Ven. Buddhadasa - rejection of the re-birth doctrine?

[SarathW]

Ven. Buddhadasa - rejection of the re-birth doctrine?

I haven't read any of the teching by Ven. Buddhadasa. I just happen to read the following.

"Buddhadasa rejected the traditional rebirth and karma doctrine, since he thought it to be incompatible with sunyata, and not conductive to the extinction of dukkha."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhadasa

Perhaps, some of you may have a better understanding of Ven. Buddadasa' s teaching.
Please share your wisdom here.

[Spiny Norman]

Ven. Buddhadasa - rejection of the re-birth doctrine?

It does seem that Buddhadasa rejected the traditional view of rebirth, judging by the comments in this talk on Two Kinds of Language:

"In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day. In this sense, the ordinary person is born very often, time and time again; a more developed person is born less frequently; a person well advanced in practice (ariyan, noble one) is born less frequently still, and ultimately ceases being born altogether. Each arising in the mind of "I" in one form or another is called a "birth". Thus, birth can take place many times over in a single day. As soon as one starts thinking like an animal, one is born as an animal in that same moment. To think like a human being is to be born a human being. To think like a celestial being is to be born a celestial being. Life, the individual, pleasure and pain, and the rest-all these were identified by the Buddha as simply momentary states of consciousness. So the word "birth" means in Dhamma language the arising of the idea of "I" or "me," and not, as in everyday language, physical birth from the mother's womb."

https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books5/Bhik ... nguage.htm

[DooDoot]

Buddhadasa rejected the traditional rebirth and karma doctrine...

What does the word "traditional" mean?

Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

It does seem that Buddhadasa rejected the traditional view of rebirth, judging by the comments in this talk on Two Kinds of Language:

"In Dhamma language, the word "birth" refers to the birth of the idea "I" or "ego" that arises in the mind throughout each day....

Sure. But did this Buddhadasa reject the suttas? For example:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones , is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes [/color]form... feeling... perception... fabrication... consciousness... to be a self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Perhaps, some of you may have a better understanding of Ven. Buddadasa' s teaching. Please share your wisdom here.

Sure. Just read the books if interested, such as Two Kinds of Language & Anatta & Rebirth (although generally little support from suttas will be found in these books).

[Zom]

No, he did not reject rebirth (I remember he said somewhere that hell and heavens are real places). However, he was a strong advocate of "in-this-very-life teaching", so he came up with different strange ideas (interpretations). In some way he was also an inclusivist and considered all religions "correct" -) (but this is because he didn't know much about them). This was also a root of his ideas.

[budo]

If it were the case that rebirth doesn't exist, then why do the commentaries (J.v.125ff) say Mahamogallana was brutally murdered because he murdered his own parents in a past life. Wouldn't B. Buhaddasa then be anti-dhammapada and anti-commentaries?

The Buddha explained, 'Bhikkhus! Considering that Moggallana had lived a noble life in this existence, he should not have met with such a death. But in one of his past existences, he had done a great wrong to his own parents, who were both blind. In the beginning, he was a very dutiful son, but after his marriage, his wife poisoned his mind and suggested that he should get rid of his parents. He took his blind parents in a cart into a forest, and there he killed them by beating them and making them believe that it was some thieves who were beating them. For that evil deed he suffered for a long time; and in this existence, his last birth, he has died at the hands of assassins. Indeed, by doing wrong to those who should not be wronged, one is sure to suffer more for it.'

- (Dhp. Vv. 137-140) and Dha 112

[santa100]

Perhaps, some of you may have a better understanding of Ven. Buddadasa' s teaching.

Don't worry about getting a better understanding of Ven. Buddhadasa's teaching. Worry more about getting a better understanding of the Buddha's teaching.

[SarathW]

If it were the case that rebirth doesn't exist, then why do the commentaries (J.v.125ff) say Mahamogallana was brutally murdered because he murdered his own parents in a past life. Wouldn't B. Buhaddasa then be anti-dhammapada and anti-commentaries?

The Buddha explained, 'Bhikkhus! Considering that Moggallana had lived a noble life in this existence, he should not have met with such a death. But in one of his past existences, he had done a great wrong to his own parents, who were both blind. In the beginning, he was a very dutiful son, but after his marriage, his wife poisoned his mind and suggested that he should get rid of his parents. He took his blind parents in a cart into a forest, and there he killed them by beating them and making them believe that it was some thieves who were beating them. For that evil deed he suffered for a long time; and in this existence, his last birth, he has died at the hands of assassins. Indeed, by doing wrong to those who should not be wronged, one is sure to suffer more for it.'

- (Dhp. Vv. 137-140) and Dha 112

Thieves did not kill the person who murdered his mother.
They kill an Arahant and committed a heinous crime.
If thieves killed the murderer they would not have to face the same fate.