Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.Alex123 wrote:But if he lacks faith, then why ordain?
the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Re: the great rebirth debate
I am just being realistic. It is normal nature to avoid pain and go for pleasure. Like it or not, it is how most beings function unless they are Awakened.daverupa wrote:Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.Alex123 wrote:But if he lacks faith, then why ordain?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27857
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
Greetings Dave,
Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -
Retro.
retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.
This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.
Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote: adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.
Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -
Metta,http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nondenominational wrote: adj.
Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.
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."
Re: the great rebirth debate
You didn't answer my question, Alex.Alex123 wrote:Nowheat,
If Dhamma practice causes more suffering in the present, the why would follow it if one believed in one-life-only? Why cause oneself more suffering for the goal that would be reached even without it?nowheat wrote:This is what the Buddha taught: whether there is or is not rebirth, the dhamma is the best path. Do you actually disagree with the Buddha on that point?
This sounds to me as though you are saying the Buddha teaches that we should put ourselves first. Is that right?Alex123 wrote:If your head is on fire, why be concerned about putting out the fire? It hurts.nowheat wrote: Why would the Buddha teach that I should be more concerned with *my* next life than the lives of all sentient beings?
As for helping others: You can't really help others until you can help yourself first.
Re: the great rebirth debate
retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.
daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.
I put the Buddha's dhamma first in this way: he tells us not to spend time on speculative views; I don't. This is completely compatible with the concept of being secular because the secular is firmly grounded in what is visible here and now, aka "the worldly".retrofuturist wrote: This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote: adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
If one sees Buddhism as having to do with "faith" (i.e. "faith in things not in evidence" e.g "rebirth") then Buddhism is a religion. But if one sees the Buddha as saying that that sort of faith is ill-advised, then perhaps it is not a religion. Once again, this makes Buddhism when practiced as being non-speculative, secular.retrofuturist wrote: Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron.
Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -
You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27857
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
Greetings nowheat,
When I read "worldly" in the definition, I connect it to "worldly" goals. For example, meditating or cultivating mindfulness with the end goal to reduce anger or to learn to chillax...
What you described, however, I would describe as Agnostic Buddhism. For the purposes of this discussion feel free to replace reference to "deities" with "rebirth".
Metta,
Retro.
Well... I can see that you've defined it that way.nowheat wrote:You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?
When I read "worldly" in the definition, I connect it to "worldly" goals. For example, meditating or cultivating mindfulness with the end goal to reduce anger or to learn to chillax...
What you described, however, I would describe as Agnostic Buddhism. For the purposes of this discussion feel free to replace reference to "deities" with "rebirth".
Either way, in the Dhamma, faith and wisdom should be in balance.Wikipedia wrote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.
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."
Re: the great rebirth debate
I think the argument may have been that with personality and memory gone, rebirth is a moot point. It's hard to identify any meaningful distinction between a) a cockroach and b) a cockroach that happens to have been Lazy Eye in a past life. One could say that the cockroach will inherit Lazy Eye's kamma -- maybe get stepped on or sprayed with bug killer -- but since the roach won't be able to make the connection, the connection might as well not exist.Alex123 wrote: This is the same kind of objection that I've seen Mahayanist-turned-Catholic use. He claimed that rebirth is like death because when a person is reborn as, lets say, a coachroach, then one isn't the same person because all the past memories and personality is gone. And since this person clings to the idea of a Self that has such and such memories and personality, he couldn't accept that so he rejected rebirth.
That's why the Mahayanist-turned-Catholic, Paul Williams, rejected Buddhism. From his point of view, it practically amounted to annihilationism.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Sure, and no derision was intended or stated. Refuge involves more than going for refuge in part of a buddha and a little bit of dhamma, regardless of one's abilities, living situation, and practice commitments. In for a penny, in for a pound.retrofuturist wrote:It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary, but for many, they are able to respect Buddhism, apply what parts of the Dhamma don’t conflict with their other “isms” and gain certain benefit from that. I do not think that should be derided – just called out for what it is. I also think it is good to be tolerant of people not placing Buddhism as their primary "ism", lest we turn them away from it and they drop it altogether.
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27857
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
Greetings Ñāṇa,
With respect to one who takes refuge in the Triple Gem, I concur with your statement.
Metta,
Retro.
With respect to one who takes refuge in the Triple Gem, I concur with your statement.
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."
Re: the great rebirth debate
On a practical, day to day level of Buddhist interactions, I wonder how the time-honored, indispensable relationship between the laity and the ordained sangha fits with this idea of secularism?retrofuturist wrote:Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.
This is one of the most important aspects of contemporary Theravāda Buddhism: That people can still ordain and devote their entire life to the three jewels, and know that they will be supported by the lay community and have their material needs of food, clothing, and shelter met.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Yes - if you are male.Ñāṇa said: This is one of the most important aspects of contemporary Theravāda Buddhism: That people can still ordain and devote their entire life to the three jewels, and know that they will be supported by the lay community and have their material needs of food, clothing, and shelter met.
There are a few places in the west for women to ordain ..... if you are under 50 years of age ..... which also have a long long waiting list.
with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
Re: the great rebirth debate
Yes, this situation can be improved, but there would be no ordained sangha without the support of the laity.cooran wrote:There are a few places in the west for women to ordain ..... if you are under 50 years of age ..... which also have a long long waiting list.
- Spiny O'Norman
- Posts: 851
- Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
- Location: Suffolk, England
Re: the great rebirth debate
I agree. I think agnosticism about rebirth is fine, what I struggle with is the attempts that some people make to write rebirth out of the suttas.Alex123 wrote:Also I am very unconvinced when people ignore clear-as-clear-can-be phrases such as:The suttas are filled with such material that cannot simply be a metaphor.
- "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in..."
Spiny
Re: the great rebirth debate
Supposing a Mahayana Buddhist said this...Ñāṇa wrote:In for a penny, in for a pound.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: the great rebirth debate
US homicide detective proves his past life
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuayR6P-h_U" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha