the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

PeterB wrote:So Pannapetar how have you arrived at your very clear view of Rebirth ? Is it as a direct seeing resulting from meditation practice or is it a shared belief ?
I am not Pannapetar but this is my answer.

I believe in Buddha. Some of his things I know and see. There is a lot of validity in other things. I extrapolate this to include belief in literal rebirth, even though I don't have direct experience of it yet. I believe that Buddha has more wisdom than I or some rebirth sceptics, and so I side with Him.

I also apply pascal's wager to the issue of rebirth.


With metta,

Alex
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by PeterB »

Thanks for your views Alex..
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

Bubbabuddhist wrote:...the tendency of some people defining a person's qualifications for being a card-carrying Buddhist by a specific criterion.
Then let's hand out multiple choice forms. Anyone with an A score will be granted saffron icons. F scores will get a 300-pages Bikkhu Bodhi reading assignment. :jumping: :rofl:

In fact, I am not concerned at all about labels and frankly I am not comfortable to to associate myself with any -ism, including Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist. I am a student of the Buddha.

However, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist and you are not really sure about rebirth, then you are a bit like a Marxist who is not really sure about communism.

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar,
Pannapetar wrote:However, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist and you are not really sure about rebirth, then you are a bit like a Marxist who is not really sure about communism.
What do you consider to be the fundamental problem which Buddhism addresses and attempts to solve - dukkha or rebirth?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

retrofuturist wrote:What do you consider to be the fundamental problem which Buddhism addresses and attempts to solve - dukkha or rebirth?
Dukkha of course. However, dukkha would not really constitute a (soteriological) problem if rebirth did not occur.

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar,
Pannapetar wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:What do you consider to be the fundamental problem which Buddhism addresses and attempts to solve - dukkha or rebirth?
Dukkha of course. However, dukkha would not really constitute a (soteriological) problem if rebirth did not occur.
Is it potential future suffering that is "the problem" or the direct experience of suffering "in the present moment" (which is of course, the only moment that can ever be directly known)?

By conceptually extrapolating beyond the present you may perhaps be giving yourself more incentive and reason to practice, but are you actually getting any closer to solving the problem of dukka, or expanding the extent of direct knowledge and insight you have with regards to suffering?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

retrofuturist wrote:Is it potential future suffering that is "the problem" or the direct experience of suffering "in the present moment" (which is of course, the only moment that can ever be directly known)?
That's not the point. The point is that dukkha cannot be sustained without rebirth. Rebirth and dukkha are interdependent. Without rebirth no dukkha. This can be said for the present moment of experience as well as for any conceptualised spacetime entity. On personal level this would imply, that you are done with suffering when you die, which is what many people believe.

Hence, you can't have dukkha without rebirth in the same way you can't have marxism without communism.

Cheers, Thomas
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar,
Pannapetar wrote:No, that's not the point.
Really? In the following sutta we are told...

AN 6.47: Sanditthika Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves
The picture of the Dhamma you paint is none of those things. Yours is not focused on the here-and-now, it is certainly not timeless, it invites speculation (and thus, is not pertinent) and cannot be realized by the wise, unless they've developed the ability to see past or future lives.

In short... you've created a virtually unverifiable belief system, despite the Buddha's warnings against it....

MN 2: Sabbasava Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing? 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 — does not discern what ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas unfit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does not attend to. Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.


"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.
Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

Cheers Retro,
The picture of the Dhamma you paint is none of those things. Yours is not focused on the here-and-now, it is certainly not timeless, it invites speculation (and thus, is not pertinent) and cannot be realized by the wise, unless they've developed the ability to see past or future lives.
Hmm. Interesting conclusion. I wish I could understand it.
retrofuturist wrote:Really? In the following sutta we are told...
And the point is?

Greetings, Thomas
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar,
Pannapetar wrote:And the point is?
... that your "without rebirth no dukkha" claim is speculative and that (unless there's something you haven't told us) you do not directly know this as fact. It's a funny thing to base the centre of your entire religious view around, if you were to ask me, but theists centre their beliefs around unverified speculation all the time, so hey, what do I know? :shrug:

If somehow it was proven that rebirth is false, would there still be a role for the Dhamma? By your logic, no - by my logic, yes. In my opinion, the Dhamma is good for as many "present moments" come to be - it is timeless.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

retrofuturist wrote:... that your "without rebirth no dukkha" claim is speculative
What is speculative about it? I assume that you are familiar with the dependent origination, but perhaps you have a different way of looking at it. Could you be more specific?
retrofuturist wrote:If somehow it was proven that rebirth is false, would there still be a role for the Dhamma?
Taking away rebirth would nullify patticasamupppada. You can probably imagine the consequences for the dhamma. It would still be useful, but it would lack ontological support.
retrofuturist wrote:In my opinion, the Dhamma is good for as many "present moments" come to be - it is timeless.
Have I contradicted that?

Cheers, Thomas
Shonin
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:11 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Shonin »

Pannapetar wrote: The point is that dukkha cannot be sustained without rebirth. Rebirth and dukkha are interdependent. Without rebirth no dukkha. This can be said for the present moment of experience as well as for any conceptualised spacetime entity. On personal level this would imply, that you are done with suffering when you die, which is what many people believe.

Hence, you can't have dukkha without rebirth in the same way you can't have marxism without communism.
That doesn't follow. It may be true that some people believe 'I will stop suffering' when they die. However, this view is based on a projection of self-view beyond death to a state of hypothetical non-suffering. I would argue that this view was wrong. So, this view is certainly not the only alternative to rebirth. Hence, Buddhism is not dependent on rebirth in the way you argue.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Pannapetar,
Pannapetar wrote:Taking away rebirth would nullify patticasamupppada.
No. There are so many problems with that, I barely know where to begin. In short, let's just say, there is (dependently originated) suffering in this lifetime and that is not the slightest bit proof for a doctrine of future lives.
Pannapetar wrote:You can probably imagine the consequences for the dhamma. It would still be useful, but it would lack ontological support.
Ontology? Who needs that? No, seriously. (Like Nathan did before me...I find your empiricism irrelevant and disinteresting... and will leave you to it.
Pannapetar wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:In my opinion, the Dhamma is good for as many "present moments" come to be - it is timeless.
Have I contradicted that?
Yes, and your "taking away rebirth would nullify patticasamupppada" comment seals it.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by PeterB »

Pannapetar wrote:
Bubbabuddhist wrote:...the tendency of some people defining a person's qualifications for being a card-carrying Buddhist by a specific criterion.
Then let's hand out multiple choice forms. Anyone with an A score will be granted saffron icons. F scores will get a 300-pages Bikkhu Bodhi reading assignment. :jumping: :rofl:

In fact, I am not concerned at all about labels and frankly I am not comfortable to to associate myself with any -ism, including Buddhism. I am not a Buddhist. I am a student of the Buddha.

However, if you wish to call yourself a Buddhist and you are not really sure about rebirth, then you are a bit like a Marxist who is not really sure about communism.

Cheers, Thomas
Is your real name ........Malcom ? :smile:
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

PeterB wrote:
Is your real name ........Malcom ? :smile:

Naughty Peter ! :rofl:
Post Reply