the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by reflection »

Because there is no word such as "rebirth" in pali. Notice that in this sutta on dependent origination, the word rebirth itself also is not used, while it clearly describes rebirth (I know some people disagree, but that's a different topic).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This may be because the buddha and his followers wanted to make clear their idea of rebirth is totally different from the hindu belief of reincarnation that existed at the time.


See also:
There is no word corresponding exactly to the English terms "rebirth", "metempsychosis", "transmigration" or "reincarnation" in the traditional Buddhist languages of Pāli and Sanskrit: the entire process of change from one life to the next is called punarbhava (Sanskrit) or punabbhava (Pāli), literally "becoming again", or more briefly bhava, "becoming", while the state one is born into, the individual process of being born or coming into the world in any way, is referred to simply as "birth" (jāti). The entire universal process that gives rise to this is called saṃsāra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

chownah wrote:
But "rebirth" is clearly implied.
I guess so.....I'm wondering who did the terrible job of writing this sutta that something as important as rebirth would have to be implied.....why didn't they just say rebirth?.....why imply it?......can anyone come up with a reason why the writer would rely on an implication here and why they wouldn't just use the appropriate word?.....any reason at all?.....
You can view the "birth" nidana either as a one-off "example" of birth arising from the process of being / becoming, or you can view it as a process of repeated births which represent the process of being / becoming. The affect is actually the same.

Given the way the nidanas are described and the order in which they appear, it seems to me they are describing processes rather than one-off events. So for example while the process of ignorance persists, the process of suffering persists.

Spiny
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

But paticcasamuppada never contains a thirteenth nidana, "birth --> death --> rebirth". Isn't that interesting?
  • "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
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by bodom »

daverupa wrote:But paticcasamuppada never contains a thirteenth nidana, "birth --> death --> rebirth".
And yet this thread keeps taking rebirth doesn't it? :tongue:

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

daverupa wrote:But paticcasamuppada never contains a thirteenth nidana, "birth --> death --> rebirth". Isn't that interesting?
If you understand the nidanas as processes rather than events, this isn't a problem.
Descriptions of dukkha invariably include birth and death, so I think it's reasonable to view the birth and death nidanas as representing the process of dukkha.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

bodom wrote:
daverupa wrote:But paticcasamuppada never contains a thirteenth nidana, "birth --> death --> rebirth".
And yet this thread keeps taking rebirth doesn't it? :tongue:

:anjali:
It will until we all see things as they really are... :D

Spiny
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Some reasons that I believe that belief in rebirth is rational:

1) Any kind of true or false statement must come only from thinking source (the mind)
2) No merely physical material or its combination is a thinking source.
3) Therefore, no true or false statement can ever come from only a physical source.
4) We can say true or false statements.
5) Thus the mind that can say true or false statements does not originate and start from physical source at birth.

Therefore thinking source (mind) traces back indefinitely (saṃsara has no discernible beginning) and primarily dependent on mind.

Same for intention (cetanā) and decision to do good or evil. The first instance of intention is dependent upon previous instances of mind and its accumulated qualities.


IMHO,

With best wishes,

Alex
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by reflection »

I think the first premise is wrong. Computers can also make true/false statements. In fact, it's the only thing they can do. :tongue: Also I don't fully agree with the second one.
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Actually, a computer could only make true/false statements based on a thinking mind source: the programmer. Without the original OS and algorithms created by humans' mind, it'd remain a useless mass of material. FOr further info., refer to the "Chinese room Thought Experiment" (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

reflection wrote:I think the first premise is wrong. Computers can also make true/false statements. In fact, it's the only thing they can do. :tongue: Also I don't fully agree with the second one.
As Santa100 has correctly said, the reason for computer's (and Artificial Intelligence) existence is because it was made by programmer who has a mind. So it actually strengthens my argument.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by reflection »

No, because it is still just material that does a calculation. If all people were to die right now, computers would still work. So whether they are created by humans or not does not matter; a computer is now a seperate "entity" capable of making true/false statements. Those statements don't come from a mind, they come from the computer. Of course, the computer does not really think, but then you should rewrite your premise to reflect that, because now it says everything capable of making true/false statements is thinking.

Also this has no scientific support:
2) No merely physical material or its combination is a thinking source.

We don't know enough about the brain to say it is not physically capable of thinking. In fact it may be the opposite, for example it is researched which areas in the brain are responsible for language processing. Thinking is also for a large part language, so at least in part it will take place there.



I belief in rebirth, but trying to proof it with reasoning is not really possible, I think. And I think, when one dies, thinking stops or at least alters very much because the mind leaves the brain.


:namaste:
metta
reflection
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

reflection wrote:No, because it is still just material that does a calculation.
Calculation by following an algorithm (without even being conscious) created by humans with intelligence.
reflection wrote: If all people were to die right now, computers would still work.
What would power computers with appropriate voltage, maintain them, and input data in order for them to calculate this or that? Can a fully functional computer be accidentally (not by any outside intelligence) be produced on Mars?

reflection wrote: So whether they are created by humans or not does not matter;
It does matter very much because it requires intelligence to produce, not mere chance. Furthermore the intelligence of computers is highly questionable.
reflection wrote: a computer is now a seperate "entity" capable of making true/false statements.
Never. It just follows the instructions. It can't create something totally new, like a creative person could. It definitely CANNOT LIE OR TELL THE TRUTH, just like a insentient rock (that which falls down causing someone's death) cannot murder as there is no intention.

reflection wrote: We don't know enough about the brain to say it is not physically capable of thinking. In fact it may be the opposite, for example it is researched which areas in the brain are responsible for language processing. Thinking is also for a large part language, so at least in part it will take place there.
I've tried to consider that physical properties is the mind, but how does "surge in the uptake of glutamate in the dorsolateral portion of the hippocampus feels like"? How can reason, and deliberately making true or false statements (which computer cannot) ever come from insentient matter? Brain has mass, can be seen through the eyes, touched with fingers, and even eaten. The mind cannot. So these kinds of properties are different.
pedro1985
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:10 pm

No difference...

Post by pedro1985 »

I think this is a good argument:
Zom wrote:As Buddha said - "if there is no rebirth, there is no living the holy life". The explanation of this statement is this: if there in only one life - no need to practise deep renunciation from the world. No need to be a monk. No need to accumulate kamma, no need to develop faculties. Everyone will end up quite soon with one and the same end. The best option will be to get a lot of money and enjoy sensual pleasures.
But I see it this way. People can either belief that:

1) There is no rebirth:
----- You practice the Dhamma to be free from suffering in this life. This is the only life you will ever have, no rebirth will happen because rebirth is only a fairy tale.

2) Rebirth exists:
----- You practice the Dhamma to be free from suffering in this life, and the in next life. Because rebirth exists, you practice so you will not be born again.

So in my view it doesnt matter whether rebirth is real or not. In both cases you practice to be free from suffering.
Kaktus
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:24 pm
Location: Germany

Re: No difference...

Post by Kaktus »

From the Kalama Sutta
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
English isn´t my native language. So please accept my apologies for my kind of spelling and grammar ;-)
plwk
Posts: 1462
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:14 am

Re: No difference...

Post by plwk »

Post Reply