the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 12:29 am

Sorry clw_uk, it's not that easy no matter how much you want it to be so.



Firstly how do you know what I want?

Secondly, it's not that hard, no matter how much you want it to be ;)


Sometimes the most obvious of things skip our attention ;)
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Mkoll » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:11 am

clw_uk wrote:
Sorry clw_uk, it's not that easy no matter how much you want it to be so.



Firstly how do you know what I want?

Secondly, it's not that hard, no matter how much you want it to be ;)


Sometimes the most obvious of things skip our attention ;)


What are you trying to say? That you've perfected the Noble Eightfold Path? That you've dropped all clinging to views? And doing so was "not that hard"? That doing so was "obvious"? So I guess there's need to renounce the household life for mendicancy then, if it's "not that hard" and "obvious"?

Please man, spare me this stuff. I would have thought someone who has spent as much time on this forum as you would know better. Being agnostic about rebirth and making sure everybody knows it - fine, that's basically what this thread is for. But having the hubris to say that the liberating path the Buddha taught is "not that hard" and "obvious" is making a caricature out of it as well as those people (monks/nuns and laymen/laywomen) who practice it well.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:13 am

Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:
Sorry clw_uk, it's not that easy no matter how much you want it to be so.



Firstly how do you know what I want?

Secondly, it's not that hard, no matter how much you want it to be ;)


Sometimes the most obvious of things skip our attention ;)


What are you trying to say? That you've perfected the Noble Eightfold Path? That you've dropped all clinging to views? And doing so was "not that hard"? That doing so was "obvious"? So I guess there's need to renounce the household life for mendicancy then, if it's "not that hard" and "obvious"?

Please man, spare me this stuff. I would have thought someone who has spent as much time on this forum as you would know better. Being agnostic about rebirth and making sure everybody knows it - fine, that's basically what this thread is for. But having the hubris to say that the liberating path the Buddha taught is "not that hard" and "obvious" is making a caricature out of it as well as those people (monks/nuns and laymen/laywomen) who practice it well.




I'm not saying it's easy, just trying to put a counter weight to your post which implied that Dhamma is on par with quantum mechanics :) the middle way ;)


And please answer my last post :smile:
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:14 am

clw_uk wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:The nefp, when perfected, leads to the abandonment of views

Right, the Noble Eightfold Path. Not the practice you described.




And what is right view without taints (blemish, distortion, blurred)?


What is right view without blurry distortions?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:20 am

Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:The nefp, when perfected, leads to the abandonment of views

Right, the Noble Eightfold Path. Not the practice you described.




How did my explanation deviate from the nefp?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:32 am

I think the Buddha's knowledge of rebirth and kamma is distinctive from the knowledge of other ascetics. The Buddha got the full picture because he got the full knowledge by going all the way to the end. Other ascetics got very far but they eventually stop, thinking they've arrived at the end when they have not. They may have had partial insight into past lives, kamma, and rebirth, but not the complete insight that the Buddha has. Their vision is blurred, the Buddha's is clear.



Yes but what did that knowledge entail?

Was it deep insight into the metaphysical/ultimate nature of the universe?

Or was it deep insight into the workings of the human mind, and the delusions that we follow?

Maybe Occam's razor can help us here?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Mkoll » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:36 am

clw_uk wrote:I'm not saying it's easy, just trying to put a counter weight to your post which implied that Dhamma is on par with quantum mechanics :) the middle way ;)

I never implied anything of the sort. Knowing that Iron Age people mastered the Buddhist Path, your comparison of it with quantum mechanics is laughable. It's a blatant caricature of what I said.

You are saying "it's not that hard". That implies that you've completed the work which, of course, you haven't.

For example, when I say "it's not that hard to change a tire", that implies that I've changed a tire before, which I have. I wouldn't say it if I hadn't because it would be dishonest. Wouldn't you only say that yourself if you'd also changed a tire before? Or would you say "it's not that hard to change a tire" when all you've done is loosened a few nuts?

clw_uk wrote:And please answer my last post :smile:

No, I'm afraid not. We're talking past each other here. I'll probably come back later but I'm done with this conversation for now.
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:48 am

I never implied anything of the sort. Knowing that Iron Age people mastered the Buddhist Path, your comparison of it with quantum mechanics is laughable. It's a blatant caricature of what I said.


But a justified one since you made the assertion that I was implying that Dhamma was as simple as ABC.

Apologies if it came across that way, my intent was to argue that the Dhamma is not necessarily as hard as it's sometimes made out to be, so in essence I was trying to show encouragement. My reference to quantum mechanics was in response to your (apparent) assertion that Dhamma is very hard to understand (like quantum mechanics).


However we are getting off track, and if it gets you to answer my main (repeated) question, then I will admit defeat in this part of the discussion.

So:

"What is right view without taints?"


You are saying "it's not that hard". That implies that you've completed the work which, of course, you haven't.


How do you know that? I'm not saying I have but it's difficult to take you seriously when you succumb to logical fallacies such as this one.

You don't know what my attainment is, if any.

clw_uk wrote:
And please answer my last post

No, I'm afraid not. We're talking past each other here. I'll probably come back later but I'm done with this conversation for now.



What is right view without taints?
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:32 am

clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?


From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby culaavuso » Tue Aug 19, 2014 3:15 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?


From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?


It appears to be a translation of dhamma vicaya. "Analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening" is dhamma­vicaya­sam­boj­jhaṅgo
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:48 pm

culaavuso wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:What is right view without taints?


From MN117: "And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view..."

Does "analysis of qualities" here refer to dhamma-vicaya?


It appears to be a translation of dhamma vicaya. "Analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening" is dhamma­vicaya­sam­boj­jhaṅgo


Thanks!
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Wed Aug 20, 2014 5:51 pm

I found this, which I will call the degenerative loop of suffering (dukkha):

"And what are the taints, what is the origin of the taints, what is the cessation of the taints, what is the way leading to the cessation of the taints?

There are three taints:

the taint of sensual desire,

the taint of being and

the taint of ignorance.

With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints.

With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration."

— MN 9 (Ñanamoli/Bodhi, trans.)


source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... vijja.html

So, the way I read this: "Ignorance, the root cause of dukkha, is a type of taint. When ignorance arises, all taints (3) arise: ignorance, being, and sensual desire.

My questions are:

"Can one be ignorant if one does not first exist?"...if we aren't already "being".

"Can one have desire if they do not first exist?"...since only beings have desires.

If the above makes sense, then: "How does one come into being?" Do we as beings just arise? If so, what is the cause? :shrug:

Dependent Co-Arising states:

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for aging and death?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition do aging and death come?' one should say, 'Aging and death come from birth as their requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for birth?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does birth come?' one should say, 'Birth comes from becoming as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for becoming?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does becoming come?' one should say, 'Becoming comes from clinging as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for clinging?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does clinging come?' one should say, 'Clinging comes from craving as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for craving?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does craving come?' one should say, 'Craving comes from feeling as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for feeling?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does feeling come?' one should say, 'Feeling comes from contact as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for contact?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?' one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for name-and-form?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its requisite condition.'

"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for consciousness?' one should answer, 'There is.'

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its requisite condition.'


So, it appears to me that consciousness arises concurrently from name and form, which in turn is the cause for all other factors leading to dukkha.

Therefore, should we all strive to be unconscious as a means to end dukkha, or should we live in accordance with The Noble Eight Fold Path? The prior seems to me to be less work. :thinking:

source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby culaavuso » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:18 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:My questions are:

"Can one be ignorant if one does not first exist?"...if we aren't already "being".

"Can one have desire if they do not first exist?"...since only beings have desires.


SN 12.12: Moḷiyaphagguna Sutta wrote:"Lord, who craves?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'craves.' If I were to say 'craves,' then 'Who craves?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes craving?' And the valid answer is, 'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.'"


It seems that the situation is more that to the extent of craving there are beings, and not that beings have cravings.

SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote:"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Mkoll » Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:31 pm

culaavuso wrote:It seems that the situation is more that to the extent of craving there are beings, and not that beings have cravings.

:goodpost:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Spiny Norman » Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:53 am

culaavuso wrote:
SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote:"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'


So presumably if one isn't "caught up", then one is an Arahant?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Spam, wonderful spam

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Mkoll » Thu Aug 21, 2014 7:02 am

Spiny Norman wrote:
culaavuso wrote:
SN 23.2: Satta Sutta wrote:"'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'


So presumably if one isn't "caught up", then one is an Arahant?

Sounds like it. If there's craving, there's being caught up (clinging maybe?). Since the arahant has extirpated craving, there is no being caught up. No pun intended. :mrgreen:
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:40 am

I wonder what the difference is between:

Unconscious....

and, "not conscious" ? :shrug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby culaavuso » Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:31 pm

Ron-The-Elder wrote:I wonder what the difference is between:

Unconscious....

and, "not conscious" ?


"Unconscious" seems to be an adjective to apply to something, while "not conscious" seems to be a denial of the applicability of an adjective without stating whether another adjective is applicable or not. Both of these adjectives differ from the phrase "cessation of consciousness" in which consciousness is a noun and not an adjective applied to something else.

The view that beings are conscious sounds like one of the forms of self-identification (MN 44) which seems different from a description of the arising and cessation of consciousness.
culaavuso
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ron-The-Elder » Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:17 pm

Thanks, culaavuso. I was thinking more of Buddha's teachings with regard to consciousness, rather than English grammar.

But, you raise two good points as discussed in (MN 44):

In the case of consciousness subsiding, are we unconscious, or not conscious?

In the case of consciousness not arising, are we unconscious, or not conscious?

Again, since it appears that consciousness arises concurrently from name and form, which in turn is the cause for all other factors leading to dukkha, how do we prevent consciousness and still remain a living being? :shrug:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
 
Posts: 1122
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby daverupa » Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:22 pm

There's no prevention of consciousness in that way; it isn't to be ended but to be fully comprehended. What ends are the fermentations.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4239
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: silver surfer and 8 guests