Depending on if your happiness now is based on living a solid (but not perfect) Sila life, or one based on worldly cravings mainly, that nexus or web of thoughts, words & deeds will definitely change your next life.
I am not sure a person who based on worldly craving will enjoy a happy life.one based on worldly cravings mainly, that nexus or web of thoughts,
The mind state of an arhat is free from loba , dosa , moha is of tranquility and equanimity ( with upekka ). As they take up ashta loka darma, labo profit, alobo loss, ayaso defamation, yasoca fame, ninda blames, prasansa praise , sukanca happiness , dukan grief eqally without attachment ( upadana ) they arhats do not suffer from pain or greef in the mind.
Says who? Is that person pointing a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger if you don't believe the above on faith? In other words, what I'm getting at is that the broader context within which you're asking your questions appears to be poorly explored, and almost like an externally imposed compulsion.
You could more charitably read this as "If we believe this, then we believe it on faith".binocular wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:40 amSays who? Is that person pointing a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger if you don't believe the above on faith? In other words, what I'm getting at is that the broader context within which you're asking your questions appears to be poorly explored, and almost like an externally imposed compulsion.
In any case, even with these examples, there may still be some doubt on the matter, so it might be helpful to conclude with a story:SarathW wrote: ↑Sun Mar 04, 2018 1:17 am If I am reborn, it is not me. So why I care about the rebirth?
If I take the one life model at least I know that if I live tomorrow it is better to save for tomorrow.
I know I have this body tomorrow and I can give it food and shelter.
If I die and reborn there is know that assurance.
If I am reborn it is a different aggregate altogether.
For instance how I was I in last birth is no bearing on me.
In Sri Lanka sometimes we have to wait for about ten years to get fruits from certain plants.
But we plant them for the future generation.
That makes sense for me.
What really matters is to be happy in this life.
It's not about charitable interpretations. It's about the consequences of what Glenn Wallis and the speculative non-Buddhists call "the buddhistic decision". Namely, many people, when they convert to Buddhism, make "the buddhistic decision", a kind of leap to faith, a leap with which they take for granted that what Buddhism teaches is true. And it is only afterwards that they try to make sense of this decision, hence so much focus on the details, so many questions about doctrine, trying to understand what it actually is that one has decided for, but never questioning the decision itself. That's how there are so many self-proclaimed Buddhists who have huge problems with some of the core doctrines of Buddhism. Hence my earlier reference to the broader context within which one is asking one's questions, and noting how one's efforts can have the nature of an externally imposed compulsion.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:10 pmYou could more charitably read this as "If we believe this, then we believe it on faith".binocular wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:40 amSays who? Is that person pointing a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger if you don't believe the above on faith? In other words, what I'm getting at is that the broader context within which you're asking your questions appears to be poorly explored, and almost like an externally imposed compulsion.
In Mahasaccaka sutta MN35 Lord budda explains that when his mind is unblemished and his mind clear he remembered his past lives and explains it further. Any other person can develop pupbenivasanussati gnana with proper meditation which enables one to develop the mindset to remember the past. No one can doubt this fact when compared to the truths stated by lord budda, and belief in budda need not be faith, but an actual study.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 12:10 pmYou could more charitably read this as "If we believe this, then we believe it on faith".binocular wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:40 amSays who? Is that person pointing a gun to your head threatening to pull the trigger if you don't believe the above on faith? In other words, what I'm getting at is that the broader context within which you're asking your questions appears to be poorly explored, and almost like an externally imposed compulsion.
It's not clear why you're making this about the charitableness of interpretation.
Had you thought that Sarath meant what I thought he meant, you could have saved yourself the bother of thinking that his faith presented him with any problems.
But it is presenting him problems. Hence all the threads and questions and not moving from the spot for years.
OK, you help him, and I'll watch. I'm assuming that Sarath is Sri Lankan Buddhist by birth, so we'll see how well he takes to "speculative non-Buddhism"...
Uh. I'm not presuming to be able to help. I was exploring what would happen if I point a person to the context of their question.
Speculative non-Buddhism is nowhere near as fancy as some think it is.I'm assuming that Sarath is Sri Lankan Buddhist by birth, so we'll see how well he takes to "speculative non-Buddhism"...
