A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of TheravÄda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Many people in the world who believe in re-birthing also believe in Supreme Self, rather than understand non-self.Jerrod Lopes wrote:Respectfully, those who already understand non-self don't need an explanation of the process of rebirth. All they need is to think on it momentarily and it is quite clear in all its anticlimactic and boring glory, IMO.
Hello Ms. Aloka,Aloka wrote:I'm femaleJerrod Lopes wrote:
Dear sir or madam
Lol, Mr Purple Haze, I'm assuming that you are implying that you are one of those people. What's your opinion of Buddhadasa's "Annata and Rebirth", then ?Jerrod Lopes wrote:Respectfully, those who already understand non-self don't need an explanation of the process of rebirth... etc etc
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ebirth.pdf
Lets hope its not about 2 candles !Perhaps when I'm felling a bit less lazy I'll try and start a thread with a link to an explanation entitled "What Gets Reborn" from another web site I contribute to
In truth there's no Jerrod in Jerrod. I've said for several years that we might be better off if our parents didn't give us names. I sometimes think that when monastic ordain they should shed names altogether, but I'm not going to argue with the wisdom of the sangha over that.Ok, thank you kindly for your reply MrJerrod Lopes wrote:I've said for several years that we might be better off if our parents didn't give us names
I'm not sure whether or not you agree with my observations.daverupa wrote:It's tough to predict what agnostics will say agnostically, and which phrases they will agnosticize. Your connotative take is one thing, but to assert that your connotative take is the right interpretation of a phrase used by another is a rather odd approach... to then say that agnostics would use phrases which conform to your expectations boggles the mind as well.porpoise wrote:A dustbin is where we put our rubbish with a view to throwing it out. The use of this language points to rejection and skepticism.
I think an agnostic would use a phrase like putting these teachings "on the back burner".
Aloka wrote:I'm femaleJerrod Lopes wrote:
Dear sir or madam
Lol, Mr Purple Haze, I'm assuming that you are implying that you are one of those people. What's your opinion of Buddhadasa's "Annata and Rebirth", then ?
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ebirth.pdf
Dear Ms.
I'm assuming also that you are implying you are one of those people too. What is your opinion of the link you provided for Buddhadasa's "Annata and Rebirth"?
No I'm not really meaning to imply anything. My opinion is that the essay at the link makes a lot of sense.Jerrod Lopes wrote:
Dear Ms.
I'm assuming also that you are implying you are one of those people too. What is your opinion of the link you provided for Buddhadasa's "Annata and Rebirth"?
Yes, I can understand how people need rebirth as a kind of morality system and comforter - and that's fine. I used to be a believer rather than agnostic when I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism, before discovering Ajahn Chah on the internet and then two teachers of his lineage (Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Amaro) at Amaravati in the UK.Jerrod Lopes wrote:In my view I see rebirth as factual natural process. Most of the confusion I think lies in the term rebirth itself. No one is actually reborn, so.... Yeah, I couldn't agree more that speculation on past and future are a waste of time. This is also why I see rebirth, for lack of a better term, as wonderful motivation to practice well in the present. Then again I may be one of the few who believe nibbana can be realized in this lifetime. I'm just enjoying samsara for now. Thanks for your above post. It does make a lot of sense to me, even if I don't quite see it the same way.
.Aloka wrote:Yes, I can understand how people need rebirth as a kind of morality system and comforter - and that's fine. I used to be a believer rather than agnostic when I was involved with Tibetan Buddhism, before discovering Ajahn Chah on the internet and then two teachers of his lineage (Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Amaro) at Amaravati in the UK.Jerrod Lopes wrote:In my view I see rebirth as factual natural process. Most of the confusion I think lies in the term rebirth itself. No one is actually reborn, so.... Yeah, I couldn't agree more that speculation on past and future are a waste of time. This is also why I see rebirth, for lack of a better term, as wonderful motivation to practice well in the present. Then again I may be one of the few who believe nibbana can be realized in this lifetime. I'm just enjoying samsara for now. Thanks for your above post. It does make a lot of sense to me, even if I don't quite see it the same way.
Anyway, to conclude,..... like you I certainly believe that Nibanna can be realised in one lifetime!
with metta,
Aloka
I'd be interested to see what you are referring to.gendun wrote:But Ajahn Chah taught Rebirth, so did Ajahn Sumedho and so does Ajahn Munindo.
So your post puzzles me.
Firstly my post was to Jerrod and not you, Gendun - and secondly I didn't say that I became agnostic because of the Forest Tradition, so you are jumping to huge assumptions there.gendun wrote:was referring to Alokas statement that she/he was a a believer before discovering The Forest Sangha, and that now he/she is agnostic..but the Forest Sangha Ajahns teach rebirth.
I was meaning examples of Ajahn Chah's, Ajahn Sumedho's, and Ajahn Munindo's teachings on rebirth.gendun wrote:was referring to Alokas statement that she/he was a a believer before discovering The Forest Sangha, and that now he/she is agnostic..but the Forest Sangha Ajahns teach rebirth.
How do you know ? I thought you were an Aro gTer follower.(See thread on Aro gTer at Dharma Wheel)gendun wrote:...so did Ajahn Sumedho...
"I quite like the idea of reincarnation, and of rebirth, on a theoretical level. I've no bias against it, but it is speculative and it's conceptual."
