I keep seeing the term "rebirth denier" on these forums and wonder if anyone here who has used the term would kindly define it for me?
Rebirth Deniers
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Greetings nowheat,
I think to do that, firstly someone would need to define "rebirth", and specifically address the question of what is "re'd". Short of that level of enquiry, I can just imagine a lot of talking at cross purposes (which is quite possibly what you're hoping to address through this topic?).
It would also be worth someone finding specific examples where the Buddha specifically used the (pali equivalent of the term) "rebirth" rather than alternative words and phrases.
The onus on doing this, however, lies with those using the term "rebirth denier".
Metta,
Retro.
I think to do that, firstly someone would need to define "rebirth", and specifically address the question of what is "re'd". Short of that level of enquiry, I can just imagine a lot of talking at cross purposes (which is quite possibly what you're hoping to address through this topic?).
It would also be worth someone finding specific examples where the Buddha specifically used the (pali equivalent of the term) "rebirth" rather than alternative words and phrases.
The onus on doing this, however, lies with those using the term "rebirth denier".
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: Rebirth Deniers
I'm not wanting to talk at cross purposes, I'm wanting to get clarification and perhaps see if, going forward, we can choose words carefully (skillful speech and all that) knowing more precisely what they mean to those conversing in this space.retrofuturist wrote: I think to do that, firstly someone would need to define "rebirth", and specifically address the question of what is "re'd". Short of that level of enquiry, I can just imagine a lot of talking at cross purposes (which is quite possibly what you're hoping to address through this topic?).
I don't know that we need to bring the Pali into this, though I wouldn't mind seeing such a list.It would also be worth someone finding specific examples where the Buddha specifically used the (pali equivalent of the term) "rebirth" rather than alternative words and phrases.
The onus on doing this, however, lies with those using the term "rebirth denier".
People here use the term "rebirth deniers". Presumably they know what they mean when they say it. I really do want them to tell me what they mean when they make calls to "rebirth deniers" to do something, or say things like "rebirth deniers would have you believe..."
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Greetings nowheat,
Metta,
Retro.
Yes, that's what I meant. Apologies if my clumsy language led to us talking at cross purposes.nowheat wrote:I'm not wanting to talk at cross purposes, I'm wanting to get clarification and perhaps see if, going forward, we can choose words carefully (skillful speech and all that) knowing more precisely what they mean to those conversing in this space.
It might not seem relevant at first glance, but the Buddha had many ways of speaking about becoming, being, existence and birth, and the term "rebirth" often gets used (crudely?) as a catch-all for many of the Buddha's expressions. If we're going to get at precisely what people mean by "rebirth denier", we're going to need to precisely get at what they mean by "rebirth".nowheat wrote:I don't know that we need to bring the Pali into this, though I wouldn't mind seeing such a list.
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: Rebirth Deniers
I think a context here is important. Those who follow the Dhamma and do not believe that the Buddha taught postmortem continuance are a very distinct minority, a view and idea within Buddhism which has only cropped up very recently. Thus to the vast majority of practitioners - There's probably a bit of xenophobia towards those who do not ascribe to postmortem continuance. Wherever you have such a polarizing topic there is a need for a term, to define your adversaries position. Rebirth denial is the obvious choice, it even has the inference of being a close relative (in terms of logic) to holocaust denial.
metta
Jack
metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Those evil rebirth deniers... someone should come and bloody well send them to their maker, then they'd find out what's what!
ok, back where i came from...
_/|\_
ok, back where i came from...
_/|\_
_/|\_
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Greetings Blackbird,
Your comments raise a few questions...
Is a "Rebirth Denier" someone who denies the Buddha taught post-mortem continuance, or who does not believe personally in post-mortem continuance despite what the suttas say?
What logic is used in the instance of "Holocaust denial" and how is that analogous to "Rebirth denial"?
You speak of the need to "define your adversaries position"... but be careful not to define straw-men in the process!
Metta,
Retro.
Your comments raise a few questions...
Is a "Rebirth Denier" someone who denies the Buddha taught post-mortem continuance, or who does not believe personally in post-mortem continuance despite what the suttas say?
What logic is used in the instance of "Holocaust denial" and how is that analogous to "Rebirth denial"?
You speak of the need to "define your adversaries position"... but be careful not to define straw-men in the process!
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: Rebirth Deniers
Thanks, Jack but I don't think it's that obvious.BlackBird wrote:I think a context here is important. Those who follow the Dhamma and do not believe that the Buddha taught postmortem continuance are a very distinct minority, a view and idea within Buddhism which has only cropped up very recently. Thus to the vast majority of practitioners - There's probably a bit of xenophobia towards those who do not ascribe to postmortem continuance. Wherever you have such a polarizing topic there is a need for a term, to define your adversaries position. Rebirth denial is the obvious choice, it even has the inference of being a close relative (in terms of logic) to holocaust denial.
metta
Jack
It seems to me that the term "rebirth denier" in this setting is perhaps too vague. It can be taken as "denying that the metaphysics in operation is rebirth operated through kammic principles regardless of what the Buddha taught" or it can be taken as "denying that the Buddha taught rebirth". As a simple term it sounds more like the former (denying rebirth), rather than the latter (denying that the Buddha taught rebirth as part of his teaching).
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Hi Retroretrofuturist wrote:Greetings Blackbird,
Your comments raise a few questions...
Is a "Rebirth Denier" someone who denies the Buddha taught post-mortem continuance, or who does not believe personally in post-mortem continuance despite what the suttas say?
What logic is used in the instance of "Holocaust denial" and how is that analogous to "Rebirth denial"?
You speak of the need to "define your adversaries position"... but be careful not to define straw-men in the process!
Metta,
Retro.
Sorry for the confusion if it was thought that I was stating my point of view, I was not. I was trying to have an objective take on the situation and the use of the phrase, whether I'm right or wrong on this one, I don't know - I'm just another blind man trying to see.
But to make an attempt to answer your questions in sequence:
1. Could be both, could it not? I must admit I have never seen an instance of the latter, is their a brief summary of their reasoning?
2. What I was trying to say was that from the point of view of your orthodox Theravadin, to say nothing of the Mahayana or Vajrayana: The reasoning put forth by 'rebirth deniers' doesn't make much logical sense - If one wanted to get polemical then it's easy and effective to link 'rebirth denial' with 'holocaust denial' especially in light of the scriptural evidence of rebirth. Eg. "There is a lot of evidence of the holocaust too, but it doesn't stop people from denying it happened."
3. Perhaps I am building up a straw man argument, perhaps you are right, time will tell I guess.
metta
Jack
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta
Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Greetings Blackbird,
That said, the argument goes that rebirth was taught only to putthujanas who already believed it and took it as their world view, and would therefore benefit from kamma as a morality teaching. Supposedly the Buddha taught anatta to bhikkhus instead of rebirth. To repeat - not my view.
Metta,
Retro.
I'm probably not the best person to answer that, since it's not a view I share and I'm not a "rebirth denier" (though I was once called a crypto-annihilationist by a bigot who couldn't understand my views on post-mortem continuance or comments such as the one in my signature from Bhikkhu Nanananda )BlackBird wrote:1. Could be both, could it not? I must admit I have never seen an instance of the latter, is their a brief summary of their reasoning?
That said, the argument goes that rebirth was taught only to putthujanas who already believed it and took it as their world view, and would therefore benefit from kamma as a morality teaching. Supposedly the Buddha taught anatta to bhikkhus instead of rebirth. To repeat - not my view.
OK, I see your perspective a little more clearly now. Indeed, even the above "explanation" (which is one of the better ones going around) invovles ignoring, or manipulating a lot of sutta evidence."There is a lot of evidence of the holocaust too, but it doesn't stop people from denying it happened."
It's just I've seen it done before ("crypto-annihilationist", remember ) so I'm mindful to encourage people to speak accurately, without prejudice, without straw-men and without broad-brush generalizations.3. Perhaps I am building up a straw man argument, perhaps you are right, time will tell I guess.
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: Rebirth Deniers
oh dear.
I think it's worth being very careful indeed if one decides to step into the stormy territory of drawing comparisons with Hitler and the Holocaust!
I think it's worth being very careful indeed if one decides to step into the stormy territory of drawing comparisons with Hitler and the Holocaust!
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
not necessarily, it depends on the use, and what it is trying to prove, or in some cases do.kayy wrote:oh dear.
I think it's worth being very careful indeed if one decides to step into the stormy territory of drawing comparisons with Hitler and the Holocaust!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: Rebirth Deniers
Hi everyone,
I am a rebirth denier and I am free of that delusion. Perhaps the "rebirth fanatics" would kindly explain how belief in rebirth differs from a delusion.
Best wishes, Vincent.
I am a rebirth denier and I am free of that delusion. Perhaps the "rebirth fanatics" would kindly explain how belief in rebirth differs from a delusion.
Best wishes, Vincent.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
can you define the term 'rebirth denier' and 'rebirth fanatic' can you kindly explain how denial of rebirth is not delusion in your view?vinasp wrote:Hi everyone,
I am a rebirth denier and I am free of that delusion. Perhaps the "rebirth fanatics" would kindly explain how belief in rebirth differs from a delusion.
Best wishes, Vincent.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Rebirth Deniers
for me it is the complete denial of rebirth as the Buddha taught it, siding on either nihilistic or eternalist views, and including a lesson learnt cycle of rebirth.nowheat wrote:I keep seeing the term "rebirth denier" on these forums and wonder if anyone here who has used the term would kindly define it for me?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill