.glimpses of other realms.
These glimpses are enough to make my practice more determined
Dear Bhante,
I interpret other realms as different mental states and have discussed this with teachers who have said its ok to do that.
Kind regards,
Aloka
.glimpses of other realms.
These glimpses are enough to make my practice more determined
No that was a later idea. If Im right it came from Vasubandhu5heaps -thats offtopic. rebirth doesnt refer to just birth of i, it refers to other specific events (ie. the generation of consciousness due to the final moment of consciousness in this life)
Noble Right View results from insight into dukkha and letting go. Its based on non-clinging. Sepculative Views arise via clinging, such as "I am the body, when that goes "I" go and there is nothing"Craig - Views about past or future arise via clinging
5heaps - no, as you quoted, "This noble eightfold path is to be developed for direct knowledge".
not all views are negative, otherwise even right view would be negative
"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."
Hi TexIf I die in my sleep tonight, and I'm not even a sotapanna much less an arahant, what happens to "my" (so to speak) kamma that has not ripened yet? If it does not condition another existence, what does it do?
Venerable Ananda approaches the Master and says, "'Existence, existence' is spoken of, venerable sir. In what way is there existence?" The Buddha replies: "If there were no kamma ripening in the sensory realm, no sense-sphere existence would be discerned. If there where no kamma ripening in the form realm, no form-sphere existence would be discerned. If there were no kamma ripening in the formless realm, no formless-sphere existence would be discerned. Therefore, Ananda, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture for beings obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving to be established in a new realm of existence, either low (sense-sphere), middling (form-sphere), or high (formless-sphere)." - (AN 3.76)
Kamma will produce rebirth.
The problem is that many people don't see that they are suffering.Yes they may say that they are not having a good day or a good week but don't see that this is suffering.Not in the sense that we do.clw_uk wrote:Hi Spiny.I think the point that Alex123 is trying to make here is that if there is no rebirth(or heaven or hell)the need for practice would not arise for a lot more people than there is now.If we die and that is that then we could all go on living what may be for many a fairly good life.
Hello Bhante
Sure it can spur people onto the path. However the Buddhas teachings are about the reality of dukkha. Putting aside rebirth or not there is dukkha here and now, the quenching of which the Buddha offers
Why suffer even a little bit when you can be free from all of it?
metta
Craig you can type and copy and paste suttas until your fingers fall off. I do not agree with your view on rebirth. People interpret this topic differently and that is ok. You are free to give your view as am I. I suggest you let others interpret and practice the Dhamma how they feel comfortable doing so without insisting on your 'view' as being the one and only correct interpretation.clw_uk wrote:Kamma will produce rebirth.
Birth of "I" yes, remember Kamma is just intentional action
Intention arises at contact. If this is ignorant contact then it will lead to birth of "I" in a mental state and will lead to dukkha
Its because they are ignorant of it. Actually you find they are not ignorant of dukkha but what dukkha isThe problem is that many people don't see that they are suffering.Yes they may say that they are not having a good day or a good week but don't see that this is suffering.Not in the sense that we do.
"If change or alteration would occur in your kids, would that not bring you stress, suffering and despair?"I agree the Buddha does teach we can be free from it all,and yes we can do it in this life,but you try telling someone having a great time(by their understanding)that it is suffering.
You only have to read some of the posts that people put up on forums like this.They want to know what the heck we are talking about when we say having a loving,stable relationship,with 1.8 kids(stats throw up funny stuff)2 SUV's and a 4 bedroom house with a white picket fence around it is suffering.
Then thats their misunderstanding. People can only state the Dhamma, if others dont want to listen they wont. Not everyone listened to the Buddha when he was around and he was a great teacherYou know what Lord Buddha meant when he spoke about suffering,but others don't.
They just think were a miserable lot.If I tell some of these people that their partner could die,meet some one new and run off with them,that their children may not want to go to college and get a career they think I'm just a grumpy old man(I'm not really)and projecting problems were they don't exist.
Dandapani ("Stick-in-hand") the Sakyan, out roaming & rambling for exercise, also went to the Great Wood. Plunging into the Great Wood, he went to where the Blessed One was under the bilva sapling. On arrival, he exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he stood to one side. As he was standing there, he said to the Blessed One, "What is the contemplative's doctrine? What does he proclaim?"
"The sort of doctrine, friend, where one does not keep quarreling with anyone in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk; the sort [of doctrine] where perceptions no longer obsess the brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity, his uncertainty cut away, devoid of craving for becoming & non-. Such is my doctrine, such is what I proclaim."
When this was said, Dandapani the Sakyan — shaking his head, wagging his tongue, raising his eyebrows so that his forehead was wrinkled in three furrows — left, leaning on his stick.
Craig you can type and copy and paste suttas until your fingers fall off. I do not agree with your view on rebirth. People interpret this topic differently and that is ok. You are free to give your view as am I. I suggest you let others interpret and practice the Dhamma how they feel comfortable doing so without insisting on your 'view' as being the one and only correct interpretation.
Absolutely.I agree that you may view them as mental states.This is how I started out.Aloka wrote:.glimpses of other realms.
These glimpses are enough to make my practice more determined
Dear Bhante,
I interpret other realms as different mental states and have discussed this with teachers who have said its ok to do that.
Kind regards,
Aloka
Nanadhaja wrote:Absolutely.I agree that you may view them as mental states.This is how I started out.Aloka wrote:.glimpses of other realms.
These glimpses are enough to make my practice more determined
Dear Bhante,
I interpret other realms as different mental states and have discussed this with teachers who have said its ok to do that.
Kind regards,
Aloka
All I ask is that people don't dismiss out of hand the literal meanings as well.Putting things to one side is often the wisest thing you could do.In fact Buddha advocates such things.We all know that we were not told to believe blindy but to come and see.This is the beauty of buddhism.We are invited and encouraged to question every thing.If at the moment the whole idea of literal rebirth does not sit well for you,I would say set it to one side and continue with your practice.To wrestle with it will only cause confusion and frustration.Not easy to practice in this state of mind.
We all start somewhere.How we get from point A to point B is up to the individual.
I used to be mad on VW camper vans.Anything up to about the 1972 models.I had mates that used to laugh at me because they were never the fastest vehicle on the planet(unless you chucked a porsche engine under one) but as I told them,I always got to where I wanted to go,it just took me a little longer.
With metta
You immediately jumped into a post I sent to Tex and proceeded to explain how what I posted should be understood according to "your" view. How am I to take this other than proselytizing? There is no middle way with your interpretation, its either craigs way or the highway.clw_uk wrote:Craig you can type and copy and paste suttas until your fingers fall off. I do not agree with your view on rebirth. People interpret this topic differently and that is ok. You are free to give your view as am I. I suggest you let others interpret and practice the Dhamma how they feel comfortable doing so without insisting on your 'view' as being the one and only correct interpretation.
Am I telling you to accept it?
Have I ever said that you must accept it?
You keep saying stuff like that but for the Buddha, rebirth was not a view. It is how the world functions, which makes all the "view" quotes beside the point.clw_uk wrote:Not so. He started with the problem off dukkha. With his practice he realized that dukkha arises when there is clinging, which leads to birth of "I am" and also leads to all the myriad of views that arise in the world, be it God or rebirth, no rebirth, soul etc. Whether we like it or not the question of what happens after death is an issue that the Buddha addressed.
The point has reperatedly, clearly made, texts have been quoted, etc. You are simply making the point that even the clearest teachings can be badly grasped.clw_uk wrote:I don't give a rat's patooty is you believe in rebirth or not, nor - for me - is this an issue as to whether or not rebirth is a fact. What is a fact - and what I am arguing here - is that the Buddha taught literal rebirth and I see no validity in trying to deny that.
Which you have yet to prove in light of the various suttas that teach that view points, view stances and all "I" making should be abandoned as they arise from clinging
Here is a perfect example of a text that shows that if the anti-rebirthist claim is correct, then the Buddha was a clumsy, inept teacher. Thanks for quoting it. As for what it means, I would take it at face value.Aloka wrote:.
Hi Tilt,
As your knowledge of the suttas is more extensive than mine, could you tell me what this means, please?
So too, bhikkhus, those beings are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm, are reborn among human beings. But those beings are more numerous who, when they pass away from the animal realm, are reborn in hell. For what reason? Because bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four?" The noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
SN 56.121 (Bodhi translation)