the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Rahula
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Why I didn't believe in rebirth

Post by Rahula »

I didn't believe in rebirth as it was not obvious to me. It was not something my common sense captured. I like science. I learned science and physics was my favorite subject. I like to see the world in a more practical way. I want to examine and understand everything in a scientific way.

I thought people wanted to believe in rebirth as they were worried about death. Without rebirth, death is the end of us. Most people don't want that. They want someway to live again. They don't want to believe that death is the end of it. That's why a concept like rebirth might have come in to existence, I thought. I had read stories about children who spoke of their past life. People who reported these stories had found the family of that past life and claimed to be verified the story. But I was not very convinced as I had not seen such a event in real life, those were just stories to me. I didn't have any intention to find-out more. Even if I wanted to, it was not practical, I had other important work.

I am found of Astronomy. I spend most of my spare time reading about the Universe. Books by Stephen Hawking and others. Closely following Mars Curiosity these days etc.
But something like Karma & Rebirth was not logically understandable to me. And I was very open about it as well. I didn't believe it, but I hadn't rejected it as well. I don't reject anything because I don't understand it, I just keep an open mind, until one day I understand it fully.

Rebirth, this understanding came to me in a way I could not reject it no more.
Karma, now when I think about it as I believe rebirth, I can mostly understand it. When I look at the world in that view point, I see karma in action in everyone's life. Now I understand why poor people I know get tremendous amounts of trouble, one after another, while some rich people I know always get lucky at most things they do. I would have looked at same things in a logical way and explain them differently if I didn't believe in karma. But not anymore.

I always thought giving to poor, who needed it most should be always much better than giving it to Sangha, who already have more than they needed. But Buddha said otherwise, I didn't agree with him, until I believed in Karma. Now I see why giving to Sangha (more disciplined at-least) is better (for me) than giving to poor who are suffering their own akusala karma.

I know the way you are thinking, been there, done that.
That's why I mentioned earlier in another post "When will this debate end? Only when you, yourself witness it."

Why don't I just leave it there, thinking that you will understand it eventually?
Because I care. I want you to go find the truth, without waiting for it to come to you, as I did. You never know, it may never come.

The Truth is Out There...

.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do! :anjali:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Why I didn't believe in rebirth

Post by tiltbillings »

Rahula wrote:The Truth is Out There...
Actually, the Truth/Dhamma is found in the interdependent conditioned rise of just six things:

  • "Monks, I will teach you the all. And what is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds the nose and odors, the tongue and tastes, the body and touch, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all. If anyone, monks, should speak thus: ' Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all' - that would be a mere empty boast." SN IV 15.
Also:
  • It is in this very fathom-long physical frame with its perceptions and mind, that, I declare, lies the world, and the arising of the world, and the cessation of the world, and the path leading to the cessation of the world."[26]
26.The import of this significant declaration can be understood in the context of those suttas in which the Buddha defines the concept of the world. The 'world,' for the Buddha, arises in the six sense-spheres (See above Note 21). Hence its cessation too, is to be experienced there, in the cessation of the six sense-spheres (salaayatananirodha). "I will teach you, monks, how the world comes to be and passes away... What monks, is the arising of the world? Dependent on eye and forms, arises visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling, craving. Conditioned by craving, grasping. Conditioned by grasping, becoming. Conditioned by becoming, birth. And conditioned by birth, arise decay, death, grief lamentation, suffering, despair. This is the arising of the world.
And what, monks, is the passing away of the world? Dependent on the eye and forms arise visual consciousness. The concurrence of the three is contact. Conditioned by contact is feeling. Conditioned by feeling is craving. By the utter fading away and cessation of that craving, grasping ceases, by the ceasing of grasping, becoming ceases, by the ceasing of becoming birth ceases, by the ceasing of birth, decay-and-death, grief, lamentation, suffering, despair, cease. Such is the ceasing of this entire man of Ill.

— SN 2.26; S i 61; CDB i 157
In other words, the Truth is not out there at all.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Rahula wrote:
Now I understand why poor people I know get tremendous amounts of trouble, one after another, while some rich people I know always get lucky at most things they do. I would have looked at same things in a logical way and explain them differently if I didn't believe in karma. But not anymore.
Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system. The Buddha said that the precise working out of the results of kamma was unconjecturable:

AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
User avatar
Rahula
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:34 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Rahula »

Why people only take a small part of an idea and try to start point less debate?
The Truth is Out There
Was the last line of my post, above it was the whole idea.
Ok, The Truth is NOT Out There, Truth is WITHIN! Or where ever you say so...
Aloka wrote:Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system. The Buddha said that the precise working out of the results of kamma was unconjecturable:
Yes, of-cause. Did I mention otherwise.
As 'precise working out of the results of karma is unconjecturable', do we have to not relate anything to karma? It's unconjecturable if you try to understand, precise working out of the results of karma. That means, if you try to find karma vipaka of one particular action, it is not possible. Did it seems to you that I was doing that? I was just openly saying, not relating vipaka to any particular karma.

However that was not my point in that whole post, was it?

If anybody had constructively criticized the whole idea behind my post I would be happy. But...?

I think the time I wasted here was worthless. I thought perhaps I could share my experience with others and it may help convince someone. It looks like I'm just too dumb. I'm signing off, you people keep it going...until...

.
May you be happy, healthy & successful in everything you do! :anjali:
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Raitanator »

Aloka wrote: Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system.
Punishment, now that's an emotional way to describe it. Wouldn't it be more "punishable" to people if karma is completely random? For example to babies who are born with AIDS.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Raitanator wrote:
Aloka wrote: Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system.
Punishment, now that's an emotional way to describe it......
"Emotional"? Please don't project your imaginings onto me and get personal, thanks.

.
nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nibbuti »

Raitanator wrote:Wouldn't it be more "punishable" to people if karma is completely random? For example to babies who are born with AIDS.
Hi Raitanator. I think those who feel the need to speculate about kamma and babies who are born sick, rather than see it with wisdom as it is: as a sign of anicca & dukkha of all that is conditioned, are already punished enough.

:popcorn:
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Raitanator »

Well, my point was more like that "punish" is a wrong choice of word. "You reap what you sow" is more neutral perspective for that. Like I tried to say earlier, it would be more unfair if sickness and all that, if it's only randomly generated.
nibbuti
Posts: 155
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 11:36 pm
Location: Germany

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nibbuti »

Raitanator wrote:Well, my point was more like that "punish" is a wrong choice of word. "You reap what you sow" is more neutral perspective for that. Like I tried to say earlier, it would be more unfair if sickness and all that, if it's only randomly generated.
Yes, Raitanator, it would be unfair if sickness and all that were "randomly generated".

That is also the reason why some people, who their whole life were very faithful in the fairness of God, when some loved one dies unexpectedly, loose their faith in God. Fairness or equality (of Kamma, God, government, 'good rebirth' or any outer entanglement) cannot be guaranteed.

The only sure thing in life is impermanence, as the saying goes.

:broke:
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Raitanator wrote:Well, my point was more like that "punish" is a wrong choice of word. "You reap what you sow" is more neutral perspective for that. Like I tried to say earlier, it would be more unfair if sickness and all that, if it's only randomly generated.
...and my point was simply that kamma isn't the deterministic punishment and rewards system that some people imagine it to be. Plus the natural laws of nature which are non-personal, also play a part in our lives.

_/\_
Raitanator
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Raitanator »

nibbuti wrote: That is also the reason why some people, who their whole life were very faithful in the fairness of God, when some loved one dies unexpectedly, loose their faith in God. Fairness or equality (of Kamma, God, government, 'good rebirth' or any outer entanglement) cannot be guaranteed.

The only sure thing in life is impermanence, as the saying goes.

:broke:
I think negative or positive reincarnation can be guaranteed by one's actions, whatever those might be. Otherwise there wouldn't be much point of doing positive actions, from my limited, selfish point of view. I guess, the main difference (rouhgly said) between hindus and buddhist interpretations of karma is this "guaranteed" succesfulness. In addition, how fatalistic karma is viewed. Hindu servant might just accept his fate, because of it's the karma afterall. Buddhist might not accept it, because in his belief, being a servant who's treated like mattress creates habitual tendencies to be in that very state in future, too.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

I've mentioned this talk by Ajahn Amaro about kamma somewhere else - but its definately worth listening to, if anyone is willing to listen to what a Theravada abbot has to say :

"Who's pulling the strings"

http://www.blubrry.com/amaravatitalks1/ ... talk-2012/
alan...
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by alan... »

to those who maintain or suggest that the buddha was using skillful means and that rebirth is not real: how does this fit in with his teaching that arahants cannot say anything that is not true?

i suppose if you think he was lying for skillful means then maybe that was a lie too? he was lying when he said arahants cannot lie? if this is the case then we really have no idea what he was telling the truth about and what was skillful means, right?

wouldn't it be much more reasonable to assume he never said anything that is not true as opposed to making blind assumptions that he lied sometimes but also taught at all times that lying is not something enlightened ones do... but that that could be another lie? once we make the buddha into someone who lies, simply so that we may explain a part of the dhamma that is not totally understood, it severely affects literally everything else in the dhamma.

i understand other debates on rebirth but this one just seems absurd. i appreciate ideas like:

"perhaps rebirth was added by others, not the buddha."

i would even appreciate something off the wall like:

"the buddha was enlightened and taught how to reach nibbana which is mental freedom. nibbana is real. rebirth is not real but he didn't know that because he was tripping out when he saw his past lives due to starvation and a sudden uptake of carbohydrates and protien causing such and such chemicals in his brain, blah blah blah, hallucinations of past lives. however after the hallucination subsided he was still able to maintain his mental freedom and teach others to reach the same state but never learned that the past lives was just a bad trip."

or even a total wash like:

"the whole thing is made up. it's all a big joke."

all of those are more plausible than the skillful means thing.

so don't get me wrong. i don't think the debate is a bad thing, it's a very valid idea to discuss. i just don't understand how anyone could possibly consider this "skillful means" idea with any seriousness. not to mention the whole skillful means thing is a mahayana idea and i don't believe it exists in the pali canon. it's a lotus sutra thing and surely other places but i think it's long after theravada closed their canon. "skillful means: do whatever you want as long as it leads to nibbbana." come on, that attitude is so far from anything in the pali canon it's nuts.

i don't get it.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

alan... wrote:to those who maintain or suggest that the buddha was using skillful means and that rebirth is not real
This is a combination not considered, below: that words might be unfactual, untrue, but beneficial:
MN 58 wrote:[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.

[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.

[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say them.

[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings."
Can we say the absence is due to it being considered obviously impossible?

---

EDITs: clarity
Last edited by daverupa on Thu Jan 03, 2013 12:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
  • "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
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

alan... wrote: not to mention the whole skillful means thing is a mahayana idea and i don't believe it exists in the pali canon. it's a lotus sutra thing and surely other places but i think it's long after theravada closed their canon. "skillful means: do whatever you want as long as it leads to nibbbana." come on, that attitude is so far from anything in the pali canon it's nuts.
The Pali word "Upaya" = "Skillful means. Using different resources to realise the teachings of the Buddha."

(from the glossary of "The Sound of Silence" by Ajahn Sumedho - Theravada Thai Forest Tradition Abbot )

.
Post Reply