This statement has its proper context. This discussion is not it.pink_trike wrote:Path and fruit are one.
You're saying everyone is instantly enlightened, and there's no need for a gradual training.
This statement has its proper context. This discussion is not it.pink_trike wrote:Path and fruit are one.
Ok. Path and fruit are still one.Jechbi wrote:"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.Nyanaponika Thera wrote: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.
No i wouldnt but i would also consider the possibility that its my mind playing tricks. Of course if past life memories are real then they might be very vivid to discount that, i cant really answer that fully i would really have to exp. it myself if such a thing does occurIf 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?
I dont say never ever, perhaps it is literal and happens after death, i really do know. All i know is that rebirth isnt in the 4nts or NEFP and so not essential and/or not a part of the Buddhas teachings. If you go through some of the earlier posts here you will see my side of the argument (dont want to repeat the thread over and over ). If you want to know my current assesment of rebirth (which i consider outside the buddhadhamma) then i look at it with agnosticism which is the same as you since (i assume) you have no knowledge eitherForgive 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?
If i rejected something that had strong evidence then i would be a foolDo 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
The problem with this is that you have already assumed that rebirth is a positive by the fact you think one can remember a past life so your not being in the middle but affirming a beliefPerhaps 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.
I dont do that, as i said i have an agnostic attitude. However based on probability my current thinking is leaning more towards a no than a yes (only slightly however)But to reject it out-right seems just as foolish as "blind belief" to me.
The Buddha states that if one holds a speculative view (eternal etc ...) then there cant be a living of the holy life. There cant be life in accord with dhamma. If one is to live the holy life one must let go of all view points ( i take this to be because one needs to actually focus on what is and the task at hand i.e. dukkha and quenching)Jechbi wrote:Howdy clw,
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.clw_uk wrote:Hold rebirth view, you hold a speculative view, you dont/cant live the true holy life IMO
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 ...
""Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?"
According to tho whom?pink_trike wrote:Path and fruit are one.Jechbi wrote:You're confusing the path with its fruits.pink_trike wrote:Yes...eventually we let go of unnecessary ego-feeding baggage like religion and just do the work that the good doctor prescribed.
PT, you're having your cake and eating it too! Show me a single scholar who says anything about early Buddhism or the word of the Buddha with any sort of certainty. You will not find one. The only approaches that suggest hypotheses or theories about the Buddha and early Buddhism do so mostly on the basis of philological approaches which they usually admit to be speculative at best - the historical methods that we can use to theorise about early Buddhism are not falsifiable like science, and barring use of a TARDIS or secret tablets buried in the centre of the world, early Buddhism will likely remain debatable forever. Ironically, you cite the 4nt and the 8fp as "core bits". There are emerging scholarly approaches for about the past two decades or so that suggest that these are examples of "added bits" that weren't part of early Buddhism!pink_trike wrote: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.
Ok. It still remains true that this statement has its proper context, and that this discussion is not it.pink_trike wrote:Ok. Path and fruit are still one.
Two things.You can not back up Buddhadasa's claim with any textual evidence, but then the texts aren't reliable and therefore don't mean anything, so it would seem from your position. "Buddhadada" was a accidental mis-typing that I did not catch.pink_trike wrote:Pink_trike wrote: I'll trust Buddhadasa Bhikku's word. Perhaps if you read more of Buddhadasa Bhikku's writings you'll learn more about it.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).Tilt wrote: - I have read enough to know that it is spin, not a reference to an actual text, which is no surprise.
incorrect pink_trike.pink_trike wrote: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.Ben wrote: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
9. It will be convenient to start at the end of the paticcasamuppāda formulation and to discuss jāti and jarāmarana first. To begin with, jāti is 'birth' and not 're-birth'. 'Re-birth' is punabbhavābhinibbatti, as in Majjhima v,3 <M.i,294> where it is said that future 'birth into renewed existence' comes of avijjā and tanhā; and it is clear that, here, two successive existences are involved. It is, no doubt, possible for a Buddha to see the re-birth that is at each moment awaiting a living individual who still has tanhā—the re-birth, that is to say, that is now awaiting the individual who now has tanhā. If this is so, then for a Buddha the dependence of re-birth upon tanhā is a matter of direct seeing, not involving time. But this is by no means always possible (if, indeed, at all) for an ariyasāvaka, who, though he sees paticcasamuppāda for himself, and with certainty (it is aparapaccayā ñānam), may still need to accept re-birth on the Buddha's authority.[c] In other words, an ariyasāvaka sees birth with direct vision (since jāti is part of the paticcasamuppāda formulation), but does not necessarily see re-birth with direct vision. It is obvious, however, that jāti does not refer straightforwardly to the ariyasāvaka's own physical birth into his present existence; for that at best could only be a memory, and it is probably not remembered at all.
[c] This, naturally, is not to be taken as denying the possibility of evidence for re-birth quite independent of what is said in the Suttas. (A curious view, that the Buddha was an agnostic on the question of re-birth and refused to pronounce on it, seems to be gaining currency. Even a very slight acquaintance with the Suttas will correct this idea. See e.g. Majjhima ii,2 <M.i,73-7>.) [Back to text]
No, I'm not saying that. It would be helpful if you'd ask if I'm saying something instead of stating that I am.Jechbi wrote:This statement has its proper context. This discussion is not it.pink_trike wrote:Path and fruit are one.
You're saying everyone is instantly enlightened, and there's no need for a gradual training.
Are one? Says who other than you?pink_trike wrote:The path and the fruit are one...how much fruit we experience will depend on how we engage the path.
Where are you getting these probabilities from?clw_uk wrote:I dont do that, as i said i have an agnostic attitude. However based on probability my current thinking is leaning more towards a no than a yes (only slightly however)
Apologies. I had meant to say that it appears you're saying there's no need for a gradual training. In other words, if your statements are true, then it appears to me that you would believe everyone is instantly enlightened. I should have been more clear.pink_trike wrote:No, I'm not saying that. It would be helpful if you'd ask if I'm saying something instead of stating that I am.Jechbi wrote:This statement has its proper context. This discussion is not it.pink_trike wrote:Path and fruit are one.
You're saying everyone is instantly enlightened, and there's no need for a gradual training.
The path and the fruit are one...how much fruit we experience will depend on how we engage the path.
Considering what you recently wrote on over at reasonproject:clw_uk wrote:If you want to know my current assesment of rebirth (which i consider outside the buddhadhamma) then i look at it with agnosticism which is the same as you since (i assume) you have no knowledge either
If i rejected something that had strong evidence then i would be a foolDo 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
The problem with this is that you have already assumed that rebirth is a positive by the fact you think one can remember a past life so your not being in the middle but affirming a beliefPerhaps 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.
I dont do that, as i said i have an agnostic attitude. However based on probability my current thinking is leaning more towards a no than a yes (only slightly however)But to reject it out-right seems just as foolish as "blind belief" to me.
Metta
I can't see how you can be agnostic towards rebirth while stating that it is not a part of buddhism. Can you please clarify?The other side is that there is no rebirth in buddhism, a claim that can be supported by the teachings themselves. Its one that is supported by some highly respected monks as well, for example Ajahn Buddhadasa
-- http://www.reasonproject.org/forum/viewthread/12250/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;