the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by kc2dpt » Tue Jan 06, 2009 3:29 pm

Manapa wrote:but why does the Buddha have to be talking about two different lives why not two different moments?
An easy example:

Ananda asked the Buddha the status of a recently deceased monk. The Buddha replied the monk had attained sotapanna and would therefore be reborn no more than seven times. Since the monk in question is dead, what could moment to moment mean? Likewise when he spoke of sakadagamis and anagamis.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:43 pm

Peter wrote:
Manapa wrote:but why does the Buddha have to be talking about two different lives why not two different moments?
An easy example:

Ananda asked the Buddha the status of a recently deceased monk. The Buddha replied the monk had attained sotapanna and would therefore be reborn no more than seven times. Since the monk in question is dead, what could moment to moment mean? Likewise when he spoke of sakadagamis and anagamis.


Actually, that answer can be taken either way.The Buddha does not necessarily state that this monk attained sotapanna at death. Another way to look at it is that the question is based in "right view with effluents", as is the answer.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:45 pm

Ben wrote:Dear all,
Espousing among views his own as highest,
Whatever he regards as "best",
All else he will as "low" condemn;
Thus one will never get beyond disputes


-- Sutta Nipata v.796
Ben
Good thing no one is doing that here.

...however, the Buddha did make clear which view he regarded as best.

8-)
Last edited by stuka on Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:24 pm

Peter wrote: The debate is whether that preferred practice is actually a Buddhist practice.
If this is so, Peter, then which "preferred practice" are you claiming is "not actually a Buddhist practice"?

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:54 pm

Element wrote:When there is 'no escape', we can fully and powerfully test and apply the higher teachings of the Buddha and gain complete confidence in their efficacy to end dukkha.
If there is no escape what is the point of ending dukkha?

User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by kc2dpt » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:01 pm

stuka wrote:
Peter wrote:
Manapa wrote:but why does the Buddha have to be talking about two different lives why not two different moments?
An easy example:

Ananda asked the Buddha the status of a recently deceased monk. The Buddha replied the monk had attained sotapanna and would therefore be reborn no more than seven times. Since the monk in question is dead, what could moment to moment mean? Likewise when he spoke of sakadagamis and anagamis.
Actually, that answer can be taken either way.The Buddha does not necessarily state that this monk attained sotapanna at death.
Whether he attained it at death or not is besides the point. In fact I assume in most cases the monk in question acheived the attainment at some point before death.

The point is the Buddha speaks of a dead monk having a certain number of rebirths ahead of him. This sort of statement cannot be understood as referring to anything other than multiple lives.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.

User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by kc2dpt » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:02 pm

stuka wrote:
Peter wrote: The debate is whether that preferred practice is actually a Buddhist practice.
If this is so, Peter, then which "preferred practice" are you claiming is "not actually a Buddhist practice"?
The practice of adopting the view that there is no rebirth, no heavens and hells, no people who have seen the truth of these things firsthand. In other words, the practice of adopting wrong view.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:34 pm

Peter wrote:

Whether he attained it at death or not is besides the point. In fact I assume in most cases the monk in question acheived the attainment at some point before death.
Actually it's not beside the point at all, and your own assumption demonstrates its relevance all the more.
The point is the Buddha speaks of a dead monk having a certain number of rebirths ahead of him. This sort of statement cannot be understood as referring to anything other than multiple lives.
Sure it can. You seem to be employing an Argument Ad Ignoratium. The lone example of the fact of my own understanding would defeat that argument; however, there are plenty of other Theravada practitioners who rightly understand it otherwise as well.

Are you now going to try to pull out a "No True Scot" argument on me...? ;)
Last edited by stuka on Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:41 pm

Peter wrote:
stuka wrote:
Peter wrote: The debate is whether that preferred practice is actually a Buddhist practice.
If this is so, Peter, then which "preferred practice" are you claiming is "not actually a Buddhist practice"?
The practice of adopting the view that there is no rebirth, no heavens and hells, no people who have seen the truth of these things firsthand. In other words, the practice of adopting wrong view.
No one here has declared a "no-rebirth" view, or has declared that "there are no heavens and hells", or has declared that "there are no people who have seen the truth of these things firsthand". Your assertion, again, seems to be an irrelevant Straw Man.

That being said, the Buddha, in the Maha Cattarisaka Sutta you seem to refer to, does not specifically declare the views "there is no rebirth", and "there are no heavens and hells" to be wrong view. You will find that the nomenclature in the MCS is quite different from your eisegesis here. Both of the aforementioned are, however, speculative views, of course.

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:49 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
Element wrote:When there is 'no escape', we can fully and powerfully test and apply the higher teachings of the Buddha and gain complete confidence in their efficacy to end dukkha.
If there is no escape what is the point of ending dukkha?
:? ...you think that eating each other and wallowing in greed, hatred, misery and delusion in the here-and-now is the better option...?

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:59 pm

stuka wrote::? ...you think that eating each other and wallowing in greed, hatred, misery and delusion in the here-and-now is the better option...?
Why not if it pleases me or fills my holes? What does it matter - if one day it will end?

User avatar
stuka
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:37 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by stuka » Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:17 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:
stuka wrote::? ...you think that eating each other and wallowing in greed, hatred, misery and delusion in the here-and-now is the better option...?
Why not if it pleases me or fills my holes? What does it matter - if one day it will end?
:? Eating each other and wallowing in greed, hatred, misery and delusion pleases you, and :shock: "fills your holes"...? What sort of sociopathic statement is that, really?

Element

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Element » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:03 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:If there is no escape what is the point of ending dukkha?
Buddha said dukkha is the prerequisite condition for the arising of faith in his teachings.

I think a better question is: "If I have not discerned dukkha, why do I bother taking an interest in Buddhism?"
Last edited by Element on Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Element

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Element » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:08 pm

Karma Dondrup Tashi wrote:Why not if it pleases me or fills my holes? What does it matter - if one day it will end?
Tashi

The experience of dukkha includes the experience of unsatisfactoriness. If we think there are conditioned things in this life that can please us or 'filling our holes' will bring us happiness, why should we bother taking an interest in Buddhism?

Why do not we just spend our life making ourselves 'happy' by filling our holes?

User avatar
Karma Dondrup Tashi
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Karma Dondrup Tashi » Tue Jan 06, 2009 10:41 pm

Element wrote: The experience of dukkha includes the experience of unsatisfactoriness. If we think there are conditioned things in this life that can please us or 'filling our holes' will bring us happiness, why should we bother taking an interest in Buddhism?
If life contains things that are dukkha and some that are not, then indeed why would there be any motivation to pursue ethics of any kind? Just pursue the things that are not dukkha and you will not experience dukkha. The only reason to pursue ethics at all is if all of life without exception is dukkha.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bundokji, chownah, JamesTheGiant, SarathW, StormBorn and 75 guests