the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

So, in other words Buddhadada's claim hold no water. Not surprised.

I dont know if this is where Ajahn Buddhadasa got it, the above post was from my own thought



metta

[tiltbillings]

Then your claim holds no water.

[pink_trike]

Then your claim holds no water.

I assume you're referring to your definition of water.

[tiltbillings]

Seeing the strange contortions you have gone through with religion, I would likely not refer to your definition of water, or much else.

[Jechbi]

Howdy clw,

Hold rebirth view, you hold a speculative view, you dont/cant live the true holy life IMO

I think I understand you, but you've got it backwards. The correct expression of your outlook would be that you can't live the true holy life and still hold onto views.
Problem is, the "true holy life" as you seem to understand it only occurs with full enlightenment, after having done that which had to be done. So until then, we're bound to hold views.
Trying to see this through your eyes ...

[tiltbillings]

So until then, we're bound to hold views.

Can't be helped, except as one moves along the path, one learns how to hold on to them not quite so so hard.[/quote].

[Ben]

So until then, we're bound to hold views.

Can't be helped, except as one moves along the path, one learns how to hold on to them not quite so so hard.

Sadhu!

[Guy]

Rebirth view is a view that requires blind belief, it isnt really that practical and isnt all that logical when compared to the rest of the teachings

If you could remember your past lives, just as clearly as you can remember what you did yesterday, would you consider your memories to be impractical and illogical?

Forgive me if I am getting the wrong impression, but by the way you talk about the subject it seems like you are clinging to a "blind belief" that rebirth is not literal and therefore interpret all Buddhist texts accordingly. Do you reject rebirth out-right, even if convincing evidence (perhaps even first hand memories) is presented to you? Or do you reject it on the basis that such evidence hasn't been seen by you yet and are willing to change your mind?

Perhaps the healthiest approach is to say "Maybe rebirth is true, maybe it's not. I don't know" until such time as you can remember your own past lives. But to reject it out-right seems just as foolish as "blind belief" to me.

With Metta,

Guy

[pink_trike]

So until then, we're bound to hold views.

Can't be helped, except as one moves along the path, one learns how to hold on to them not quite so so hard.

.
Yes...eventually we let go of unnecessary ego-feeding baggage like religion and just do the work that the good doctor prescribed.

[pink_trike]

So until then, we're bound to hold views.

Can't be helped, except as one moves along the path, one learns how to hold on to them not quite so so hard.

Yes...eventually we let go of unnecessary ego-feeding baggage like religion and beliefs re: imponderables like post-mortem rebirth and just do the work that the good doctor prescribed.

[pink_trike]

I'll trust Buddhadasa Bhikku's word. Perhaps if you read more of Buddhadasa Bhikku's writings you'll learn more about it.

- I have read enough to know that it is spin, not a reference to an actual text, which is no surprise.

Ah, ok...thanks for sharing that you know better than "Buddhada-da"...(a clever little name you've come up with that really doesn't seem to be right speech or appropriate respect, but perhaps you know better there too).

[pink_trike]

Thanks Chris that is a brilliant list.
But as anyone who has a rudimentary familiarity with the nikayas, one knows it is just the tip of the iceberg.
Metta

Ben

A tiny tip of a massive iceberg that was first written somewhere between 400-800 years after Siddhārtha Gautama died - after much political jockeying over centuries, and that was repeatedly revised and added to over following centuries resulting in obvious inconsistencies. Some scholars doubt that much, if any, of the scriptures are actually the words of Siddhārtha Gautama, beyond elements of the Vinaya and Pitaka. This doesn't mean that there isn't some good stuff there, but there isn't consensus that Siddhārtha Gautama spoke it by any means. Religious faith and devotion doesn't erase this uncertainty, no matter how much effort and reverance is applied, and this inconvenient uncertainty is hardly grounds for building a concrete case that Siddhārtha Gautama taught literal rebirth. It seems to me, given this uncertainty, that anything beyond the 4NT and 8FP should be taken with a dose of "i don't know" salt. Common sense trumps religious faith.

[Jechbi]

Yes...eventually we let go of unnecessary ego-feeding baggage like religion and just do the work that the good doctor prescribed.

You're confusing the path with its fruits.

[pink_trike]

Yes...eventually we let go of unnecessary ego-feeding baggage like religion and just do the work that the good doctor prescribed.

You're confusing the path with its fruits.

Path and fruit are one.

[Jechbi]

"Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: 'This is a vast expanse of water; and this shore is perilous and fearful, but the other shore is safe and free from danger. There is, however, no boat here for crossing, nor a bridge for going over from this side to the other. Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.' Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like?'

"What do you think about it, O monks? Will this man by acting thus, do what should be done with a raft?" — "No, Lord" — "How then, monks, would he be doing what ought to be done with a raft? Here, monks, having got across and arrived at the other shore, the man thinks: 'This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, and laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not pull it up now to the dry land or let it float in the water, and then go as I please?' By acting thus, monks, would that man do what should be done with a raft.

"In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching's similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to.

He who is so much preoccupied with doctrinal controversy, furnishes, indeed, a fitting illustration of one who carries the raft of the Dhamma on his head or shoulders; and, in his case, this will be not after the crossing but before he has done, or even seriously tried, the fording of the stream. In fact, this famous parable of the raft will in most cases apply to those who, in the words of the Dhammapada (v. 85), "run up and down the river's bank" on this side of the stream, without daring or wishing to cross. We find them using the raft for a variety of purposes: they will adorn it and adore it, discuss it, compare it — indeed anything else than use it.
There are, on the other hand, those who wrongly believe that this parable justifies them in jettisoning the raft before they have used it, and that it invites them to let go the good teachings along with the false ones, even before they have benefited by the former and fully discarded the latter.