the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SamKR
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SamKR »

Just to perpetuate the cycle of this great rebirth debate... :)
dsaly1969 wrote:Scanning through this thread and the metaphysical speculation, it seems to remind me of the parable of the poison arrow. Deal with the dukkha. :tongue:
Yes. Some people deal with the Dukkha first by accepting that there has been an enormous amount of Dukkha in countless past lives because of the fetters of craving and ignorance; then by being determined to get rid of this Dukkha by diligently working towards liberation from the fetters.
User avatar
Kamran
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Kamran »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:
Attachment to views, even right views, is a hindrance. If we have a good understanding of the Dhamma, we shouldn't get too upset when other disagree with us. If we argue too vigorously for our POV, it indicates some doubt and insecurity.

When someone disagrees too vehemently, it is best not to respond. Buddhist forums should be a place to learn, or a place to teach, not a place to argue.
:goodpost:
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Javi »

Hi guys, just turning the wheel again :tongue:

I have just read this whole great rebirth debate, all 149 pages! (over the course of several days of course, some skimming over redundant arguments) I must be nuts or a masochist :rolleye: Anyways, I see that these are issues that arise again and again and have no end to them. I realize that this is a Sisyphean attempt at bridging some of these disagreements, but here we go. I have encountered two major points of contention.

1 - What the Buddha taught - Main issue seems to be the Procrustean attempt to make the suttas fit one's preconceived notions of what they must say.
1.1 - That the Buddha of the suttas taught rebirth ONLY as 'selfing' or didn't teach it at all.
1.2 - That the Buddha of the suttas ONLY taught agnosticism or skepticism about rebirth - the 'no-view' view.

2 - The relevancy of rebirth to dhamma practice. Various claims to the effect that people who do not actively believe in some form of post mortem continuum of conscious or mental elements (or hold to annihilationism) hold wrong view and that therefore they will not get far on the path. This is said to be because:
2.1 - Not believing means their sila is compromised.
2.2 - The soteriological goal of the dhamma is negated by this belief, suicide=nibbana according this account.

(1) Is a futile attempt as anyone who reads the suttas or any of the scholarly literature will eventually see. This is not to say that the interpretation of birth as 'selfing' is always wrong, sometimes is makes sense and it can be useful for practice, but clearly the Buddha taught 'literal' rebirth, whether you accept rebirth or not is a different matter altogether that can be very problematic, especially for westerners. I realize this is of course the crux of the problem, these are ancient Indian teachings and coming to them with a western skeptical and scientific point of view can be difficult. The important thing to keep in mind here is that what the suttas do say that it is OK to remain agnostic about this (and therefore gain the four assurances of the Kalamas). This doesn't mean that the suttas don't teach rebirth as a view (yes, you can teach a particular view, even while holding that clinging to views is bad - without views you have nothing to teach).

This brings us to 2.1, which of course, can be sourced and found in the suttas, though I do not believe this is universally true, there are many atheists and non-believers who are moral and believers in a next life that are immoral. I don't need to cite examples of atheists who have been charitable, of prison statistics showing a lower percentage of atheists in comparison to the total population (a total population which general believes in punishment for misdeeds after death), as of all this is found all over the net thanks to the acolytes of Dawkins et al. What I do think we need to do is look at this statement in its proper context, in ancient north India this may have been in the case, we don't live in ancient north India.
That being said, 2.2 can be problematic without 'literal' rebirth, but I don't think that it follows that suicide is nibbana. Nibbana seems to be something more than just a negative annihilation of all sensation, and it certainly wouldn't be something that caused intense suffering to everyone around you if you achieved it. What does follow is that if rebirth is negated or reinterpreted, then nibbana must be affected by this also.

Of course, all this only leaves us where we left off, and the wheel of rebirth threads spins its course ever onwards. How to stop this samsaric cycle? I propose the following.

1 - Study the suttas and understand what they say in the context of their time. Be aware of the many interpretations. If you choose to put your own interpretation on them, that's ok, but be mindful of what you are doing and don't cling to your own exegesis.

2 - As an atheist and a skeptic myself, I understand the difficulty in accepting supernatural theories based on scriptural evidence alone. The solution is of course, what I have always thought about life after death, a healthy agnosticism. Note that it is perfectly fine to hold an agnostic position according to the suttas. This does not mean that they say that this was the Buddha's personal position however, and it certainly does not mean they don't teach rebirth. I think that once we are able to separate these two often conflated notions (what the suttas say about rebirth and what the suttas say about believing in rebirth) we can move on, and practice without clinging.

3 - This is a sort of way to make everyone happy. I propose that atheists/agnostics who find it difficult to accept literal rebirth take rebirth as a sort of moral thought experiment or ethical imperative. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant formed his famous deontological ethics on the basis of one imperative "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." You don't need to believe that universal moral laws exist, but you can be ethical by using this thought experiment every time you make an action. I propose a Buddhist kamma categorical imperative:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you would act if kamma and rebirth were literally true and your actions would have consequences over multiple lives"

You don't need to believe rebirth exists, you can remain agnostic, you can retain your naturalistic & phenomenological explanations about kamma and rebirth (maybe even combine it, symbolically, with the above), but using this you can be ACTIVELY agnostic about literal rebirth, not just passively so. I think this is something that we can all come together and accept as a common ground, a middle way for skeptics who cannot bring themselves to accept literal rebirth at the moment. The moral force and effect of the belief in rebirth is kept more or less intact - if you follow the maxim, without having to accept something on faith and scripture. At the same time, those who have a more orthodox view of rebirth can accept that this at least helps to ameliorate the problem of total agnosticm with regards to rebirth (which I personally don't see as a problem). All of this is unimportant however, if we are unable to let go of our dependency to views (ditthinissaya) - yes, even the thought experiment outlined above - which cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.
"And how is there unyoking from views? There is the case where a certain person discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is not obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is unyoking from sensuality, unyoking from becoming, & unyoking from views."
- Yoga sutta
I apologize for the long post and probably repeating some of what has been said here again and again, it was something of an intellectual exercise for myself to understand this issue better and come up for a solution. I have seen much sutta quotes about detachment from views, I have seen less actual attempt at putting this into practice, hopefully it helps some people unfetter themselves as well.
Maha-Metta for all :heart:
Javi
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
User avatar
Polar Bear
Posts: 1348
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Polar Bear »

:goodpost:
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

I like to think they are mental not actual places. But then again who know :jawdrop:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Any "debate" with Kevin Solway about rebirth will happen in linked thread only: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15146" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

dsaly1969 wrote:Scanning through this thread and the metaphysical speculation, it seems to remind me of the parable of the poison arrow. Deal with the dukkha. :tongue:
Sure, but understanding dukkha involves understanding dependent origination....and so it goes on... :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Javi »

Bluelotus, I also interpret rebirth into hell and heaven in this manner. I understand that the suttas generally put forth a view of multiple realms as actual metaphysical places, and while I try to remain agnostic about this, I really do not believe in them. I guess being born into the christian west and leaving that tradition because of similar ideas makes you averse to such things. I generally don't think about it too much, in fact, I have only really thought about this often since coming into this forum because it seems that it is something widely discussed. :shrug:

I like the zen approach to this myself, I know it's not exactly orthodox but oh well.
Nobushige, a great samurai, sought out Hakuin and asked: "Is there really a heaven and a hell?"
"Who are you?" asked Hakuin.
"I am a samurai," Nobushige replied.
"You?" Hakuin snorted. "What lord would employ you? You look like a begger!"
A furious Nobushige began to draw his sword, but then Hakuin said, "Here open the gates of hell."
Nobushige took the point, sheathed his sword, and bowed.
"Here open the gates of heaven," said Hakuin.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Javi wrote:Bluelotus, I also interpret rebirth into hell and heaven in this manner. I understand that the suttas generally put forth a view of multiple realms as actual metaphysical places, and while I try to remain agnostic about this, I really do not believe in them.
I'm agnostic myself, but reading the suttas it's pretty clear to me that the realms were intended literally rather than psychologically. If you want to develop understanding of mind states, the instructions are in the 3rd frame in the Satipatthana Sutta - no mention of realms there!
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
seeker242
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:01 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by seeker242 »

I see no reason to doubt that it should be taken literally. Some people say it should be taken literally. Some people say it should be taken metaphorically. As if the two are mutually exclusive. I think both would be the most accurate!
Javi
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:40 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Javi »

Also I think that if you think about it, you can also take it literally in a different way and it makes sense. Here's my thought, is it possible that there are actually spiritual places where one is 'reborn' into, with god like beings and hell demons? If we think about it in the way they are depicted in ancient Indian myth, it sounds a bit absurd. However, is it possible that there are other worlds with other forms of sentient life? Of course it is, that is the basis for most science fiction films. :alien: There is even a 'string theory' that posits multiple universes. Also it seems rational that these places would be subject to the same physical and natural laws, thus they would likely experience impermanence, conflict and suffering. It doesn't seem like a stretch either to imagine one of these beings becoming wise to the arising of their suffering as attachment to impermanent things and finding a way out for them - a Buddha to so speak :quote:
I think the really important point is that the universe is vast and timeless and suffering is natural part of it.

Anyways if I felt I had to take this literally, this is the direction I would go. Though I wouldn't discount actual deva realms and hell realms either I mean who knows these things. :juggling:
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā — All things decay and disappoint, it is through vigilance that you succeed — Mahāparinibbāna Sutta

Self-taught poverty is a help toward philosophy, for the things which philosophy attempts to teach by reasoning, poverty forces us to practice. — Diogenes of Sinope

I have seen all things that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a chase after wind — Ecclesiastes 1.14
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

porpoise wrote:
Javi wrote:Bluelotus, I also interpret rebirth into hell and heaven in this manner. I understand that the suttas generally put forth a view of multiple realms as actual metaphysical places, and while I try to remain agnostic about this, I really do not believe in them.
I'm agnostic myself, but reading the suttas it's pretty clear to me that the realms were intended literally rather than psychologically. If you want to develop understanding of mind states, the instructions are in the 3rd frame in the Satipatthana Sutta - no mention of realms there!
It is not pretty clear to me from suttas. Only some commentaries make it sound pretty clear. I feel suttas can be interpreted in both ways. Maybe that was the point. Maybe the Buddha was just trying to teach morality rather than life-after-death worlds when he taught these lessons so whatever way you interpret these suttas the central message -morality- is pretty importantly felt.
User avatar
Moth
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Moth »

Listening to the stories of supposed arahant monks of the Thai Forest Tradition, they speak of their experiences with ghosts and devas in a rather manner-of-fact way. I see no reason why there would NOT be imperceptible beings such as ghosts and devas, what a sad existence this would be if human beings were the pinnacle form of it.
May you be happy. May you be a peace. May you be free from suffering.
http://www.everythingspirals.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Spiny Norman »

BlueLotus wrote:
porpoise wrote:
Javi wrote:Bluelotus, I also interpret rebirth into hell and heaven in this manner. I understand that the suttas generally put forth a view of multiple realms as actual metaphysical places, and while I try to remain agnostic about this, I really do not believe in them.
I'm agnostic myself, but reading the suttas it's pretty clear to me that the realms were intended literally rather than psychologically. If you want to develop understanding of mind states, the instructions are in the 3rd frame in the Satipatthana Sutta - no mention of realms there!
It is not pretty clear to me from suttas. Only some commentaries make it sound pretty clear. I feel suttas can be interpreted in both ways. Maybe that was the point. Maybe the Buddha was just trying to teach morality rather than life-after-death worlds when he taught these lessons so whatever way you interpret these suttas the central message -morality- is pretty importantly felt.
In the suttas the realms are generally discussed in terms of beings being reborn in different destinations according to their actions, ie kamma - so I'd agree that they can be seen as a morality teaching.
However I haven't seen any evidence in the suttas of the realms being portrayed as psychological states - if you can come up with any examples I'd be interested to see them.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Aloka »

In his book "Don't Take your life Personally" Ajahn Sumedho discusses the 6 realms on page 334...

Excerpt :
“ These are categories we can all relate to. We all have these six realms within ourselves, so it isn’t a matter of trying to decide if there is a Brahma-realm somewhere in the sky. –- ‘Can you get to it by rocket ship or shuttle? Should the Americans spend a lot of money trying to discover where the Brahma-world is ?’ These are really about human conscious experience. If you look at these six realms of existence, I am sure each of you will be able to relate them to experiences you have already had. “

http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=22287
_/\_
Post Reply