Reincarnation

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: Reincarnation

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:39 am

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Actually, just following your train of thought which you started which has little regard for the OP:
retrofuturist wrote:I think that's as true as far as it goes, but I believe punabhava (commonly translated as rebirth) is actually the repeated false cognition of existence, rather than any post-mortem transmigratory event. Sometimes I don't think "rebirth", as it's used in Buddhist circles, isn't as far away from "reincarnation" as it ought to be. . . . To me, as I understand it, punabbhava has nothing to do with transmigration, whereas patisandhi does.

Not at all. It precisely has to do with the differential between rebirth, punabbhava and reincarnation.

tiltbillings wrote:And "it seems you are once again just railing against that which seems unfamiliar" is a cheap shot.

It is an opportunity for you to demonstrate that this is not what you're doing... an opportunity I hope you will take up.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14655
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Reincarnation

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:42 am

retrofuturist wrote:Similarly, in an attempt to argue in favour of "rebirth", I believe some have a tendency to take it too far and slip into eternalism.
Possibly, but keeping rebirth (and nibbana) tethered to anatta and paticcasamuppada, it becomes far less a problem.
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: 19391
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:44 am

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I said, "The falsity of rebirth is a speculative view that cannot be verified."
Which, again, is something you introduced into this topic. My point was that Ven Nanananda talked about rebirth in his books, Concept and Magic, in terms that pointed to the fact he accepted rebirth as part of the framework of the Buddha's teachings.

Which, as I said, was a non-sequitir, because no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing, or thinking in terms of, reincarnation.

See my earlier post to Mike about the Buddha using words without being misled by them.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14655
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Reincarnation

Postby ground » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:48 am

retrofuturist wrote:Don't think of the word 'speculative' as an insult or denigration - it simply means it is a view that has not been experientially validated by the person holding the view.
...
Something being "speculative" neither makes it right nor wrong.

:goodpost:

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:51 am

retrofuturist wrote:GreetWhich, as I said, was a non-sequitir, because no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing, or thinking in terms of, reincarnation.
Which is THE non sequitur here.
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: 19391
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:04 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Actually, just following your train of thought which you started which has little regard for the OP:
retrofuturist wrote:I think that's as true as far as it goes, but I believe punabhava (commonly translated as rebirth) is actually the repeated false cognition of existence, rather than any post-mortem transmigratory event. Sometimes I don't think "rebirth", as it's used in Buddhist circles, isn't as far away from "reincarnation" as it ought to be. . . . To me, as I understand it, punabbhava has nothing to do with transmigration, whereas patisandhi does.

Not at all. It precisely has to do with the differential between rebirth and reincarnation.
Which, of course, assumes that one can meangingfully, via the suttas, totally disengage punabhava from the idea rebirth, for which there is no real reason to do so, and in trying to do so leads to an unnecessary dichotomy.

The OP:
Seems like if someone has not been able to penetrate the teachings on not-self or the teachings on having no doctrine of self then someone can only accept reincarnation and not rebirth.....seems like the degree that someone has penetrated the delusion of self is the same degree which it is possible for them to accept rebirth....otherwise it is just reincarnation.
This is not an unreasonle assessment, as far as it goes, needing as we have seena caveat ot two here and there. Rebirth tied to anatta and paticcasamuppada is in line with the Buddha's teachings, but like most of the Buddha's teachings, it takes time and effort to gain the actual insight into the truth of this. Rebirth is no more susceptible misinterpretation than is any other doctrine.
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: 19391
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:05 am

retrofuturist wrote:To deny "rebirth" (as understood, conventionally in English) based on one's experience, you would have to experience death and then experience the absence of rebirth.

I do not see how this could logically be done, unless you could experience the future, here-and-now, and experience first-hand the lack of post-mortem continuity of experience.

Failing that, the view "rebirth is false" is necessarily speculative.
...

Yes, this is the argument that I find totally unconvincing...

This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.

We can't take the Buddha's words, or those of Ven Nanananda, or anyone else, at face value because we have not yet personally experienced everything that they discuss, and so we might be mistaken about it?

Hmm...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10276
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Postby ground » Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:37 am

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:To deny "rebirth" (as understood, conventionally in English) based on one's experience, you would have to experience death and then experience the absence of rebirth.

I do not see how this could logically be done, unless you could experience the future, here-and-now, and experience first-hand the lack of post-mortem continuity of experience.

Failing that, the view "rebirth is false" is necessarily speculative.
...

Yes, this is the argument that I find totally unconvincing...

This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.

We can't take the Buddha's words, or those of Ven Nanananda, or anyone else, at face value because we have not yet personally experienced everything that they discuss, and so we might be mistaken about it?


Very interesting thoughts. Since I agree to retro's thoughts about "speculative" I would like to comment:
The conclusion for me is that discussion about such things is inappropriate if "discussion" is held to be intended to lead to a valid outcome. If discussion about such things is held to demonstrate the relativity of views which are not grounded in experiences that everybody can share then discussion is okay.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:06 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.

I don't see any shutting down of discussion here... just the intellectual and spiritual integrity to differentiate between what one has known and seen for oneself (i.e. knowledge, ñana), versus what one believes, but has not personally confirmed.... so that when engaging in discussions, other people know the basis upon which you speak.

Kalama Sutta wrote:"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

Such distinctions between what one has known and seen for oneself (i.e. knowledge, ñana), versus what one believes, but has not personally confirmed exist during discussions between participants in the suttas. I find it somewhat incongruent that you perceive it to be "shut[ting] down any possibility of discussion" when it happens in an online forum. I genuinely do not understand why you regard it as such. For example...

"My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. It's as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended."

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Pavittha, "When he speaks in this way, friend Pavittha, what do you have to say about Ven. Narada?"

"When Ven. Narada speaks in this way, friend Ananda, I have nothing to say about Ven. Narada except that [he is] admirable & skillful."

Source: SN 12.68 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is a person who has given up false speech and abstains from it. When he is in the council of his community or in another assembly, or among his relatives, his guild, in the royal court, or has been summoned as a witness and is asked to tell what he knows, then, when he knows, he will say, “I know”; and when he does not know he will say, “I do not know”; when he has seen, he will say, “I have seen”; and when he has not seen, he will say, “I have not seen.” He will not utter any deliberate lie, be it for his own sake, for the sake of others or for some material advantage.

Source: AN 10.206 - http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh238-p.html

If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.

If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14655
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Reincarnation

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:32 am

retrofuturist wrote:If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.

If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.
Just as a point of clarification, I am not arguing (and probably never have argued such here): "Rebirth is true." But I am arguing that the Buddha of the suttas taught literal rebirth, tied to anatta, kamma and paticcasamuppada.
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: 19391
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:14 am

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote:If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.

Of course. I don't see anyone arguing that we can know that "rebirth is true" or "the end of suffering is possible" without having experienced it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation;

retrofuturist wrote:If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.

And that's all we can reasonably discuss on this forum. What the teachings appear to mean. And in the context of such discussion I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10276
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:24 am

Greetings Mike,

mikenz66 wrote:And that's all we can reasonably discuss on this forum. What the teachings appear to mean.

But is it, though?

Chownah's questions/observations pertain to the experience of those teachings, how we internalize them, and how through that process of internalization (conditioned by avijja), we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.

That sounds like a very useful and productive discussion to me (and in fact, what this topic seems to be about).

mikenz66 wrote:I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

Sure, but as I said to Tilt... no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing in reincarnation, so I don't see what significance such a statement has to the topic of reincarnation. I raised Bhikkhu Nanananda on account of his sophisticated exposition of "bhava" (becoming/existence), which in turn relates to (a hopefully more sophisticated) discussion on "punabbhava" - the Pali word most commonly regarded as synonymous to "rebirth". Why kamma and dependent origination came into the discussion though, I don't yet understand, though I'm happy for someone to join the dots.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14655
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Reincarnation

Postby Mawkish1983 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:29 am

retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.
Mawkish1983
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Reincarnation

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:03 am

Mawkish1983 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.
It looks to be on topic to me, but then what do I know.

You make an important point here about practice and belief. "Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta." Until we come to some degree of actual experience of anatta, this is where we start out. Always, there must be a willingness to reassess one position.

"I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?" That is an interesting and challenging question. Also, to add, as long as one does not cling to the insights, either.
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: 19391
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby mikenz66 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:46 am

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

Sure, but as I said to Tilt... no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing in reincarnation, so I don't see what significance such a statement has to the topic of reincarnation. I raised Bhikkhu Nanananda on account of his sophisticated exposition of "bhava" (becoming/existence), which in turn relates to (a hopefully more sophisticated) discussion on "punabbhava" - the Pali word most commonly regarded as synonymous to "rebirth". Why kamma and dependent origination came into the discussion though, I don't yet understand, though I'm happy for someone to join the dots.

Now I'm completely confused. I thought we were discussing how the buddhist concept of "rebirth" differers from "reincarnation". So seems relevant to me to look at what Ven Nananda has to say about such things. He's an excellent scholar, and, as you say, has some very interesting analysis of possible interpretations of bhava, and a nice interpretation of dependent origination that differ from orthodox Theravada doctrine. So it seems highly relevant to the discussion that, judging from the passages that I quoted here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9494&start=40#p146297, he also discusses the "standard rebirth" where beings physically die and beings are physically born. It's relevant because his "sophisticated exposition of "bhava"" is not used to construct an argument that such an interpretation of rebirth is mistaken, whereas he does argue that the standard interpretation of dependent origination is mistaken. Or, at least, that's how I understand his writings.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10276
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:03 pm

Greetings Mike,

Mike wrote:It's relevant because his "sophisticated exposition of "bhava"" is not used to construct an argument that such an interpretation of rebirth is mistaken

Sure - no one is saying rebirth is wrong... only that reincarnation is.

It's my view that if we get a better understanding of what "bhava" is, we're less likely to jump headlong into assuming that punabbhava (becoming again) must necessarily be synonymous with the old "literal post-mortem rebirth".

Which of course isn't to deny "literal post-mortem rebirth" - just to say that it's not a necessary corollary of punabbhava, just like it's not a necessary corollary of paticcasamuppada.

Rather, it would seem (to me at least) that punabbhava is the antonym of bhavanirodha.

Mike wrote:whereas he does argue that the standard interpretation of dependent origination is mistaken.

Indeed he does.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14655
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Reincarnation

Postby chownah » Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:39 pm

Mawkish1983 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.

Note: I use the term "rebirth/reincarnation" to mean the belief that each of us has and which we usually refer to as "rebirth" and this applies to the "literal rebirth" and "moment to moment rebirth" beliefs. Since I think that none of us here has competely penetrated the "self" my view is that we all have some degree of reincarnation mixed in with our rebirth beliefs.
I think that considering how damaging it might be to ones practice is a very important thing to consider. My view is that it depends on how tightly we cling to the view. I think it is important to grasp any view lightly but it is especially important when considering rebirth/reincarnation in that grasping it will not only reinforce the delusion of self in the usual way just like clinging to any view reinforces this but in addition to this clinging to rebirth/reincarnation is a view which deals with our concepts of delusional self directly....the view is in and of itself dealing with "self".....in other words I think that clinging too tightly to views of rebirth/reincarnation hinders our efforts to penetrate the teachings on not-self and the teachings on having no doctrine of self whatever.....and for me having no doctrine of self is an important idea to pursue so I'm alway watchful for anything that might inhibit it.
chownah
P.S. I think everyones posting has been great......
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Reincarnation

Postby acinteyyo » Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:49 pm

chownah wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:Hi chownah,

3. something else?

Mike

Yeah...it's something else. I think an important point I forget to include is that what I am saying applies both to those who hold to the view of "literal rebirth" (for example at the break up of the body there is rebirth in the womb) and to those who hold to the view of "moment to moment rebirth" (for example our delusion of self is not a long lasting and durable one which recurs contiuously but rather it is a series of delusions that arise and then pass away to be replaced by a new and different delusion of self every moment and each of the arisings of a delusion of self is a rebirth)....what I am saying applies to both of these.

For those who hold the view of "moment to moment rebirth" if they have not penetrated the self then their concept of self guides their thinking to the concept of "moment to moment reincarnation" instead of "moment to moment rebirth". When they try to think of "moment to moment rebirth" the mind distorts to make the concept of rebirth into a similar concept which encompasses the self, that concept being reincarnation so they really end up thinking about "moment to moment reincarnation"....this is in my view how the delusional self arises...it arises through a distortion of mental objects which are distorted in such a way as to encompass or accomodate the delusion of the existence of self.....and if this process applies when one is considering "rebirth" the mind is actually considering "reincarnation" even though the name "rebirth" might still be attached to the thinking......one thinks that one is thinking about rebirth but the delusional self gets inserted into the mix and you end up with thoughts about what is actually reincarnation.

The same can be said for those who hold to views of "literal rebirth"...their thoughts would be distorted by the insertion of self so that what they would have would really be "literal reincarnation.

One more try: It's like if somone was totally obsessed with bananas and you held up an apple and told them to think about apple pie.....what they would think of would be banana cream pie even if they kept saying "apple pie" what they would be thinking of would be banana cream pie....the banana keeps getting inserted into all their thinking.....


chownah wrote:
Mawkish1983 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.

Note: I use the term "rebirth/reincarnation" to mean the belief that each of us has and which we usually refer to as "rebirth" and this applies to the "literal rebirth" and "moment to moment rebirth" beliefs. Since I think that none of us here has competely penetrated the "self" my view is that we all have some degree of reincarnation mixed in with our rebirth beliefs.
I think that considering how damaging it might be to ones practice is a very important thing to consider. My view is that it depends on how tightly we cling to the view. I think it is important to grasp any view lightly but it is especially important when considering rebirth/reincarnation in that grasping it will not only reinforce the delusion of self in the usual way just like clinging to any view reinforces this but in addition to this clinging to rebirth/reincarnation is a view which deals with our concepts of delusional self directly....the view is in and of itself dealing with "self".....in other words I think that clinging too tightly to views of rebirth/reincarnation hinders our efforts to penetrate the teachings on not-self and the teachings on having no doctrine of self whatever.....and for me having no doctrine of self is an important idea to pursue so I'm alway watchful for anything that might inhibit it.
chownah
P.S. I think everyones posting has been great......
chownah

:goodpost:
Hi all,

I have this in mind for long time but couldn't put it into words. I still don't know how to make my point clear. Maybe rebirth as taught by the Buddha cannot be understood, cannot be comprehended or properly imagined until one is at least free from personality-view. It will always lead to some kind of "reincarnation-imagination/association" involved with some kind of underlying, more or less subtle self-view, which remains unnoticed. When it comes to the word "rebirth" the meaning, which will be given to it will always emerge from that contaminated viewpoint. That would necessarily lead to some kind of reincarnation-view although one is calling it rebirth it still circles around self-view without being noticed.
The fact that what "rebirth" as taught by the Buddha actually means remains unclear, makes it easy for a worldling to put a modified reincarnation-model into it, now beliefing that to be rebirth in line with the teachings while still missing (or better "ignoring") the underlying belief in a self. The typical trap of avijja, which just hides itself under a different name in a different form as soon as one tries to uncover it. That's why steady mindfulness is so important to not loose sight...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 1002
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Reincarnation

Postby danieLion » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:14 pm

I used the "search this topic" function for Buddhadasa but it gave me GENERAL results so forgive me if this is redundant. But are not Buddhadasa's crticisms of the the three life model of dependent origination pertinent here? You may find it articulated in his Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination and his talk, No Religion.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Reincarnation

Postby daverupa » Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Paticcasamuppada is a fluid dependency teaching, with many possible formulations. Sticking to paticcasamuppada-12 can generate artificial difficulties.
    "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: 4126
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: appicchato and 5 guests