the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ben » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:44 am

nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:There very well may be teachers for whom rebirth is a directed, experienced fact, which is why they teach it.

So glad you agree with me, tb. And I hope they come join the conversation and tell us about their experience.
:namaste:


Why would they? How would it benefit you? Surely, the realisation of certain truths, including rebirth, is something one can only experience for oneself.
kind regards

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15967
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:35 am

Ben wrote:
nowheat wrote:I hope they come join the conversation and tell us about their experience.
:namaste:


Why would they? How would it benefit you? Surely, the realisation of certain truths, including rebirth, is something one can only experience for oneself.

Presumably, from their point of view, it would benefit me by giving me evidence of the truth they have seen, which would help me on the path they see as correct. It would seem the compassionate thing to do.

Something one can only experience for oneself... like love, for example? And yet we can all talk about love. It's true that no one of us can precisely experience exactly what another person feels about love, and yet as we are all humans, we are able to discuss it, share it, and come close enough to understand another's experience of it.

Putting something as apparently important as rebirth in a category of "things we cannot discuss" puts it beyond reason, and the Buddha's path is above all about reason, about what we all have in common, about direct experience. I understand that the Buddha taught that people should not make claims about their practice that are untrue; nowhere do I see him say we should not discuss things about our practice which are true. In fact, he says there are no secrets. Nowhere in his teaching do I see him say that there are experiences you will have that are beyond description EXCEPT for nirvana. And yet, apparently, we leave off the view of self that goes with rebirth when we reach nirvana. So rebirth is not in the one category of things that are beyond words.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:47 am

tiltbillings wrote:
nowheat wrote:The teachers who understand "birth, old age, and death" as metaphors also respect the Buddha's words, but they have seen that the literal interpretations reveal an internal inconsistency in the teachings,
Inconsistencies? Not at all that I have ever seen anyone conclusively or compellingly demonstrate.

It may have already been answered at length in this thread, but do you think you can briefly summarize for me what is consistent about telling me I should focus on the well-being of some aspect of myself in a future life, when the rest of the teaching asks me to let go of a belief in a self? I can understand that developing a concern for a future-self could be of use in developing morality, if I wasn't particularly moral to begin with; if I needed some kind of threat of future punishment to get me to act in a way that takes into consideration the effect of my actions and intentions on others, but given that the Buddha's view of how we create our own suffering, when truly understood, generates actual compassion from which moral behavior comes naturally, rather than applying morality from the outside by fear of retribution, I just don't see that that teaching an already moral person to cling to some aspect of self while teaching them to let go of the view of self has any value at all, never mind consistency.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ben » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:14 pm

I think you're conflating the issue nowheat.
Love is not an appropriate analogy. Some people have realised the truth of rebirth and for those that have not - its still just a concept. Love is nothing more than the arising of mundane dhammas. What evidence would actually satisfy you that someone who claims knowledge of rebirth has actually attained that knowledge?
If you don't have confidence that the doctrine of rebirth is real - then with an open mind lay it to the side - and concentrate on those practices that will eradicate your defilements. Merely talking about rebirth and trying to apprehend it through the prism of your own predelictions and defilements won't bring you any closer to liberation.
kind regards

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15967
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:10 pm

Ben wrote:I think you're conflating the issue nowheat.
Love is not an appropriate analogy. Some people have realised the truth of rebirth and for those that have not - its still just a concept. Love is nothing more than the arising of mundane dhammas. What evidence would actually satisfy you that someone who claims knowledge of rebirth has actually attained that knowledge?
If you don't have confidence that the doctrine of rebirth is real - then with an open mind lay it to the side - and concentrate on those practices that will eradicate your defilements. Merely talking about rebirth and trying to apprehend it through the prism of your own predelictions and defilements won't bring you any closer to liberation.

Sorry... Conflating what with what?
:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:17 pm

Edit: And there is that sutta about the Buddha's chief lay-supporter Anathapindika being reborn as a heavenly being and coming back to visit the Buddha... Without literal rebirth then what is this sutta? If this is 'allegorical' then why isn't that explained clearly? I don't see how literal rebirth deniers can accommodate this sutta in to their ideas.




Quite easily


MN 68

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"


lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt


Rebirth was taught because it is a lofty ideal that leads "faithful clansmen" to wholesome mind states


Also you have engaged in a false dichotomy here


I don't see how literal rebirth deniers can accommodate this sutta in to their ideas


Just because one doesnt assert rebirth doesnt mean they are denying rebirth, tbh its really not an important question


from the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand


His Holiness’ two books on heaven and hell are truly analytical view on the subject from a Buddhist point of view. As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself. On this very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies...*


http://www.sangharaja.org/en_main.asp


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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby enkidu » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:40 pm

I apologize if this has already come up in this thread, for I have not the time nor desire to read it in its entirety, though I am curious about what rebirth deniers say to this and can think of no better place to ask.

Without rebith, death and the Noble Eightfold Path are functionally equivalent in that they both produce the cessation of the causes of suffering. What do rebirth deniers say to this?

I understand if no one cares to respond, given that I have not shown the courtesy to read the entire thread.
enkidu
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:46 pm

enkidu wrote:I apologize if this has already come up in this thread, for I have not the time nor desire to read it in its entirety, though I am curious about what rebirth deniers say to this and can think of no better place to ask.

Without rebith, death and the Noble Eightfold Path are functionally equivalent in that they both produce the cessation of the causes of suffering. What do rebirth deniers say to this?

I understand if no one cares to respond, given that I have not shown the courtesy to read the entire thread.




no because you have gone from one speculative view or rebirth to a specualtive view of death being oblivion, buddhas noble teachings are for the letting go of all views


And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views.



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


The only thing that’s certain about the future—the death of the body—is something we try to ignore. Just thinking about the word death stops the mind, doesn’t it? It does for me. It’s not particularly polite or politically correct to speak of death in casual conversation. What is death? What will happen when I die? Not knowing upsets us. But it is unknown, isn’t it? We don’t know what will happen when the body dies.We have various theories—like reincarnation or being rewarded by a better rebirth or being punished by a worse birth. Some people speculate that once you’ve attained human birth, you may still be reborn as a lower creature. And then there’s the school that says no, once you’ve taken birth in the human form, then you cannot be reborn as a lower creature. Or the belief in oblivion—once you’re dead, you’re dead. That’s it. Nothing left. Finito. The truth of the matter is that nobody really knows. So we often just ignore it or suppress it.

But this is all happening in the now. We’re thinking of the concept of death in the present. The way the word death affects consciousness is like this. This is knowing not knowing in the now. It’s not trying to prove any theory. It’s knowing: the breath is like this; the body like this; the moods and mental states are like this. This is developing the path. Saying “like this” is just a way of reminding oneself to see this moment as it is rather than to be caught in some idea that we’ve got to do something or find something or control something or get rid of something.


Ajahn Sumedho

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... nd_Now.htm



i would also say that your interpreting the 4 noble truths as mening birth after death as a frog. To me this isnt what they mean, Ajahn Chah sums up my understanding


We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it. If there is no clinging to that gladness there is no birth; if there is
clinging, this is called ‘birth’. So if we get something, we aren’t born
(into gladness). If we lose, then we aren’t born (into sorrow). This
is the birthless and the deathless. Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san˙kha¯ras.

So the Buddha said. “There is no more becoming for me, finished
is the holy life, this is my last birth.” There! He knew the birthless and
the deathless. This is what the Buddha constantly exhorted his disciples
to know. This is the right practice. If you don’t reach it, if you don’t
reach the Middle Way, then you won’t transcend suffering



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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby enkidu » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:54 pm

clw_uk wrote:no because you have gone from one speculative view or rebirth to a specualtive view of death being oblivion, buddhas noble teachings are for the letting go of all views


Hmm, thanks for the response, though I don't understand how the teachings make any sense from such a perspective. As I am drawn to the Gelug, probably the nerdiest of all schools, the notion of "Don't explore this intellectually," is anathema to me.

Thanks.
enkidu
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:57 pm

enkidu wrote:
clw_uk wrote:no because you have gone from one speculative view or rebirth to a specualtive view of death being oblivion, buddhas noble teachings are for the letting go of all views


Hmm, thanks for the response, though I don't understand how the teachings make any sense from such a perspective. As I am drawn to the Gelug, probably the nerdiest of all schools, the notion of "Don't explore this intellectually," is anathema to me.

Thanks.




Well for me they are saying there is dukkha via craving/grasping, this is how to leave said dukkha behind. Anything metaphysical or speculative (which was a common occurence among religious leaders at the time) is seen as pointless pondering that doesnt help one get past dukkha


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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:02 pm

Sanghamitta wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote:
shjohnk wrote:
An interesting thing for me is that we will never know whether there is rebirth or not, because when we are reborn (I believe we will be) we will not remember this life and that we wondered about it in this life.


Hi John

But doesn't this assume that the only way to know is to die, and that there is no continuation of memory after death? Buddhism also states that there are other ways to know, while in the present life. And also that for some, they in fact do remember their past lives while in the present life. (Check out cases from Ian Stevenson, etc.)

The former comes from very deep forms of meditation, and it also appears that the latter is maybe more common in those who kept clear and wholesome mental states in their past lives, too. Or, in other words, when our minds are defiled, then we will not know. When the mind is purified, there is the possibility. To conclude that because our minds are "presently" obscured, we will "never know", is therefore a bit problematic.

Quite, It requires a huge leap of faith to deny the reality of Rebirth in Buddhism. It requires believing that generations of Buddhists over the last 2500 years have been fooling themselves or others when they say that remember their previous births, or that they are simply lying. The Buddhists who claim to remember include among them some of the wisest and most learned and compassionate people that have emerged from among the Buddhas followers, so if they are wrong or lying then we might want to ask ourselves what about Buddhism IS reliable and worthy of our attention. There are far more direct and less demanding ways to improve our psychological functioning. A Buddhism without Rebirth stretches my credulity too far.

So clw uk, are those generations of Buddhists who decribe their memories of of previous births merely mistaken, or are they lying ?



I dont know what they "saw" I am not them. I do know however that the human mind is very good at "self" deception, look how many people have claimed to have "seen" the virgin mary, jesus, yaweh, bastet, Ra, unicorns etc etc


lets take another example, many people at the buddhas time held a view of self and what did they "see" in their meditation? Atman


However maybe they did see something, i dont know. All i know is that (from what i understand) such notions are not conatined within the Buddhas noble teachings of the 4nts etc. I dont see them as having anything to do with metaphysical claims




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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby enkidu » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:12 pm

clw_uk wrote:Well for me they are saying there is dukkha via craving/grasping, this is how to leave said dukkha behind. Anything metaphysical or speculative (which was a common occurence among religious leaders at the time) is seen as pointless pondering that doesnt help one get past dukkha


metta


Hmm. For me, ending rebirth is the very wellspring of motivation to practice, and thusly far from pointless. Awesome that you find the motivation to practice without it.
enkidu
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:55 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Sanghamitta » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:15 pm

Ah, so they are mistaken. Ok If thats what you believe based on whatever evidence that you have that generations of Buddhist meditators are all guilty of perpetuating an act of self deception then I think that the onus is on you to prove that case.This is not merely about an interpretation of various philosophical terms, this about the testimony of countless people who have practised meditative practises to a greater depth than I have, and I would guess than you have. Personally when I read the accounts, or hear them in person from people who are eminently sane and wise in other areas of life, then I am inclined to believe them on this issue also. And If I didnt believe them on such a central issue, I wouldnt be bothering with any of this.

What in your view is the goal of Dhamma clw uk ?
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:21 pm

Sanghamitta wrote:Ah, so they are mistaken. Ok If thats what you believe based on whatever evidence that you have that generations of Buddhist meditators are all guilty of perpetuating an act of self deception then I think that the onus is on you to prove that case.This is not merely about an interpretation of various philosophical terms, this about the testimony of countless people who have practised meditative practises to a greater depth than I have, and I would guess than you have. Personally when I read the accounts, or hear them in person from people who are eminently sane and wise in other areas of life, then I am inclined to believe them on this issue also. And If I didnt believe them on such a central issue, I wouldnt be bothering with any of this.

What in your view is the goal of Dhamma clw uk ?




or actually i just had another thought. Perhaps they made use of the view in the same way Buddha did, since it does encourage people do develop wholesome mind states, which is why the Buddha taught it in the first place


"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"


lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt


Ah, so they are mistaken. Ok If thats what you believe based on whatever evidence that you have that generations of Buddhist meditators are all guilty of perpetuating an act of self deception then I think that the onus is on you to prove that case


The onus is also on you to prove that your metaphysical doctine is a central tenet of Buddhadhamma



Personally when I read the accounts, or hear them in person from people who are eminently sane and wise in other areas of life, then I am inclined to believe them on this issue also


No different to Catholics and the Virgin Mary or an ancient egyptian and Hathor


And If I didnt believe them on such a central issue, I wouldnt be bothering with any of this.


You have to prove that Rebirth as a frog is a central issue


What in your view is the goal of Dhamma clw uk


Dukkha and its qunching, which is all the Buddha taught. What is view of it?


metta :)
Last edited by clw_uk on Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:28 pm, edited 1 time 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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:26 pm

I have posted this before (cant remember if it was on this site though) so sorry if you have already read it its just it covers my understanding in full and its quite long so easier to copy and paste

For me personally, i dont see how rebirth in Buddhadhamma means some place after death. One thing is that Buddhadhamma is for the removing of all speculative views, something which was mentioned above

However there are other things

One of them is the use of the word "loka" which translates as "world","cosmos" or "realm" so hell realm is hell loka

Buddhadhamma has a specific meaning of this term, it doesnt mean the physical world but how we perceive the world


For example


"that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world - this is called the world in the noble ones discipline"


SN - 1190 - book of the six sense media

and

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world'1 it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates, monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"

and also

[When this was said, the Blessed One responded:] "I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."


Now if we look at D.O.

We all know that this sense of "I" comes to be via clinging. "I am body" is clinging to body, no clinging there is no "I am"

So clinging leads to "I am". If we look at paticcasamuppada it states

clinging
becoming
birth

Therefore if we follow this its obvious that in Buddhadhamma clinging leads to birth of "I" or "I am" and not birth of aggregates


To bring in some Ajahn Chah here

We must see that there is no reason to be born. Born in what way?
Born into gladness: When we get something we like we are glad over
it. If there is no clinging to that gladness there is no birth; if there is
clinging, this is called ‘birth’. So if we get something, we aren’t born
(into gladness). If we lose, then we aren’t born (into sorrow). This
is the birthless and the deathless. Birth and death are both founded in
clinging to and cherishing the san?kha¯ras.

So the Buddha said. “There is no more becoming for me, finished
is the holy life, this is my last birth.” There! He knew the birthless and
the deathless. This is what the Buddha constantly exhorted his disciples
to know. This is the right practice. If you don’t reach it, if you don’t
reach the Middle Way, then you won’t transcend suffering


Therefore in Buddhadhamma, as i understand, when the Buddha states "reborn in hell realm" it means that clinging has lead to birth of an "I" into a mode of percieving the external world via the six sense media in a negative way

which goes with this sutta

It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Contacts Sixfold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named "Contacts Six Fold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue ... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life."



Khana Sutta - SN


So when we read "reborn into hell" it means that clinging has lead to birth of "I" into a negative state, like when someone is depressed or full of self pity and therefor, tying in with the abandoning of speculative views, rebirth doesnt mean after death in Buddhadhamma but something else that, for me, is far more profound


So you could say yes there is rebirth in the Buddhadhamma but its not the way people usually think of it (well really there is no rebirth since there is nothing to repeat, there is only birth). I think problems arises when we view Buddhadhamma with wordly understandings




However, the rebirth post mortem view is conductive to nibbana since it promotes healthy mental states


The Buddha said


MN 68

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"



lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt

and

It was said, “Bhikkhus, the gain of a view too is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other.” On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? When practicing the gain of a certain view if demerit increases and merit decreases such gain of views should not be practiced. When practicing the gain of a certain view if demerit decreases and merit increases such a gain of view should be practiced.

Venerable sir, practicing the gain of what kind of views does demerit increase and merit decrease? Here a certain one has these views, there are no results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings. There are no results for good and bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings, There are no recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. Venerable sir, practicing the gain of this kind of views demerit increases and merit decreases.

Venerable sir, practicing the gain of what kind views does demerit decrease and merit increase? Here a certain one has these views, there are results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings. There are results for good and bad actions. There is this world, another world, mother, father, spontaneously arisen beings, There are recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. Venerable sir, practicing the gain of this kind of views demerit decreases and merit increases

http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/M ... mn-114.htm


So rebirth view promotes wholesome mind states that lead to a happy life and even to nibbana. However it should be noted that the view is an acquisition and should be let go of at some point



And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views.


and

The extent to which there are viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views, the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know. That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do see."




metta


n.b. will add the links to some of my quotes tomorow, just about to go out the door atm
“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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Sanghamitta » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:33 pm

The sound of a well rehearsed and practised routine.
It comes down in the end to who we believe before we know beyond doubt for ourselves, and I have made my choice concerning those who I believe, as I suspect have you. I dont do debate as a hobby, so I will at this point wish you well and move on.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:35 pm

Sanghamitta wrote:The sound of a well rehearsed and practised routine.
It comes down in the end to who we believe before we know beyond doubt for ourselves, and I have made my choice concerning those who I believe, as I suspect have you. I dont do debate as a hobby, so I will at this point wish you well and move on.





lol yeah ive been in these discussions lots of times before, kinda end up typing the same stuff after a while



all the best :)



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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Sanghamitta » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:44 pm

As it ever occured to you that you might be wrong ? I started from an assumption that literal rebirth could not possibly be entertained and a combination of events and of relationship with people to whom the reality of Rebirth was a living a vital matter changed me and changed my views. There are other ways to arrive at a view of the nature of things than ruminating on their philosophical expression. There is also the politics of experience.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:45 pm

Well actually you havent answered it at all. You have merely stated an alternative set of beliefs of your own, You have not addressed the testimony of the those who have won through to that state of knowledge at all.




Im still waiting for you to prove your argument that rebirth as a frog after death is a central aspect of Dhamma




In relation to your point, i can only think of three possibilities. Either they were deluded in some way or they were simply making use of the theory of rebirth to promote wholesome states in others (which helps them practice the NEFP if they want to) as the Buddha did or they did see some kind of past life. However in relation to the last point it would still not matter since my argument isnt about if there is or isnt past lives or God or Allah or Zeus, my argument is that one doesnt need to take up a view of rebirth in order to pactice Dhamma and quench dukkha, since rebirth after death isnt part of the 4nt's and is, if you like, superfluous (for some)

However if your asking me to say which possibility applies to which monk or nun, there i cannot help you


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: 3353
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Sanghamitta » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:48 pm

So, generations of Buddhist sages were either delusional or practising sleight of hand, but despite that you think we should take them seriously or even emulate them ? Why ?

I have ignored the "rebirth as a frog" strawman, or perhaps strawfrog. Its not worthy of you as a debating point. Please lets assume a degree of mutual adult and rational thought here.
Last edited by Sanghamitta on Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
Sanghamitta
 
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ALittlePebble, SarathW and 9 guests