the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Hey everyone

Before i left i wanted to answer the posts made to me here

It is the stream of consciousness that continues. Yes, consciousness is impermanent but on the other hand there is a continuum. This can be noticed in this very life. There are different levels of consciousness, different objects to be conscious of, different ways in which consciousness operates but even though none of these instances of consciousness are static, unchanging or permanent one "mind moment" can have a residual effect to the next and the different kinds of consciousness can and do influence each other. If you can understand this then it's not such a problem to see that rebirth is a possibility even though anatta and anicca are true.

With Metta,

Guy

although this doesnt disprove rebirth as part of Buddhadhamma, the Buddha never said anything life this in the suttas themselves. This mostly comes from later ideas/abhidhamma (of course if you accept the abhidhamma as coming from the buddha then your above post is in line with him )


To Ben and Tilt

In some posts way back i put forward my points (using suttas) of why rebirth p.m. is not in the buddhadhamma. If i had seen your response a few days ago i would have posted all sorts of suttas and made points to argue with you but i dont feel the need to do that anymore since these arguments distract from contemplating the present moment. I have now decided to stop arguing for or against rebirth p.m. and have decided instead to follow the advice of Ajahn Sumedho (something i should have stayed with) since i agree with him that rebirth p.m. is speculative and conceptual and its more useful to put rebirth etc into practical terms which allows one to focus on and understand the here and now, the only place where Dhamma can be known and the deathless can be reached

I very much agree with these teachings of his

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TqKb ... t&resnum=3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

http://www.amaravati.org/abm/english/do ... kamma.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and

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.

Developing the path, cultivating bhavana is not only formal meditation that we can only do at a certain place, under certain conditions, with certain teachers. That’s just another view we’re creating in the present. Observe how you practice in daily life—at home, with your family, on the job. The word bhavana means being aware of the mind wherever you are in the present moment. I can give you advice about developing sitting meditation—so many minutes every morning and every evening—which is certainly to be considered. It’s useful to develop discipline, to take some time in your daily life to stop your activities, the momentum of duties, the responsibilities and habits. But what I’ve found to really help me the most has been to reflect and pay attention to the here and now.

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... nd_Now.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In conclusion ive decided to follow and learn from Ajahn Sumedho, im not going to argue about rebirth or no rebirth post mortem any more, its to speculative and distracting, both sides of the argument are. The present moment is all there is. As Ajahn Anando said on my retreat,

the past and future dont exist only the present moment does, have you ever known anything that isnt the present moment?"

and full awareness of the present moment is the way to understand Dhamma, quench dukkha and reach the deathless and so thats what im going to focus on from now on, not speculative arguments about past or future which can cause distraction from pure awareness of the present moment

Now is the knowing

Metta guy, tilt and ben

[tiltbillings]

That is all very nice, but you still have distorted the Dhamma in a very serious manner with your groundless assertions and text twisting and your ignoring texts that very directly contradict your claim that that there are not texts that do not discuss rebirth in conjunction with paticcasamuppada and the Four Noble Truths. As Trungpa would say: Good luck to you, sir.

[BlackBird]

If conviction in suffering is made strong then faith will grow. When faith grows strong, speculation and interpretation will disintegrate.
In the end there is only Dhamma.

With metta
Jack.

[nathan]

21 pages now? Hilarious. I'm so glad I quit back on page five or something like that. Let me see if I can guess what the last 15 pages contain, since, to be sure, I'm not going to read them. Some considerable disagreement, predominantly under conditions of mutual ignorance of whatever the actualities of the situation in fact are? If that's true, it doesn't mean I'm psychic, only that I've read a couple of other threads like this on the net. See you all later, maybe page 121.

[tiltbillings]

21 pages now? Hilarious. I'm so glad I quit back on page five or something like that. Let me see if I can guess what the last 15 pages contain, since, to be sure, I'm not going to read them. Some considerable disagreement, predominantly under conditions of mutual ignorance of whatever the actualities of the situation in fact are? If that's true, it doesn't mean I'm psychic, only that I've read a couple of other threads like this on the net. See you all later, maybe page 121.

Possibly you are correct, but it is like looking in a box and not liking what you see, then assuming every other box contains the same thing, and sight unseen, not liking what in those boxes.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings

This is tied with another thread going on. To those who accept that there is rebirth after death i would like to ask a question

If the Buddha said that D.O. wasnt three lives and that rebirth wasnt part of his teachings would you still practice Buddhadhamma?



metta

[Ben]

But he didn't did he? (rhetorical question)
Wishful thinking doesn't make inconvenient doctrine go away.
The Buddha taught rebirth. I suggest you get over it.

[Ceisiwr]

But he didn't did he? (rhetorical question)
Wishful thinking doesn't make inconvenient doctrine go away.
The Buddha taught rebirth. I suggest you get over it.

Im not arguing if he did or didnt i was just wondering if people would continue to practice regardless of rebirth


Its just a what if question, sometimes these are good to get us thinking about things

Wishful thinking doesn't make inconvenient doctrine go away

Slightly off topic but this is an assumption on your part



metta

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

If the Buddha said that D.O. wasnt three lives and that rebirth wasnt part of his teachings would you still practice Buddhadhamma?

Yes, of course.

Please see the Apaṇṇaka Sutta from the Majjhimanikāya

“Since there is another world, one who holds the view that there is not holds a wrong view. Since there is another world, one who thinks that there is not has wrong thoughts. Since there is another world, one who says there is not uses wrong speech and is opposed to those Arahants who know there is another world. One who convinces another to accept this untrue Dhamma praises himself and disparages others, thus any former morality he had is abandoned and replaced with bad conduct. All of these various unwholesome things — wrong thought, wrong speech and so forth — have wrong view as their origin.”

“A wise man reflects thus: ‘If what these recluses and Brahmins say is true, and there is no other world, then on the dissolution of the body after death they are safe enough, but if they are wrong and there is another world, they will be reborn in the lower realms, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, or in hell. He has wrongly undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in a one-sided way that excludes the wholesome alternative.

“Householders, it is to be expected that those recluses and Brahmins who hold the latter view — that there is a fruit of good and evil deeds, and so forth — will avoid evil deeds and cultivate wholesome deeds because they see the danger and impurity of evil deeds, and see the benefit and purity of wholesome deeds.

“Since there is another world, one who holds the view that there is holds a right view. Since there is another world, one who thinks that there is has right thoughts. Since there is another world, one who says there is uses right speech and is not opposed to those Arahants who know there is another world. One who convinces another to accept this true Dhamma does not praise himself and disparage others, thus any former corrupt morality he had is abandoned and replaced with virtuous conduct. All of these various wholesome things — right thought, right speech and so forth — have right view as their origin.”

“A wise man reflects thus: ‘If what these recluses and Brahmins say is true, and there is another world, then on the dissolution of the body after death they will be reborn in a happy destination, or in heaven. Even if there is no other world, this good person is praised by the wise as virtuous and for holding the right view of moral responsibility. He has rightly undertaken this incontrovertible teaching in a two-sided way that excludes the unwholesome alternative.

[BlackBird]

Edited to save time and effort. If interested in this hole I dug for myself, please refer to the following posts.

Hope you have a good day
Jack.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Blackbird,

Whilst I believe in rebirth, I don't find these arguments particularly convincing or logical...

1. If rebirth did not exist, there would be no point in liberation from suffering, because death would be the liberation from suffering.

This ignores the fact there's suffering in this life and that's more than enough incentive to practice the Dhamma for most - rebirth or not. It also ignores that there is happiness in life.

2. If death was the liberation from suffering there would be no Kamma, as there would be no person to experience the ripening of Kamma after death.

Kamma is not some sort of invisible cosmic judicial system that casts judgement at the time of death. Kamma is volition, and kamma stems from ignorance. The results of kamma can be experienced here-and-now. That however doesn't preclude them being experienced post-death.

3. If there is no Kamma, there is no purpose in morality; for after death there is nothing/no-one to experience the results.

See point #2... plus I'm sure there's plenty of atheists around who can tell you there's benefits to be gained from morality. Before you became Buddhist, could you see a purpose in morality? I know I could.

4. If there is no purpose in morality then there is no happiness to be gained from ones actions.

See point #3... there is a purpose in morality.

5. Therefor we are bound to the state we are in until death, where as there is no longer a being to 'experience' phenomena, there can be no suffering.

I find this confusing.

Metta,
Retro.

[BlackBird]

Greetings Blackbird,

Whilst I believe in rebirth, I don't find these arguments particularly convincing or logical...

I'm not very clear about trying to communicate what I think.
To a degree my logic is flawed, but I wouldn't say it's untrue.

1. If rebirth did not exist, there would be no point in liberation from suffering, because death would be the liberation from suffering.

This ignores the fact there's suffering in this life and that's more than enough incentive to practice the Dhamma for most - rebirth or not. It also ignores that there is happiness in life.

It overlooks suffering in this life, true. But to state that there is no rebirth infers that there is no being to experience suffering after death, and therefor, by simply ending one's life, one would end suffering - which would make the whole business of enlightenment fairly pointless - wouldn't it?

2. If death was the liberation from suffering there would be no Kamma, as there would be no person to experience the ripening of Kamma after death.

Kamma is not some sort of invisible cosmic judicial system that casts judgement at the time of death. Kamma is volition, and kamma stems from ignorance. The results of kamma can be experienced here-and-now. That however doesn't preclude them being experienced post-death.

If death is an unconditioned state, then it would not arise. If we accept, that all conditioned states are impermanent. Then we must accept death as a reality of life, but if death is a state, then it must arise dependant upon conditions. Therefore death must be impermanent if it has arisen due to conditions. Ie. Birth.

To accept that death is impermanent is part and parcel to accepting rebirth, is it not?

On the note of Kamma: If death was the end of suffering, there wouldn't be much point in skillful/unskillful actions because one could simply decide "Time to end all suffering" and commit suicide, thus ending Kamma for good.

If Kamma is a law, then it's illogical that the volition of killing ones self, would bring about the highest happiness (the end of suffering), but then killing other beings (An immoral deed) would bring about untold suffering in the here and now, in the future up until the time of death, but not thereafter. That is inconsistant, and a law by it's nature isn't inconsistant. So if death is the end of all suffering, then Kamma cannot exist, because it would not be a law.

3. If there is no Kamma, there is no purpose in morality; for after death there is nothing/no-one to experience the results.

Plus I'm sure there's plenty of atheists around who can tell you there's benefits to be gained from morality.

See above. The logical road of rebirth denial, if one accepts the Noble Truth of suffering, is suicide. But to say that suicide as it's volitional reaction brings about the end of suffering renders Kamma unimportant, useless, and illogical.

Before you became Buddhist, could you see a purpose in morality? I know I could.

I think most people do believe in Kamma, perhaps in a secularised sense. There is just such a complete lack of mindfulness or awareness of whats happening, that one cannot put the idea of Kamma into much practise. Pot calling the kettle black - I am aware.

I was a very immoral person for much of my life, as soon as I saw that my immorality led to unhappiness I started to seek out the path to happiness, thus I came to Buddhism. So I'm really not sure on this one.

5. Therefor we are bound to the state we are in until death, where as there is no longer a being to 'experience' phenomena, there can be no suffering.

I find this confusing.

If you accept the logical implications that there is no rebirth, then you have to accept that there is no suffering past death, if there is no suffering past death then there is no point in Buddhism. In fact there would be no point in continuing to live.

Ultimately, it is rebirth denial which is illogical, without merit. It conjours up a whole lot of "Ifs and buts" scenarios, exceptions and really a whole mass of suffering. Buddhism with rebirth however, doesn't tend to contradict itself.

I'm only going to state my view once.

It is here that I must accept the obvious hypocrisy of my words.

Sorry about all this, seems too late to shut my mouth and stay out of it.

Jack.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Blackbird,

But to state that there is no rebirth infers that there is no being to experience suffering after death, and therefor, by simply ending one's life, one would end suffering - which would make the whole business of enlightenment fairly pointless - wouldn't it?

That may be a rhetorical question to you, but it's not to me.

If death is an unconditioned state, then it would not arise. If we accept, that all conditioned states are impermanent. Then we must accept death as a reality of life, but if death is a state, then it must arise dependant upon conditions. Therefore death must be impermanent if it has arisen due to conditions. Ie. Birth.

I don't think I would classify "death" as a state at all - it's an abstract representation signifying that there is no longer conjoinment of mental and physical aggregates.... making the rest of your point moot.

To accept that death is impermanent is part and parcel to accepting rebirth, is it not?

No - I would suggest it is post-mortem continuance that is part and parcel of accepting rebirth.

On the note of Kamma: If death was the end of suffering, there wouldn't be much point in skillful/unskillful actions because one could simply decide "Time to end all suffering" and commit suicide, thus ending Kamma for good. If Kamma is a law, then it doesn't make much sense that the volition of killing ones self, would bring about the highest happiness (the end of suffering). But then to turn around and say killing other beings would bring about untold suffering in the here and now and in the future up until the time of death, but not thereafter.

It's worth pointing out that nibbana is expressed in positive terms as something that exist, and isn't just the end of suffering. A conventional atheistic style death doesn't constitute nibbana... that constitutes the complete and total snuffing out of mentation. Do not forget than nibbana can be experience here-and-now, so should not be conflated with death.

If there is no result of past actions, or present actions, then there is no such thing as Kamma. If however there is a result of past actions and present actions, then there is Kamma. To accept that there is a purpose in morality, is to accept Kamma.

I think that's too simplistic. I can think of plenty of people who believe "there is a result of past actions and present actions" that do not believe and kamma... and of those who do believe in kamma, understand it in completely different ways (e.g. Hindus)

Metta,
Retro.

[BlackBird]

Greetings Blackbird,

But to state that there is no rebirth infers that there is no being to experience suffering after death, and therefor, by simply ending one's life, one would end suffering - which would make the whole business of enlightenment fairly pointless - wouldn't it?

That may be a rhetorical question to you, but it's not to me.

I don't get it

If death is an unconditioned state, then it would not arise. If we accept, that all conditioned states are impermanent. Then we must accept death as a reality of life, but if death is a state, then it must arise dependant upon conditions. Therefore death must be impermanent if it has arisen due to conditions. Ie. Birth.

I don't think I would classify "death" as a state at all - it's an abstract representation signifying that there is no longer conjoinment of mental and physical aggregates.... making the rest of your point moot.

I really don't get it. If it's not a state, what is it?

If it's unconditioned - Then it cannot be suffering
If it's conditioned - Then it must be impermanent.

But what of a 'no state' this I cannot understand.

It's worth pointing out that nibbana is expressed in positive terms as something that exist[s], and isn't just the end of suffering.

Yeah, you're right.

A conventional atheistic style death doesn't constitute nibbana... that constitutes the complete and total snuffing out of mentation.

But then how would one interpret that in Buddhist words - I can't think of any interpretation according to the Dhamma. Hence why I think holding to an atheistic concept of death, cannot possibly be reconciled with the Dhamma.

If there is no result of past actions, or present actions, then there is no such thing as Kamma. If however there is a result of past actions and present actions, then there is Kamma. To accept that there is a purpose in morality, is to accept Kamma.

I think that's too simplistic. I can think of plenty of people who believe "there is a result of past actions and present actions" that do not believe and kamma...

Well, that's kamma by it's definition. Isn't it? Volitional actions whether past or present, give results.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Blackbird,

I really don't get it. If [death]'s not a state, what is it?

Approach the question in terms of the five aggregates, not in terms of a "person" who experiences "death" because it's the flux of the five aggregates that represent reality, not what we conventioally call a "person". Thus, what is "death" other than an abstraction? Death is a concept.

Well, that's kamma by it's definition. Isn't it?

It's an aspect of it.

Metta,
Retro.