the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
greggorious
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by greggorious »

If we're talking common sense then many people will argue that believing in re-birth isn't common sense.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

greggorious wrote:If we're talking common sense then many people will argue that believing in re-birth isn't common sense.
Right.

kirk5a wrote:There are such phenomena in the texts such as the Divine Eye and the Divine Ear, where seeing and hearing of actual events occurs, but not through the physical organs. These abilities are ascribed to those of high meditation attainments, such as Ven. Moggallana, but still... according to the texts, the answer to whether it is possible to see without using the physical eyes appears to be yes.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 3.html#ch7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And how do we know that these things have actually occurred?
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

greggorious wrote:If we're talking common sense then many people will argue that believing in re-birth isn't common sense.
Believing in enlightenment isn't common sense. :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by beeblebrox »

Alex123 wrote: So one can see without using the eyes? I would like to know how to do that. Doesn't this reject the Buddhist teaching that seeing occurs when there is external object AND THE EYE present along with all the other necessary conditions?
Hi Alex,

I don't want to argue either for nor against super-normal vision, but according to the dependent origination, trying to establish any of the six sense bases would have to be rooted on the ignorance of the sankharas involved.

If we try to cling to our own ideas of "eye" or its "seeing" as something definitive (i.e., something which is not anicca), then that is ignorance. It leads to a dukkha, since there always will be people who have different perceptions along with their own definitions to struggle against.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but deaf people are actually able to listen without the use of ears. Blind people are also able to see the nature of something, even without the use of their eyes. What does that mean really? Is this due to an error in the perceptions? Does it seem wrong because of our own clinging to the preconceived notions? I don't think that this is merely semantics.

It only shows the anicca nature of our perceptions, along with our own willingness to try to cling to them at any cost, even though that will create misunderstanding, and difficulty. It's one of the five aggregates which are considered unreliable.

Also, I think one of the qualities of an arahant is a so-called "consciousness" which isn't established on anything. To me, that means that the arahant doesn't get stuck to anything... he's unbounded.

Whenever we notice ourselves becoming perplexed... when someone seem to manage to "see" without the use of any preconceived notion of the "eye," for example, then maybe that is something to think about.

When Bahiya was told by the Buddha to try to see only what was seen... what do you think that he meant exactly? Do you think that there was something permanent for Bahiya to see, such as the eye and its object...?

:anjali:
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 »

Most of the process of seeing has nothing to do with the eye. Otherswise, how do you explain what you "see" in your mind, while your eyes are closed? Add to that all of your filters due to expectations, previous experiences, education, training, fears, desires, preferences, etc., and consider how accurate your vision is versus your imagination. :namaste:

Now, consider a mind free of all filters as described above, what has been called "The Luminous Mind", how much better, more capable would vision be with such a mind?
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.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

beeblebrox wrote:I'm not sure if you're aware, but deaf people are actually able to listen without the use of ears. Blind people are also able to see the nature of something, even without the use of their eyes. What does that mean really?
It means that there is something wrong here. Maybe they are remembering/imagining sounds or sights. Neither Buddhism, nor common sense supports the idea of seeing without eyes or hearing without ears.


I wish I could see well with my weak eyes, and I wish my grandmother could hear well with her bad ears.
Ron-The-Elder wrote:Most of the process of seeing has nothing to do with the eye. Otherswise, how do you explain what you "see" in your mind, while your eyes are closed?
Imagination or remembering past sights or sounds.
beeblebrox wrote:Also, I think one of the qualities of an arahant is a so-called "consciousness" which isn't established on anything. To me, that means that the arahant doesn't get stuck to anything... he's unbounded.
I believe that this is in context of, "Arahant doesn't cling to anything, thus no rebirth for him".
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 »

Modern understanding of how perceptive systems work shows that the brain is "plastic", more so than ever previously thought. This neuroplasticity does in fact allow and facilitate heightened touch to replace hearing to some degree, particularly with regard to rythm, and to some minor degree, sight. Sections of the human brain, which have been identified as related to sight communicate and take over fed by inputs from other neuro-receptors. Micro and now Nano surgery will soon allow those who have lost their sight, and those born without it to receive electronic implants into the brain, which will replace eyes, rods and cones, eventually no doubt with instrumentation, which will exceed human capabilities just as we developed microscopes and telescopes over the last hundred years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://gizmodo.com/5910050/the-solar-po ... ores-sight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ight-blind" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So, what was believed in the past, even 2500 years ago is no longer representative of current knowleged in the realm of neuro-science.
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.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

Alex123 wrote: Neither Buddhism, nor common sense supports the idea of seeing without eyes or hearing without ears.
I wonder what happens in the formless realms?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

porpoise wrote:
Alex123 wrote: Neither Buddhism, nor common sense supports the idea of seeing without eyes or hearing without ears.
I wonder what happens in the formless realms?

As I understand the orthodox teaching, there are no 5 senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching) there.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by manas »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:Most of the process of seeing has nothing to do with the eye. Otherswise, how do you explain what you "see" in your mind, while your eyes are closed? Add to that all of your filters due to expectations, previous experiences, education, training, fears, desires, preferences, etc., and consider how accurate your vision is versus your imagination. :namaste:

Now, consider a mind free of all filters as described above, what has been called "The Luminous Mind", how much better, more capable would vision be with such a mind?
Yes, there is more to 'seeing' than it seems. All the colours, shapes, and things we see around us, even this computer screen right now - are taking place (according to modern science) in total darkness, in a region at the back of our brain. It looks to be 'out there' but the image we see is actually happening 'in here'. That's according to science!

That squishy ball called an 'eye' is only a part of the sense of 'sight', maybe?
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

manas wrote:Yes, there is more to 'seeing' than it seems.
Apparently a large chunk of the brain is required for processing visual input.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21759233
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DNS »

There was a pretty good blog post by Ven. Dhammika the other day about rebirth.

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/03/t ... birth.html

I like how he presents the Buddhist concepts, issues with references to the Suttas, the Pali, and keeps it short and simple, to the point.
greggorious
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 6:40 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by greggorious »

Ajahn Sumedho seems to have some good thoughts about rebirth. He seems to suggest that there's almost a choice in how we are re-born, we'll likely choose to be reborn in a situation in which we feel will comfortable with, because that is our desire to do so. Our desire is reborn.
"The original heart/mind shines like pure, clear water with the sweetest taste. But if the heart is pure, is our practice over? No, we must not cling even to this purity. We must go beyond all duality, all concepts, all bad, all good, all pure, all impure. We must go beyond self and nonself, beyond birth and death. When we see with the eye of wisdom, we know that the true Buddha is timeless, unborn, unrelated to any body, any history, any image. Buddha is the ground of all being, the realization of the truth of the unmoving mind.” Ajahn Chah
User avatar
iforgotmyname
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:24 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by iforgotmyname »

David N. Snyder wrote:There was a pretty good blog post by Ven. Dhammika the other day about rebirth.

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/03/t ... birth.html

I like how he presents the Buddhist concepts, issues with references to the Suttas, the Pali, and keeps it short and simple, to the point.
Thanks for sharing David, it was a simple read. I wish I could find out for myself - that's the only way to cast out any doubts.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by manas »

David N. Snyder wrote:There was a pretty good blog post by Ven. Dhammika the other day about rebirth.

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/03/t ... birth.html

I like how he presents the Buddhist concepts, issues with references to the Suttas, the Pali, and keeps it short and simple, to the point.
Thanks for that, David. I liked how he answered a "what is it that actually gets reborn?" question, from one of his readers:
Dear Ryan, I and other Buddhists have answered this question many, many times before, but I’m happy to do so again. However, I do find it curious that people think that identity is incompatible with change. Surely it is correct to say that Rome is 2500 years old despite the fact that the city changes every day. We have no problem at looking at a photo of ourselves taken in childhood and saying “That’s me” despite the fact that our size, shape, muscle tone, ideas, opinions, etc have completely changed since the photo was taken. The individual is like a football team founded 75 years ago. During that time hundreds of players have joined the team, played with it for five or ten years, left and been replaced by other players. Even though not one of the original players is still in the team or even alive, it is still valid to say that ‘the team’ exists. Its identity is recognizable despite the continual change. The players are hard, solid entities but what is the team’s identity made up of? Its name, memories of its past achievements, the feelings that the players and the supporters have towards it, its esprit de corps, etc. Individuals are the same. Despite the fact that both body and mind are continually changing, it is still valid to say that the person who is reborn is a continuation of the person who died - not because any unchanging self has passed from one to another but because identity persists in memories, dispositions, traits, mental habits and psychological tendencies.
A good analogy to give, and one that many folks out there might be able to relate with!

:anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
Post Reply