling you what you have to believe.

Thanks,

:anjali:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:09 am

Jechbi wrote:When I read this passage, my understanding is that the "unwise attendance" is due to the frequent conjecture about "I." The entire focus is wrong. "Was I in the past? Am I? Am I not?" Etc. It's completely unwise, because every one of those questions assumes some status of "I." At least that's how I read it.

That's certainly my impression. When I first read these Suttas I thought they were just about "being in the present moment", but It's the "I making", not the fact that there are memories or plans that is the problem. These suttas also warn about creating an "I" in the present:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"And how is one taken in with regard to present qualities? There is the case where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person who has not seen the noble ones, is not versed in the teachings of the noble ones, is not trained in the teachings of the noble ones, sees form as self, or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form.

Metta
Mike
Last edited by mikenz66 on Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ngawang Drolma. » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:17 am

pink_trike wrote:
Ngawang Drolma wrote: Why would a Buddha deceive us so we'll behave ourselves?

:quote:

Burning house.


I've been wondering about this since I read it. What does burning house mean?

Thanks :smile:
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:19 am

Ngawang Drolma wrote:I've been wondering about this since I read it. What does burning house mean?

Something to do with yelling "fire!!!" to get people to pay attention and leave the "house" (samsara)...

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:26 am

I've been wondering about this since I read it. What does burning house mean?


http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/buddhism ... house.html
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19211
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:18 am

Craig: All i am saying is the buddhas own teachings dont include it, by his own teachings i mean that which is "special to the buddhas" i.e. 4nt, paticcasamuppada


Except that is not true, as has been shown to you on this forum in some detail.

This is still coming from the view of "rebirth is" and so can eventualy be verified instead of seing how its a speculation


Speculation? As Inigo Montoya said, ”You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Me: ‘Pure speculation of rebirth? It is no more “pure speculation” than is nibbana, kamma, paticcasamuppada, anicca and the rest”

Thee: “How are these things pure speculation?”

If you have not experienced Nibbana, what can you say about it? What do you know about nibbana? What is nibbana? Any thing you say is “speculation.”

What i am saying is clear,
No, it is not clear.

Me: “Out curiosity, if I were to say, based upon my direct experience, I know rebirth to be true, the way the universe functions. Am I deluded any more than if I were to claim that I know by direct experience there is no self?”

Thee: This is a hypothetical scenario, have you such knowledge?

And if I do have such knowledge?

Me: “So, what happens when we die? The Buddha never really directly addressed that? These texts that you give a figurative, non-literal, reading to do not address that? When we die, we die? There is no literal rebirth according to the Buddha's teachings? “


Thee: This is speculation again, what happens when "I" die? will "I" exsist? will "I" cease to exsist? will "I" exsist and not exsist?, this all comes from self view via identification with the khandas and is to attend unwisely and ask the wrong questions. Instead the Buddha focues on dukkha and its quenching, not what may or not be

And you, as usual, try to dodge the question. It is not speculation to ask what the Buddha taught. I do not care about Buddhadasa’s idiosyncratic corruption of the Buddha’s teachings, but I am interested in what the Buddha taught, that was the question, and you are not answering it, as usual.

What I am saying is the Buddha understood how such speculative views come to be
Except rebirth is something of which the Buddha had direct knowledge. It is part of his teachings.

Im also stating that rebirth view is actualy attending unwisely


You assert this, but you make no real argument for it, and it is certainly not true according to the Buddha.

Rebirth is very much part of the teaching of dukkha, which means it is also part of the teaching of anicca and anatta, making it very much part of the teaching of paticcasamuppada.
An ocean of tears

"Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?... This is the greater: the tears you have shed...

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
— SN 15.3
This precious human birth

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" — SN 56.48
Why do we wander in samsara?

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating four things that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. Which four?

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble virtue that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble concentration that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble discernment that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"But when noble virtue is understood & penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood & penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving & attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming."

AN 4.1
Here we have rebirth tied directly to the Four Noble Truths. Nothing “speculative” - whatever you might mean by your use of the word - about this.

Me: ‘Actually, have you done much real intensive practice to see what the nature of the the "birth and death and rebirth" of the "I am" in a moment to moment arising and falling is really like, what it really feels like? ‘

Thee: If your asking if i actualy practice then yes i do

What I asked is quite straightforward, but you have not answered the question.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19211
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:21 am

PT: ... whereas the speculation re: literal rebirth is without means of verification.

Not according to the Theravada tradition, or the suttas.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19211
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:21 am

Hey

I think I kind of get what you and Pink are saying, but I'm not really sure I see the underlying point. Your underlying point does NOT seem to be either of the following:
(a) post-mortem rebirth is false.
(b) post-mortem rebirth is not a teaching of the Buddha.


A) No im not claiming that since thats just the same as saying it is so, a speculative view that involves looking towards the future and speculating on the destination of me
B) Its not his own teachings (which are 4NT and D.O.

I think it's possible that your underlying point is perhaps one of the following:
(a) it's not necessary to adopt any particular viewpoint regarding rebirth in order to practice Buddhism.
(b) it's counterproductive for someone else to insist that you adopt some type of rebirth view.


A) No its not (for everyone)
B) Yes



I don't want to put words in your mouth, so if none of this is on target, then set me straight. Regardless, it seems to me that there's something wrong with the basic notion that we have complete control over the opinions and viewpoints that we hold. Like anything else, "my" opinions and "my" beliefs are going to be the product of past and present kamma. Those beliefs and opinions are subject to change over time. To regard those beliefs and opinions somehow as "mine" or as difinitive of oneself in some respect is probably a mistake. To get too attached to them probably is a mistake.


Im not saying there is complete control over views and opinion but the Buddhas teachings are about appropriate attention (4NT) so that eventualy one will see how such speculative views and beliefs come to be (via clinging to aggregates) and eventualy let of them

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


What's this debate about exactly? I don't think anyone's telling you what you have to believe.


The Debate is mostly just me answering posts that people have put to me and true, no one here is telling me what to believe (which is why this site is good to post on)

Thanks for the reply :smile:

Metta
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:02 pm

Tilt

Speculative view, in the sense i am using the term, is a view/thought/opinion about what happens after death (maybe as well such questions as "who am i" etc) that comes to be via clinging to the aggregates (if there person is aware or not)

"Venerable sir, concerning the various views that arise in the world — 'The cosmos is eternal' or 'The cosmos isn't eternal'; 'The cosmos is finite' or 'The cosmos is infinite'; 'The soul and the body are the same' or 'The soul is one thing, the body another'; 'A Tathagata exists after death' or 'A Tathagata doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata both exists & doesn't exist after death' or 'A Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death'; these along with the sixty-two views mentioned in the Brahmajala1 — when what is present do these views come into being, and when what is absent do they not come into being?"

Snip


Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."

"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form2 to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."

"And, venerable sir, how does self-identity view not come into being?"

"There is the case, householder, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be the self... He does not assume perception to be the self... He does not assume fabrications to be the self... He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view does not come into being."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#views


Another wanderer said to Anathapindika, "The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

Another wanderer said, "The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,' his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." (Similarly for the other positions.)

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have."

"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."

"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress."


"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

This is paticcasamuppāda; happening in the moment, showing how such views arise through inapproptiate attention which is fuel for taints and ignorance, which leads on to clinging to khandas as self and therefor dukkha

The higher escape from all such "thickets" of views is to see with proper wisdom

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

By not clinging to the khandas there is no more clinging and so no more "I am", when there is no more "I am" there are no longer any speculative views (since they all arise from I am), they lose all meaning

This is what i mean by specualtive view, by attending unwisely the views come to be and via attending unwisely they continue to remain

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'


Correct wisdom is to attend thus

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.


Not via speculation on what may or not be after death (since this comes from the wrong place of self and only leads to a re-inforcement of that sense of self)

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress



Craig said - Im also stating that rebirth view is actualy attending unwisely

tilt said - You assert this, but you make no real argument for it, and it is certainly not true according to the Buddha.


Really? what does having a view of rebirth involve and what questions does it naturaly lead to?

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?


Tilt quoted

This precious human birth

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" — SN 56.48


How often does a "person" endulge in basic desires like a common animal? How many times does a person live in hate and anger and depression like a hell being? How many times is a person lead by pure greed like a hungry shade never being satisfied?


Tilt - ‘Actually, have you done much real intensive practice to see what the nature of the the "birth and death and rebirth" of the "I am" in a moment to moment arising and falling is really like, what it really feels like? ‘

Me - : If your asking if i actualy practice then yes i do

Tilt - What I asked is quite straightforward, but you have not answered the question



I will try to describe my exp/practice as best as i can

Through practice i have had an understanding how clinging to khandas brings "I am" and how that "I am" through clinging to the khandas brings sorrow, anger etc via anicca. I have an understanding how, through ignorance, the taints and a lack of wisdom, that very clinging comes to be via craving and how that craving will lead onto more clinging (and so I am) and so more dukkha (via anicca). What i havent been able to do is watch the whole process from start to finish and my understanding of it is not in full and for the moment its just be in relation to clinging to rupa



I have also understood, via this and also sutta study, how any view or opinion in reguards to future or past is just coming to be via clinging to a khanda (or all of them), how any view of past or future is coloured by "I am", and how rebirth view falls into this category of looking to future or past

Metta
Last edited by clw_uk on Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:26 pm

If you have not experienced Nibbana, what can you say about it? What do you know about nibbana? What is nibbana? Any thing you say is “speculation.”


Once again this is speculation and to ask questions in this nature is, i feel, unwise

As i said one should focus on what actualy is and not if and buts

Dukkha
Cause
Quenching
Path

Path - Right View

Right View - 4NT

1st Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.


The last bit is important for understanding, because of clinging to khandas there is "I am". When there is "I am" there is identiciation with the Khandas, when there is identification there is ageing, sickness and death (and also the whole not wanting to get sick, grief, anger etc that go hand in hand with that)

For example, if one clings to the body they identify with it. When the body ages there is the ignorant view "I age". When it dies there is the ignoranct view "I die" and so all the grief and sadness that go along with this

As the Buddhas states here

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.




2nd Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to new becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to be, craving not-to-be.

Craving is a condition for the arising of clinging (origin of dukkha)
Clinging is a condition for the arising of becoming
Becoming is a condition for the arising of jati, or birth of "I am", so new becoming (first noble truth because when there is identification through clinging to the khandas, there is dukkha)


3rd Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.

By removing craving (through the practice) there is no more clinging and so no more birth of "I" or identification with that which ages and dies and so no more dukkha

All about what is and investigation into that, nothing at all to do with views and opinions and if's and but's and speculations

Metta
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests