To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

[Ngawang Drolma.]

It seems like Peter is usually making the same point: keep your eye on the ball.
Is it useful? What is the logical outcome of x, y or z? All the while keeping practice and progress in mind.

I like it

I admit that I haven't read through this whole thread, just a few of Peter's posts. But this suggestion, to consider what is useful and practical seems much more useful than the endless poking at rebirth. I wrote this in another forum and I believe it's true:

If you don't believe in rebirth, hurry up and focus on the here and now! It's all you have, so make the most of it. If you do believe in rebirth, meditate like your hair was on fire! This is a rare opportunity. The same urgency applies in both cases.

[DarkDream]

An extract from MN 60 - Apannaka Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A. "There are some brahmans & contemplatives who hold this doctrine, hold this view: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves.'1

B. "Some brahmans & contemplatives, speaking in direct opposition to those brahmans & contemplatives, say this: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

"What do you think, householders? Don't these brahmans & contemplatives speak in direct opposition to each other?"

"Yes, lord."

A1. "Now, householders, of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable brahmans & contemplatives do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.

. . .

B1. "Now, householders, of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three unskillful activities — bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable brahmans & contemplatives see in unskillful activities the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; and in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.

I take exception on this particular sutta. I do not believe it was spoken by the Buddha. First off, the stock passage, "'There is nothing given, nothing offered" and so on was spoken by Ajita Kesakambali and not by the Buddha even though the Buddha is portrayed as saying it. The Buddha never thought that the sacrifice of animals (this was the original meaning spoken by Ajita) was a good thing.

Another thing is that if this view is so bad, why in the Kalama sutta the Buddha allowed for the possibility for those not to believe in life after death?

The funny thing is that there are tons of people in the world who do not believe in "spontaneous reborn beings" and most religions in the world do not believe in "sacrifices" and for atheists no "other world", but not all of them are causing the greatest harm in this world. In truth, it is usually the very religious fanatics who carry out the greatest atrocities (who do believe in an after life).

--DarkDream

[Ceisiwr]

DarkDream

The funny thing is that there are tons of people in the world who do not believe in "spontaneous reborn beings" and most religions in the world do not believe in "sacrifices" and for atheists no "other world", but not all of them are causing the greatest harm in this world. In truth, it is usually the very religious fanatics who carry out the greatest atrocities (who do believe in an after life).

When it containts a view about God, people can think that to kill in God's name is good

There is a difference with Rebirth, no one would think that to get a better rebirth one would have to kill or do any kind of harm

In reguards to the stock passage, i agree with you that it probably wasnt spoken by the Buddha since they are the words of Ajita Kesakambali, however this misses a point i feel. The words arent important but the message it puts accross, that all is pointless and it doesnt matter what you do since there is only a nihilistic life and an annihilation at death

Its the general view of life and also what that leads to that is opposed, not so much the words used

[DarkDream]

Hello all,

On the topic of "To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?":

To me, it's quite simple. I hold that, if, after studying the Teachings, practising sila and meditation, and discussing with other buddhists, for a long time, - you find you have proven that much of what the Buddha teaches is true - but cannot produce irrefutable proof of kamma and rebirth - then simply set them aside and live "as if" they are true, as everything else you have tested has been found to be. This is what saddha is to me - confidence in the teachings of the Buddha because of what I have found to be true, and acceptance of things which he also teaches which are not provable at my present level of understanding.

Chris, I think this particular perspective is very dangerous. It seems to me that you should test everything, especially the supposidly reported words of the Buddha as captured in the scriptures that was passed down orally for hundreds or years before being written down and for thousands of years copied. In that time it is apparent that some insertions and deletions occurred with various corruptions.

There appears to be a fundamental assumption that everything promulgated by tradition was taught be the Buddha. This is not necessarily so. Another thing, is that one should never just follow a tradition in all its aspects even if the other elements seem ok. For example, what happens if the tradition all of a sudden began teaching that devas were actually aliens from another planet, would one believe that blindly?

The point is that no one should ever just take the word of some body of authority or some scripture. The Buddha made this clear of various occasions. By believing in something just because there is a tradition there is to suspend rational thinking and the ability to really investigate the matter.

--DarkDream

[Ceisiwr]

DarkDream

especially the supposidly reported words of the Buddha as captured in the scriptures that was passed down orally for hundreds or years before being written down and for thousands of years copied. In that time it is apparent that some insertions and deletions occurred with various corruptions.

Do you believe that memebers of the Sangha would allow such changes and deletions? I agree that some corruptions would have crept naturaly but i doubt it would have been to any serious degree, maybe a few words or the setting etc

I have read somewhere that Theravada, at least, added some things later, but they never deleted anything they already had

[cooran]

Hello DarkDream,

One needs to take the context and audience into account when looking at particular suttas, as well as the purpose of the Buddha in giving a particular teaching ... particularly before making statements about Buddhavacana like "I do not believe it was spoken by the Buddha".

I would be very interested to read any scholarly research which would support that remark about this particular sutta, together with links to where I can read it.

In this sutta on The Incontrovertible Teaching, the Buddha gives a group of Brahmin householders from Sālā who had met him before, (see MN 41 where they asked about causes for particular rebirths) an "incontrovertible teaching" that will help them steer clear of the tangle of contentious views and the Buddha explores some of the implications of different views.

metta
Chris

[tiltbillings]

It seems to me that you should test everything, especially the supposidly reported words of the Buddha as captured in the scriptures that was passed down orally for hundreds or years before being written down and for thousands of years copied. In that time it is apparent that some insertions and deletions occurred with various corruptions.

Yes, yes, those monks slipping in rebirth into this very large, complext body of text, weaving it into the fabric of the Buddha's teachings so that it is an integral part of what we now have as his teachings. Nefarious monks, clever monks, fooling us with their Hindu ways. Thank gawd for the clear sighted Dark Dream seeing through this ruse, telling us what is truly what and what we should do about it. We are the lucky ones, and let us not forget that the Buddha truly taught that there is a God, a God-of-gods, Creator of all things to whom we should pray, to whom we should worship, but those monks, those nefarious clever and naughty, smirking monks, they altered the texts to meet their atheistic agenda to make the Buddha look foolish, to undermine allegiance to him by presenting him as an atheist. Thank God, Dark Dream has made us aware of of this rebirth conspiracy which opens the door so we really know the truly true teachings of the Buddha, which is that Jesus is our true Lord and only by Him are we saved. Now, were is my tinfoil hat?

[tiltbillings]

It seems to me that you should test everything, especially the supposidly reported words of the Buddha as captured in the scriptures that was passed down orally for hundreds or years before being written down and for thousands of years copied. In that time it is apparent that some insertions and deletions occurred with various corruptions.

And you, Dark Dream, have tested this? Your experience tell you that there is no rebirth? How so? What would count as proof?

My experience tells me otherwise, very much so.

[DarkDream]

In reguards to the stock passage, i agree with you that it probably wasnt spoken by the Buddha since they are the words of Ajita Kesakambali, however this misses a point i feel. The words arent important but the message it puts accross, that all is pointless and it doesnt matter what you do since there is only a nihilistic life and an annihilation at death

Its the general view of life and also what that leads to that is opposed, not so much the words used

But Chris I do think this is the point. Historically, such passages are understood way too literally by the tradition, so if you don't happen to believe in a "other world" or hell beings, that you do not have right view. The tradition, in my opinion, has understood it be the letter and not the spirit. To take it by the letter would mean that anyone who does not believe in the pantheon of the largely Brahmanic cosmology is not practicing right view.

The spirit of the passage, which I do agree with you is how it should be interpreted, indicates to me at least that those who do not believe that their actions have effects on themselves and others is a wrong view to have. That's all. This I have no question the Buddha would have agreed and most likely have spoken against.

--DarkDream

[kc2dpt]

It seems to me the argument that we can't know what the Buddha actually taught is besides the point of asking what makes a Buddhist. A Buddhist practices the teachings of Buddhism - the teachings of the Buddha as they have come down to us. If you want to say "Maybe the Buddha didn't teach rebirth" then you are creating something new, something having nothing to do with any Buddhist tradition, something not Buddhism.

Fact is, you can say this "maybe" about any teaching you don't like. You like indulging in sensual pleasure? Maybe he didn't teach sensual pleasures as like a poisonous snake or falling into debt or like a vine which drags down a large tree.

Like to drink? Maybe he didn't teach abstinence from alcohol. Obviously that was stuck in by later (and uptight) monks.

Maybe he didn't teach liberation at all. Probably that was just made up too. Who knows?

[DarkDream]

DarkDream
Do you believe that memebers of the Sangha would allow such changes and deletions? I agree that some corruptions would have crept naturaly but i doubt it would have been to any serious degree, maybe a few words or the setting etc

I have read somewhere that Theravada, at least, added some things later, but they never deleted anything they already had

I do believe in some particular cases that the Sangha would allow changes to occur if they thought a particular sutta did not fit their particular traditional view on things. Please remember that the various early Buddhist schools disagreed on issues and they something edited slightly some of the suttas to fit their particular view point.

While I agree that addition was far more likely (because they did not want to mess with the original scriptures) there is cases to be argued that there were changes made and in the changes essentially deletions of what was originally there.

Just one example I found is from Richard F Gombrich's book, "How Buddhism Began." Here is a snippet of the particular passage that is of interest:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aIOY5g ... #PPA123,M1

At this point we turn to the Susima Sutta . . . I wish to demonstrate that is is an incoherent reworking of a text which originally made quite different points. This original text, or something like it, is preserved in Chinese translation. . . . It is not difficult to see why the above text should have been changed: it is most uncomplimentary to a group of monks.

--DarkDream

[DarkDream]

I would be very interested to read any scholarly research which would support that remark about this particular sutta, together with links to where I can read it.

Chris, I haven't done a lot of research but it is interesting in this light that Thanissaro in his comment of the sutta says the following http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html:

It is noteworthy that the arguments in A2 and B2 are not safe-bet arguments, for they assume that A is wrong and B is right. Whether these arguments date from the Buddha or were added at a later date, no one knows.

The "A2" and "B2" arguments are the arguments that definitely say that there is a "next world." Even this great translator and a Buddhist monk has some doubts on whether the A2 and B2 arguments are authentic.

--DarkDream

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Again, Peter made me chuckle! Please listen to him for goodness sakes.

It is as useful as you're willing to apply it. Whatever it is that you're doubting, rebirth, 8FP, liberation, etc.

If you've had the good fortune to have a dharma teacher, this is the kind of response you get with esoteric questions. You get pulled back to what you're doing right now, and directed towards what you can do right now. You usually don't get big mystical answers

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I have read this thread (and endless other threads about rebirth) and I fail to see the hang-up.

We know that sentient beings arise. When you die, which you will, your aggregates will break up and "you" will cease to exist. "You" will be gone. Another being will arise. If you could have compassion for a stranger on the street, afflicted with dukkha, hunger, sickness, whatever, it is the same with "future self." It won't resemble you. It is a stranger. But if you can have compassion for that stranger on the street, have compassion for that future being that will arise with afflictions and a new set of clinging aggregates that you've helped to "create." This is why we attempt to create conditions that will benefit that future sentient.

If you doubt it, just go to the labor and delivery wing of your nearest hospital. Sentients are arising every moment. At some undetermined time you will die, lose your "self," entirely, including your thoughts, your desires, your attachments, etc. and be one of those helpless little human babies, or animals, or any number of things that suffers terribly.

Have compassion for that stranger. Create conditions.

/\

[pink_trike]

Maybe he didn't teach sensual pleasures as like a poisonous snake or falling into debt or like a vine which drags down a large tree.

That's a lot of metaphor...

...which might support the idea that the references to a literally-described rebirth may actually be describing possible mind-states *like* being reborn as an animal, or "as if" being reborn. etc... for example, engaging in excessive indulgences that condition the mind to operate from lower areas of the brain that preserve our animal-like reactivity would be *like* being reborn as an animal (re-creating oneself in the *like*ness of an animal). Perhaps "rebirth" is actually (and only) reactive re-creation that is cumulative, moment by moment in this life.

Metaphor was commonly used in oral tradition and premodern writing as a container...a way of conveying abstractions to a simple people, and as a way of having sophisticated knowledge preserved by the largest number of people in the absence of writing and/or reliable preservation of written materials. Over time, cultural amnesia may have resulted in people only being able to see the container and forgetting what was being contained. It's worth considering.