Page 5 of 8

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:29 am
by Kenshou
nowheat wrote:All I ever seem to encounter is negatives and never do I see the Buddha say that anything at all -- not even a metaphor for anything at all -- goes on.
I can recall one at the moment: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:39 am
by nowheat
Kenshou wrote:
nowheat wrote:All I ever seem to encounter is negatives and never do I see the Buddha say that anything at all -- not even a metaphor for anything at all -- goes on.
I can recall one at the moment: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Thanks, Kenshou. So we have the "flame sustained by the wind" as a metaphor for "a being sustained by craving." So the literal half of that metaphor is a "being" -- and this is what is reborn. That's quite clear, isn't it.

Now, I understand that the Buddha defined a being as what's generated by the five aggregates. It's that "being" that goes missing once one becomes an arahant. It's the anatman, the thing we mistake for self. So it's the impermanent, changing, non-self that gets reborn, sustained by craving. That's consistent with the Buddha's teaching that there is no permanent, unchanging atman that gets reborn. That too seems quite clear. Is that the understanding of those who accept rebirth?

:namaste:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:55 am
by BlackBird
seanpdx wrote: Yes. If he did, in fact, have zero kidneys. See also: dialysis. Or if, perhaps, he had a genetic abnormality that caused more than two kidneys. See also: genetic mutation.
Playful discourse, or do I need to draw an inference there?

metta
Jack :heart:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:12 pm
by Abyss
nowheat wrote:
Abyss wrote: What about death? I don't want to die, therefore I seek liberation from death in this very life, which is possible according to the Buddha..
What do you get instead of death?
Freedom from fear/anxiety.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:35 pm
by nowheat
Abyss wrote:
nowheat wrote:
Abyss wrote: What about death? I don't want to die, therefore I seek liberation from death in this very life, which is possible according to the Buddha..
What do you get instead of death?
Freedom from fear/anxiety.
That's what you get when you die too.

:namaste:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:40 pm
by seanpdx
BlackBird wrote:
seanpdx wrote: Yes. If he did, in fact, have zero kidneys. See also: dialysis. Or if, perhaps, he had a genetic abnormality that caused more than two kidneys. See also: genetic mutation.
Playful discourse, or do I need to draw an inference there?

metta
Jack :heart:
Nothing playful about it. Low probability, yes. But a possibility nonetheless. And something to very seriously consider. People often conflate the improbable with the impossible.

In one debate I had with a christian many years ago, a statement was made along the lines of how something or other was equivalent to a blind man climbing Mt Everest -- the inference being that it was impossible, or nearly so. I, of course, immediately mentioned Erik Weihenmayer.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:44 pm
by seanpdx
Paññāsikhara wrote:Another argument, apart from viz "punishment", is this:

Those with the belief in rebirth may be inclined to give full effort to the path.
Evidence: How many bhikkhus do not accept this teaching?
Extremely few.
Suggesting that without this view, one may be inclined to hold back from 100% commitment.
Similarly, those without the belief in rebirth may be inclined to give full effort to the path, because they only believe they have one life in which to do it.
Evidence: Me. (And, well, others who have said the same thing)

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:36 pm
by Abyss
nowheat wrote:
Abyss wrote:
nowheat wrote:What do you get instead of death?
Freedom from fear/anxiety.
That's what you get when you die too.
Dukkha is not an intellectual problem. Emotions are blind. They don't care about "logic" or "reason". Apart from that I don't deny "rebirth". It's just not my main motivation.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 11:38 pm
by nowheat
nowheat wrote:
Kenshou wrote:I can recall one at the moment: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Thanks, Kenshou. So we have the "flame sustained by the wind" as a metaphor for "a being sustained by craving." So the literal half of that metaphor is a "being" -- and this is what is reborn. That's quite clear, isn't it.

Now, I understand that the Buddha defined a being as what's generated by the five aggregates. It's that "being" that goes missing once one becomes an arahant. It's the anatman, the thing we mistake for self. So it's the impermanent, changing, non-self that gets reborn, sustained by craving. That's consistent with the Buddha's teaching that there is no permanent, unchanging atman that gets reborn. That too seems quite clear. Is that the understanding of those who accept rebirth?
Are y'all assenting with your silence in the way the Buddha often did?

:namaste:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:07 am
by Paññāsikhara
Hi,
nowheat wrote:
Now, I understand that the Buddha defined a being as what's generated by the five aggregates. It's that "being" that goes missing once one becomes an arahant. It's the anatman, the thing we mistake for self. So it's the impermanent, changing, non-self that gets reborn, sustained by craving. That's consistent with the Buddha's teaching that there is no permanent, unchanging atman that gets reborn. That too seems quite clear. Is that the understanding of those who accept rebirth?

:namaste:
I think that "a being as what's generated by the five aggregates" is misleading. It is not a case of the aggregates "generating" anything, maybe as a basis for designation, though. So there is not "being that goes missing once one becomes an arahant". The only thing that goes missing are the fetters. One of these is the idea of a being, but not a being itself. As for "its the anatman" - sounds like some serious reification going on there, making an adjectival term "anatman" into a noun as "it". Likewise for a "non-self that gets reborn".

It almost sounds like the Puggalavadins, but different again. Certainly doesn't sound like what the suttas are saying to me.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:16 am
by nowheat
Paññāsikhara wrote: I think that "a being as what's generated by the five aggregates" is misleading. It is not a case of the aggregates "generating" anything, maybe as a basis for designation, though. So there is not "being that goes missing once one becomes an arahant". The only thing that goes missing are the fetters. One of these is the idea of a being, but not a being itself. As for "its the anatman" - sounds like some serious reification going on there, making an adjectival term "anatman" into a noun as "it". Likewise for a "non-self that gets reborn".

It almost sounds like the Puggalavadins, but different again. Certainly doesn't sound like what the suttas are saying to me.
Thank you for answering. Then how would you describe and/or name what it is that gets reborn? What is this "being" that like a flame from candle to candle jumps from one body to another supported by the nutriment of craving?

:namaste:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:05 pm
by Reductor
nowheat wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote: I think that "a being as what's generated by the five aggregates" is misleading. It is not a case of the aggregates "generating" anything, maybe as a basis for designation, though. So there is not "being that goes missing once one becomes an arahant". The only thing that goes missing are the fetters. One of these is the idea of a being, but not a being itself. As for "its the anatman" - sounds like some serious reification going on there, making an adjectival term "anatman" into a noun as "it". Likewise for a "non-self that gets reborn".

It almost sounds like the Puggalavadins, but different again. Certainly doesn't sound like what the suttas are saying to me.
Thank you for answering. Then how would you describe and/or name what it is that gets reborn? What is this "being" that like a flame from candle to candle jumps from one body to another supported by the nutriment of craving?

:namaste:
The error here is to think that the being that is reborn is separate from the aggregates, or in possession of them, and so is changing from life to life. In fact the aggregates are the result of kamma coming to fruition and it are these aggregates that are clung to as mine, me, myself. So when one set of aggregates disbands, the enormous kammic 'tide' continues separately from those aggregates, acting as the cause of a new binding of elements* together into what might be called a being, and a new set of aggregates. So while each set of aggregates is separate from the next, the two sets of aggregates are both fruition of the same kammic tide. So the term of rebirth is not speaking of a soul or real self moving from life to life, but rather of the continued fruition of kamma in the mode of aggregates.


* Six elements: earth, water, wind, fire, space and consciousness.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:33 am
by Paññāsikhara
nowheat wrote:
Paññāsikhara wrote: I think that "a being as what's generated by the five aggregates" is misleading. It is not a case of the aggregates "generating" anything, maybe as a basis for designation, though. So there is not "being that goes missing once one becomes an arahant". The only thing that goes missing are the fetters. One of these is the idea of a being, but not a being itself. As for "its the anatman" - sounds like some serious reification going on there, making an adjectival term "anatman" into a noun as "it". Likewise for a "non-self that gets reborn".

It almost sounds like the Puggalavadins, but different again. Certainly doesn't sound like what the suttas are saying to me.
Thank you for answering. Then how would you describe and/or name what it is that gets reborn? What is this "being" that like a flame from candle to candle jumps from one body to another supported by the nutriment of craving?

:namaste:
Well, the Buddha taught rebecoming, not rebirth. There is a continuity of causality, not continuity of a thing - mental or physical or otherwise.
As for candles, best not to take metaphors too far, they are only for reference, and never match the actuality described.
However, craving, ignorance, have their continuity through causality. It is not that the same craving and ignorance go from even moment to moment (let alone life to life), but one moment of craving and ignorance is the primary cause for the next.
The whole notion of "being" is merely a thought, an idea, which the ignorant transpose upon this continuity of causality. Successive times which are similar, causality related, but not the same actual thing, are mistakening appropriated as a single entity or entities. Becomes even worse once a name is dropped on them.

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:50 am
by retrofuturist
:goodpost:

Well said, bhante.

Metta,
Retro. :)

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:52 am
by nowheat
Paññāsikhara wrote: Well, the Buddha taught rebecoming, not rebirth. There is a continuity of causality, not continuity of a thing - mental or physical or otherwise.
As for candles, best not to take metaphors too far, they are only for reference, and never match the actuality described.
I took the candle as a metaphor. Are you saying that "being" is also a metaphor -- not literal?
However, craving, ignorance, have their continuity through causality. It is not that the same craving and ignorance go from even moment to moment (let alone life to life), but one moment of craving and ignorance is the primary cause for the next.
This sounds like you're not one who "accepts literal rebirth" but you are standing up for the more psychological moment-to-moment type of explanation. If this is the case I need to point out that in this particular thread I'm trying to work towards my own understanding of how the literalists interpret rebirth and its necessity to the Buddha's teaching, so while I am interested in other interpretations of rebirth this thread isn't the best place for that discussion. But maybe that's not what you're saying?
The whole notion of "being" is merely a thought, an idea, which the ignorant transpose upon this continuity of causality. Successive times which are similar, causality related, but not the same actual thing, are mistakening appropriated as a single entity or entities. Becomes even worse once a name is dropped on them.
Are you saying that there is literal rebirth but it is a "continuity of causality" that moves to the next life?

:namaste: