is it? it doesnt even fit the minimum definition of buddhist refuge, which is concern for future livesBen wrote:Excellent post, Aloka.Aloka wrote:Hi Dennenappelmoes,
I don't know one way or the other about rebirth and find it pointless speculating about past and future lives. Therefore I set it aside in order to deal with the living of my present life and practice here and now.
with kind wishes,
part of buddhism is studying the reasonings for rebirth and observing the nature of the mind. one does not use the excuse of speculation to excuse oneself from proper investigation. when someone says that talking about past and future lives is speculation, this is a nihilistic assertion.
fair enough. i guess i wonder how a thorough understanding of paticcasamuppada and the sankharas imprinted on the mind could possibly lead one to not understand the reality of past and future lives.retrofuturist wrote:Understanding the arising of sankharas, and their qualitative nature (as explained by the roots of greed/aversion/delusion & non-greed/non-aversion/non-delusion - i.e. kamma), and the resultant experience of nama-rupa (as explained from vinnana/nama-rupa onwards in paticcasamuppada, which could alternatively be thought of as sabba or loka) is sufficient for me to know the appropriate way to respond to situations in life.