the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Aloka wrote: . . .
However one takes Buddhadasa, he is one commentator, taking something of an idiosyncratic view and interpretation of the Buddha and hardly the final word on the subject. Basically, however, the point still holds that to try to read the Buddha's statements about rebirth strictly in figurative terms is to render the Buddha as being an inept, misleading teacher.
>> 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
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Tiltbillings wrote:
Basically, however, the point still holds that to try to read the Buddha's statements about rebirth strictly in figurative terms is to render the Buddha as being an inept, misleading teacher.
That's a very extreme view, Tilt. If, instead of having blind faith, people who are Buddhists attempt to further investigate the teachings, that is clearly not their intention.

Time to leave the Internet now and attend to offline life.

With metta,

Aloka
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

I quoted the part relevant to showing that Ajahn Sumedho doesn't deny rebirth. You've already explained how he doesn't see it as particularly relevant to everyday practice

Mike, please show where anyone in this thread has denied rebirth


What is being argued is that

A) Its not part of the Buddhas own teachings

and

B) Its comes from clinging and hence leads to dukkha (and so ties in with point A)



This is a quite repetitive straw man argument that keeps coming up in these debates
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Tilt
You keep saying stuff like that but for the Buddha, rebirth was not a view. It is how the world functions, which makes all the "view" quotes beside the point.
The rebirth of "I" due to clinging was a known process to him yes. As was the process by which views, such as rebirth as a deva, arise. This is via clinging


The Buddhas own Noble Right View is non-clinging. It then leads one to non adherence to views, i.e. there is no view of

Rebirth after death as a cow

No rebirth ...

Nothing after death

Is something after death

Soul, Atman/Brahman, jivas, etc etc


The Buddha way leads out of the net of views. Out of being caught up in them and trying to rise out of one to fall into another


We have seen this happen here. "If there is no rebirth then there is nothing and ......"
You are simply making the point that even the clearest teachings can be badly grasped.
Yes they can

Here is a perfect example of a text that shows that if the anti-rebirthist claim is correct, then the Buddha was a clumsy, inept teacher. Thanks for quoting it. As for what it means, I would take it at face value.
Only because it doesnt fall in line with what you expect the Buddha-way to be about

On a side note we also know that many of the teachings were condensed, to make it easier for recitation. This would mean many of the in depth explanations and meanings would be left out
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex
That has nothing to do with speculative views. It is what follows from the assumption of 1 life only.
Speculative view arising from grasping

If parinibbana is guaranteed, then why practice for it?

All the views you are putting forward are arising from clinging to the aggregates, or one amoung them. You have the view of rebirth as a frog and your considering what will happen if there isnt. Your holding one view and your thinking about jumping into another view.

The net of views
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

5heaps
completely ridiculous
.

Not ridiculous. The idea of "rebirth-linking consciousness" to which your refering to did come later. Like I said, I may be wrong on exactly who, but If my memory serves me well I think it was Vasubandhu

im getting quite tired of inept people dissing the historical giants of buddhism. get some class.
Why are you on the defensive? Also who is "dissing" the historical giants of buddhism?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

mikenz66 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Oh, dear. Ven Sumedho takes rebirth literally and what can we say about Buddhadasa's comments?
The funny thing is that I bought Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree back in 2007 when I was in Hong Kong and read it without realising that he was considered to be a denier of literal rebirth. Since a large chunk of that book (actually, a collection of talks) is devoted to advice on how to attain nibbana at the instant of death (not to have a good life before death), the whole book would seem to be a little pointless if nothing persisted after death.

:anjali:
Mike

Buddhadasa didnt deny rebirth as a deva view (from what I have read and from what I have heard). He simply said that it was not part of the Buddhas own teachings. Also on a side note you have given a straw man again. There is a different between not having a view and denial


Not holding a view of rebirth isnt the same as saying there is no rebirth


Now as to the time of death, why wouldnt you want to help someone die without dukkha?


Also the idea that Ajahn Buddhadasa was concerned with such speculative views is wrong, as the above quotes my aloka clearly show

Heartwood From The Bodhi Tree opens as follows:

Take the question of whether or not there is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to indis criminately believe the answer he's given, because the one who answers is not going to be able to produce any proofs, he's just going to speak according to his memory and feeling. The listener can't see for himself and so has to blindly believe "the other's words. Little by little the matter strays from Dhamma until it's something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of Dukkha.



Also:


Concerning death, there's no need to speak about what happens after the people language version. Why talk about what happens once we're in the coffin? Instead, please deal with this most urgent issue of ego-birth, that is, don't get born and there will be no suffering. Without the feeling of being born, there is no person anymore and all the problems disappear with it. That is all. When there isn't this continual being born, there is no longer a "somebody" to have problems. It's as simple as that.

NO RELIGION by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:My point was simply that Ajahns Buddhadasa and Sumedho seem, from their writings, to acknowledge that the Buddha taught some sort of post-mortem rebirth.
That's my understanding - it isn't that they are denying rebirth, rather that their focus is on practice in the here and now.
Perhaps it's ultimately about skillful means - for some a belief in rebirth will support their practice, for others it may be a distraction.

Spiny


Which was the Buddhas way of teaching. Rebirth as a deva view does have its uses to some, such as promoting morality. However it was a tainted view and was not part of his own noble teachings


The Buddha-way means having no views, since they arise via clinging. The Buddha taught noble right view which leads out of all this and, in the end, even this is let go of
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Aloka wrote:Tiltbillings wrote:
Basically, however, the point still holds that to try to read the Buddha's statements about rebirth strictly in figurative terms is to render the Buddha as being an inept, misleading teacher.
That's a very extreme view, Tilt.
Calling it extreme does not make it so. I hve no problem with people reading the texts figuratively where it seems warranted, but what is extreme is to insist that that is the only way they must be read, which would then render the Buddha a clumsy, inept and misleading teacher.
If, instead of having blind faith, people who are Buddhists attempt to further investigate the teachings, that is clearly not their intention.
Blind faith? On my part, not at all. I have looked carefully at the "arguments" presented aby the anti-rebirthers. While I find that in some cases some texts can be read variously, the exteme reading of the texts that insists that the Buddha did not teach literal rebirth is less than convincing.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

clw_uk wrote:]



Which was the Buddhas way of teaching. Rebirth as a deva view does have its uses to some, such as promoting morality. However it was a tainted view and was not part of his own noble teachings
And we have seen very recently two texts quoted the tie rebirth to the Four Noble Truths.

The Buddha-way means having no views,
And this statement is a view.
since they arise via clinging. The Buddha taught noble right view which leads out of all this and, in the end, even this is let go of
Of course and there is no reason you have presented that shows rebirth is not part of the Right View.
>> 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
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

clw_uk wrote:Tilt
You keep saying stuff like that but for the Buddha, rebirth was not a view. It is how the world functions, which makes all the "view" quotes beside the point.
The rebirth of "I" due to clinging was a known process to him yes. As was the process by which views, such as rebirth as a deva, arise. This is via clinging
If wanting rebirth as a deva is one's goal, then that is clinging, but that does not mean that rebirth is not what the Buddha taught as the way the world works.
The Buddha way leads out of the net of views. Out of being caught up in them and trying to rise out of one to fall into another
But for the Buddha rebirth was not a view.
We have seen this happen here. "If there is no rebirth then there is nothing and ......"
Now, you have very recently above said there is no rebirth, so what happens after death of the body to the conditioned/conditioning process? The Buddha never addressed that? Is that what you are saying?
I wrote:You are simply making the point that even the clearest teachings can be badly grasped.
Yes they can
And you continually try to take the clearest teaching fit into one point of view.
Here is a perfect example of a text that shows that if the anti-rebirthist claim is correct, then the Buddha was a clumsy, inept teacher. Thanks for quoting it. As for what it means, I would take it at face value.
Only because it doesnt fall in line with what you expect the Buddha-way to be about
Expect? Hardly. It is a result of a very long, careful study of the texts. I see no reason to try to cram them all into one box when various readings of some texts are are quite reasonable, which is to say that some texts can carry multiple meanings.
On a side note we also know that many of the teachings were condensed, to make it easier for recitation. This would mean many of the in depth explanations and meanings would be left out
And you are using this to make what point?
>> 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
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Tilt
Craig - The Buddha-way means having no views,

Tilt -And this statement is a view.
"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Tiltbillings wrote:
Blind faith? On my part, not at all. I have looked carefully at the "arguments" presented aby the anti-rebirthers. While I find that in some cases some texts can be read variously, the exteme reading of the texts that insists that the Buddha did not teach literal rebirth is less than convincing.
I have never stated that the Buddha didn't teach about rebirth and I don't recall anyone else doing that either. So...who are these people? Please give names so that I can look out for them ! :coffee:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

If wanting rebirth as a deva is one's goal, then that is clinging, but that does not mean that rebirth is not what the Buddha taught as the way the world works.
The Buddha taught that clinging gives birth to "I" and the myriad of specualtive views that arise in the world. Rebirth view arises via ignorant based contact, which leads to clinging, regardless of if you want it or not. Having a view of rebirth but not wanting that rebirth still means the view arises via clinging. The fact that it arises via clinging is also why its called a tainted right view. Same with annihilationism, it arises via clinging.


The Buddha-way is not concerned with speculative metaphysics but with four simple points

Dukkha
Cause
Cessation
Path

The rest is outside Buddhism

Craig -The Buddha way leads out of the net of views. Out of being caught up in them and trying to rise out of one to fall into another

tilt - But for the Buddha rebirth was not a view.
No, he didnt have the view of "rebirth as a ...." since he abandoned the means for which it arises, namely clinging to the aggregates.

Craig - We have seen this happen here. "If there is no rebirth then there is nothing and ......"

Tilt - Now, you have very recently above said there is no rebirth, so what happens after death of the body to the conditioned/conditioning process? The Buddha never addressed that? Is that what you are saying?

Where have I said that?

Craig - On a side note we also know that many of the teachings were condensed, to make it easier for recitation. This would mean many of the in depth explanations and meanings would be left out

Titl - And you are using this to make what point?
You said that what I am claiming would make the Buddha a clumsy teacher. I am saying that this was his meaning and the in depth meaning is to be found. Reading it at a basic level, such as looking at birth meaning birth into another world, is to miss the deeper meaning that was lost as a result of making the teachings as simple as they could possible be, without all the in depth detail.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Aloka,
Aloka wrote: I have read quite a lot of Buddhadasa so I feel able to comment.

Death is an occassion where people ordinarily suffer. In fact, death is ordinarily where human beings suffer the most. It is really vital that human beings have Nibbana at death (as well as at other times). Buddhadasa gave Nibbana at death the highest urgency. I think he was unconcerned with what occurs after death.

Your statement "the whole book would seem to be a little pointless if nothing persisted after death", with respect, Mike, appears to me to be an inaccurate one.
That's a good point, but I was explaining how I read it. If he was denying any possible kind of rebirth why didn't he just say:
"Look, face it folks, death is the end of everything, let's prepare for it properly so you don't have to suffer through it."?

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply