the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
mile83
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mile83 »

Hello all, I like this thread, I've found many answers to my question, please don't stone me but I'm very indifferent to the question if there is rebirth or not, but I tend more towards non-believing it.

With great interest I've read the postings of stuka and clw_uk, do they still post here??

I have a question regarding the difference between right view with taints and right view without taints

Is right view with taints basically believe in 4NT and rebirth/reincarnation (so it's tainted with speculative views??)

and right view without taints is transcendent only the 4NTs, so beyond questions of rebirth etc.

I'm referring to the posts by stuka and clw_uk, and maybe others, I didn't have the chance yet to read the whole thread!

Hope you can help thank you =)
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

mile83 wrote:Hello all, I like this thread, I've found many answers to my question, please don't stone me but I'm very indifferent to the question if there is rebirth or not, but I tend more towards non-believing it.
The worst part is believing in one life only and fully seeing dukkha... Rebirth is very important issue to me. Without it, Dhamma doesn't make much sense.
Either one would indulge in as much pleasures as possible, or end all dukkha very easily.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

mile83 wrote:Hello all, I like this thread, I've found many answers to my question, please don't stone me but I'm very indifferent to the question if there is rebirth or not, but I tend more towards non-believing it.
That's fine, its not necessary to get caught up in the superstitions of others, nor to speculate about rebirth, in order to practice the Dhamma.

This life is the important one.

.
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Aloka wrote:
mile83 wrote:Hello all, I like this thread, I've found many answers to my question, please don't stone me but I'm very indifferent to the question if there is rebirth or not, but I tend more towards non-believing it.
That's fine, its not necessary to get caught up in the superstitions of others, nor to speculate about rebirth, in order to practice the Dhamma.

This life is the important one.

.
Why is this life any more or less important than any other one. Isn't the fact that we were reborn at all a consequence of our failure to attain nibbana? The focus as I understand it should be upon "not being reborn" and if we are understanding what we must understand and practice in order to avoid further rebirths. Yes? No? :shrug: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:The focus as I understand it should be upon "not being reborn" and... we must understand and practice...
...in this life - whence its importance.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Hello all,

First Noble Truth says:
  • "Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted
    is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
We, and the Buddha cannot get rid of at least: aging, death, and pain if not all the rest included in Dukkha.

Some can ask about craving as part of 2,3rd, and 4th NT that leads to cessation of Dukkha. But lets see the important part as to how it happens:
  • ""And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming"MN141

Please note further becoming. When there is no craving, one will not be reborn to experience: Birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, despair, not getting what is wanted, the five clinging-aggregates. It doesn't necessarily means cessation of dukkha right at the moment of Arhatship and up till death. Buddha didn't want to teach because it would tire him. Buddha still experienced physical pain. Buddha still found it easier to be alone rather than in a group. Ultimately in DN16 the Buddha gave up "fabrications to live" rather than letting nature take its course and definitely instead of prolonging his life.


If there is one life, then all that is left is to die...
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Alex123 wrote:
If there is one life, then all that is left is to die...
Alex that doesn't make any sense. All that is left for all sentient beings when they get old is to die, whether there is rebirth or not . Plus "you" aren't going to know about it after you die anyway !

However, freedom from dukkha is still possible in this lifetime here and now - that's if we don't waste too much time arguing about it on the internet of course, lol !


:alien:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Aloka wrote:Alex that doesn't make any sense.
If there is one life only and Dukkha is the Noble Truth... Even the Buddha experienced physical pain...
Why isn't suicide a shortcut to parinibbana? Why suffer needlessly?
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Alex123 wrote:
Aloka wrote:Alex that doesn't make any sense.
If there is one life only and Dukkha is the Noble Truth... Even the Buddha experienced physical pain...
Why isn't suicide a shortcut to parinibbana? Why suffer needlessly?
Alex my attempts to have a discussion with you always seem to end with you bringing up suicide, which is a total cop-out.

Its also getting near to my bedtime now, so I'll say thank you and goodnight .

with metta,

Aloka :zzz:
Last edited by Aloka on Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Aloka,
If there are multiple lives, then suicide would not stop life. If there is one life, then suicide = parinibbāna.

What if Awakening is not some fantasy state without any dukkha? Is it possible that we over-estimate sukha at Arhatship? What if dukkha is inherent into existence itself and cannot be separated? What if the idea of being emotionally "perfect" is not what Arhatship is?

For example, there is at least one occasion when the Buddha was visibly angry at Devadatta. So maybe it is idealistic idea that somehow Awakened one never gets angry or irritated.
  • "Not even to Sāriputta or Moggallāna would I hand over the Order, and would I then to thee, vile one, to be vomited like spittle?" (Vin.ii.188. This incident is referred to in the Abhayarājakumāra Sutta, M.i.393) link
If the above isn't irritation, then I don't know what would count as irritation.

Also
  • Then, when the Blessed One was alone in seclusion, this train of thought appeared to his awareness: "Before, I lived hemmed in by monks, nuns, male & female lay followers, kings, royal ministers, sectarians, & their disciples. Hemmed in, I lived unpleasantly and not in ease. But now I live not hemmed in by monks, nuns, male & female lay followers, kings, royal ministers, sectarians, & their disciples. Not hemmed in, I live pleasantly and in ease." Ud4.5
So the Buddha could experience some dukkha when he was around people!

No wonder that when He reached Awakening He didn't want to teach and had to be begged by none other than Brahma himself
  • And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'
    MN26
Ven, Angulimala became an Arahant. But as result of his past misdeeds he was brutally beaten. The Buddha told Angulimala, the Arhat:
  • "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! - MN86
If Arhat was invulnerable to pain, he wouldn't need such kind of encouragement. Speaking of pain, there was at least one occasion when rather than giving a lecture, the Buddha asked his disciple to give it while the Buddha rested his back.

Channa has committed suicide, and if taken literary - it appears that he was an Arahant. MN144. In DN16 the Buddha has Relinquishes His Will to Live - in other words, prolonged suicide. He could have let himself die naturally, or prolong his life. He choose neither, he relinquished his will to live and died in 3 months.

Ajahn Maha Boowa was a great meditator, and may have even been an Arahat. He still could cry.
Last edited by Alex123 on Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by equilibrium »

If there are multiple lives, then suicide would not stop life.
This is correct.
darvki
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by darvki »

Alex123 wrote:Why isn't suicide a shortcut to parinibbana? Why suffer needlessly?
I've heard this argument presented a lot, and it's time to be clear on why it has no merit:

If one is looking at a one-life-only viewpoint, the multiple-lives-dependent definition of parinibbana is rendered meaningless. Mixing worldviews like this is a logical black hole. To use a possibly clumsy example: it's like believing that there is no God, but that you'll go to Abrahamic-religious heaven (or hell) when you die.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

darvki wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Why isn't suicide a shortcut to parinibbana? Why suffer needlessly?
I've heard this argument presented a lot, and it's time to be clear on why it has no merit:

If one is looking at a one-life-only viewpoint, the multiple-lives-dependent definition of parinibbana is rendered meaningless. Mixing worldviews like this is a logical black hole. To use a possibly clumsy example: it's like believing that there is no God, but that you'll go to Abrahamic-religious heaven (or hell) when you die.
Unlike some other religions, Buddhism teaches that there is dukkha. One doesn't even have to be Buddhist, just examine what life is about.

If there are multiple lifetimes then suicide will not deal with problems inherent in existence. If there is one life, then suicide is a shortcut.

Of course if one becomes an Arahant, then there will be less, less dukkha. But still, even the Buddha experienced some forms of dukkha that is inherent in existence. What are our chances of becoming Buddha, or even Arhant? What is the point in struggling if one could use the rope and quickly parinibbanize?
Mal
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mal »

darvki wrote: If one is looking at a one-life-only viewpoint, the multiple-lives-dependent definition of parinibbana is rendered meaningless. Mixing worldviews like this is a logical black hole. To use a possibly clumsy example: it's like believing that there is no God, but that you'll go to Abrahamic-religious heaven (or hell) when you die.
Isn't holding all possibilities open as good as forcing yourself to believe in multiple-lives or one-life or heaven?

If you have one-life it's really irrelevant what you do - suicide or natural death there only a few years to go so why bother your head about the matter.

But if there is an after life then suicide is a no-no according to the major religions, because how you act in this life determines your afterlife. To become "the best you can be" requires all the time you've got! Kill yourself and you'll not be as good as you might be, and you might go to hell or be reborn as a turkey...
darvki
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 10:20 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by darvki »

Mal wrote:Isn't holding all possibilities open as good as forcing yourself to believe in multiple-lives or one-life or heaven?
Depends on who you ask. There have been discussions of Right View around rebirth on this thread and others. I'm not trying to address what I believe or what anybody else believes is true about the functioning of life and death. I'm attempting to address what I'm sure is very poor reasoning.
Alex123 wrote:Unlike some other religions, Buddhism teaches that there is dukkha. One doesn't even have to be Buddhist, just examine what life is about.
My point is not about the nature of various religions. It's about applying a concept from one worldview and transplanting it into another where it has no basis and renders any coherence impossible. Parinibbana is final freedom from rebirth. If a worldview doesn't contain rebirth to begin with, parinibbana can't be referenced. This is an ad hoc (to this) fallacy in that parinibbana only a solution that can apply to rebirth.
Alex123 wrote:If there are multiple lifetimes then suicide will not deal with problems inherent in existence. If there is one life, then suicide is a shortcut.
This, of course, assumes that one finds the "problems inherent to existence" solvable only by its termination. Many surely think otherwise.
Post Reply