You put down people who are neutral or don't believe in rebirth - but apart from the suttas, how are you going to prove it - blind faith?tiltbillings wrote:
For the Buddha rebirth was not a view.
.
You put down people who are neutral or don't believe in rebirth - but apart from the suttas, how are you going to prove it - blind faith?tiltbillings wrote:
For the Buddha rebirth was not a view.
"I dont like the sound of ..." isnt an argumentI know what I have done, since I am the one doing it.
Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything. No problem there, but wrongly mistaking wrongly reflecting on rebirth as the only way rebirth must be understood in the Pali suttas is clearly wrongly reflecting, which is the error of the anti-rebirthers.clw_uk wrote:What??? The Buddha most certainly held a view, Right View, and the practice for us is to develop the same Right View, not to abandon all views.
The Buddha taught a view that leads out of all views. The Buddha-way is to abandon everything
Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything. No problem there, but wrongly mistaking wrongly reflecting on rebirth as the only way rebirth must be understood in the Pali suttas is clearly wrongly reflecting, which is the error of the anti-rebirthers.
I don't give a rat's patooty is you believe in rebirth or not, nor - for me - is this an issue as to whether or not rebirth is a fact. What is a fact - and what I am arguing here - is that the Buddha taught literal rebirth and I see no validity in trying to deny that.Aloka wrote:You put down people who are neutral or don't believe in rebirth - but apart from the suttas, how are you going to prove it - blind faith?tiltbillings wrote:
For the Buddha rebirth was not a view.
Tex wrote:What??? The Buddha most certainly held a view, Right View, and the practice for us is to develop the same Right View, not to abandon all views.clw_uk wrote:tiltbillings wrote: Ive noticed that in all these posts you havent addressed any of the quotes I have posted that quite clearly show that
A) Views arise via clinging
B) The Buddha held no views
C) The practice is to abandon all views
When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless.This is the sort of view I have,' his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." (Similarly for the other positions.)
When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have."
"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."
"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress."
"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."
I don't give a rat's patooty is you believe in rebirth or not, nor - for me - is this an issue as to whether or not rebirth is a fact. What is a fact - and what I am arguing here - is that the Buddha taught literal rebirth and I see no validity in trying to deny that.
Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything.clw_uk wrote:Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything. No problem there, but wrongly mistaking wrongly reflecting on rebirth as the only way rebirth must be understood in the Pali suttas is clearly wrongly reflecting, which is the error of the anti-rebirthers.
I afraid your going to have to decode a little
tiltbillings wrote:Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything.clw_uk wrote:Okay, but let us not forget that the Buddha taught that rebirth is what will happen if we do not let go, via insight, of everything. No problem there, but wrongly mistaking wrongly reflecting on rebirth as the only way rebirth must be understood in the Pali suttas is clearly wrongly reflecting, which is the error of the anti-rebirthers.
I afraid your going to have to decode a little
No problem there, but wrongly mistaking wrongly reflecting on rebirth as the only way "literal" rebirth must be understood in the Pali suttas is clearly wrongly reflecting, which is the error of the anti-rebirthers.
In other words, anti-rebirthers are making my point about corrupting the Buddha's teachings by wrongly grasping the the "wrongly reflecting" text they like so much to quote.
I am not saying they should be abandoned. I am say that they do not constitute the only way every mention of rebirth must be understood, which something you claim, but have not even come near to proving.clw_uk wrote:I don't give a rat's patooty is you believe in rebirth or not, nor - for me - is this an issue as to whether or not rebirth is a fact. What is a fact - and what I am arguing here - is that the Buddha taught literal rebirth and I see no validity in trying to deny that.
Which you have yet to prove in light of the various suttas that teach that view points, view stances and all "I" making should be abandoned as they arise from clinging
clw_uk wrote:
This is teaching that
A) Views arise because of clinging
B) The Buddhaway understands this and finds release via non-clinging
C) Non-adherence to views
I am not saying they should be abandoned. I am say that they do not constitute the only way every mention of rebirth must be understood, which something you claim, but have not even come near to proving.
clw_uk wrote:teachings by wrongly grasping the the "wrongly reflecting" text they like so much to quote.
Put that into is textual context and I'll happily deal with it.clw_uk wrote:I am not saying they should be abandoned. I am say that they do not constitute the only way every mention of rebirth must be understood, which something you claim, but have not even come near to proving.
So you agree that the view of "Rebirth as a deva" should be abandoned? i.e. have no view of it?
My own position is neutral - and I don't give a rats patooty in general (whatever a patooty is) ...and luckily there are living Theravada teachers who say that to practice Dhamma it doesn't matter if one believes in rebirth or not.tiltbillings wrote:I don't give a rat's patooty is you believe in rebirth or not, nor - for me - is this an issue as to whether or not rebirth is a fact. What is a fact - and what I am arguing here - is that the Buddha taught literal rebirth and I see no validity in trying to deny that.Aloka wrote:You put down people who are neutral or don't believe in rebirth - but apart from the suttas, how are you going to prove it - blind faith?tiltbillings wrote:
For the Buddha rebirth was not a view.