Greetings,
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that if your thoughts are off into the future, your mind is not particularly aware of itself in the present.
That said, I'm not here to say rebirth is or isn't true. As I see it, it makes little difference what I think, because what I think/believe/speculate wouldn't change the reality of what will be in relation to "literal post mortem rebirth" anyway.
What I do know is that erroneously perceiving a self and extending this false perception of self backwards and forwards in time is not consistent with "seeing things as they really are", so I endeavour not to do it.
Metta,
Retro.
the great rebirth debate
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27839
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: the great rebirth debate
Thanks to lyndon taylor"s last post I now know of two ways that literal rebirth can be related to practice. The first way is that some people are uncertain of whether they may have bad rebirths so this motivates them to practice more seriously. The second is that some people view future rebirths as simply more chances at attaining nibanna. I can"t help but think that for some people the idea that future rebirths gives more chances to attain nibanna might have the effect of reducing motivation since you will get another chance anyway.....I want to make it very very very very clear that I am NOT saying that everyone with this view would have reduced motivation but I see this as a likely outcome for some people.
So, in summary, so far I know that literal rebirth view can act as a motivator for some people and as a de-motivator for others. I'm hoping to hear from people about other ways that literal rebirth view is incorporated into or effects their practice.
chownah
So, in summary, so far I know that literal rebirth view can act as a motivator for some people and as a de-motivator for others. I'm hoping to hear from people about other ways that literal rebirth view is incorporated into or effects their practice.
chownah
Re: the great rebirth debate
Cancer does not require the concept of a "self" to mean something.retrofuturist wrote: It clarifies the nature of what they actually are, and that they require the erroneous (i.e. avijja) concept of a "self" (which is a thought, i.e. sankhara) existing over time in order to mean anything at all. In the absence of avijja, any reference point to which such terms might have any meaning is transcended.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
Chownah, As I don't see you saying anything favourable for rebirth, I hardly think your opinion on what rebirth offers practitioners is of any consequence or relevence.
Retro, As to being in the moment, this is primarily a meditative technique, it would be impossible to get out of bed or simply cross the street if you did not "plan for the future", The buddha speaks extensively about practises and actions that require planning for the future, and extensilvely about past actions and former lives, that require contemplating the past. There is no way possible to live entirely in the present unless you are meditating. And obviously a person who had no plans for the future would be not only stupid, but very unable to function normally, likewise someone who did not learn from and contemplate their past.
Retro, As to being in the moment, this is primarily a meditative technique, it would be impossible to get out of bed or simply cross the street if you did not "plan for the future", The buddha speaks extensively about practises and actions that require planning for the future, and extensilvely about past actions and former lives, that require contemplating the past. There is no way possible to live entirely in the present unless you are meditating. And obviously a person who had no plans for the future would be not only stupid, but very unable to function normally, likewise someone who did not learn from and contemplate their past.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great rebirth debate
For me the inclusion of birth in dependent origination argues strongly against a one lifetime interpretation.tiltbillings wrote:But the Buddha-to-be shows serious concern about being subject to birth, something that could only happen after death. And there's no reason to not take the text exactly as it is written.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great rebirth debate
The weakness of this argument is that descriptions of dukkha include all those hardships, as well as birth.clw_uk wrote: "being subject to birth" doesn't have to mean future birth, just the hardships that come from being born.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great rebirth debate
Yes, and those poor ignorant people in the Buddha's time just weren't as clever as what we are.tiltbillings wrote: 2500 years after the Buddha's death we now have folks telling us what the Buddha truly taught, and never mind what those poor benighted folks that went before might have said, because they did not have the truly true "experience, reflection, and wisdom."
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great rebirth debate
You are so right they did not even speak English and had to rely on the same language that The Buddha spoke - complete with a knowledge of all of the cultural references.Spiny Norman wrote:Yes, and those poor ignorant people in the Buddha's time just weren't as clever as what we are.tiltbillings wrote: 2500 years after the Buddha's death we now have folks telling us what the Buddha truly taught, and never mind what those poor benighted folks that went before might have said, because they did not have the truly true "experience, reflection, and wisdom."
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great rebirth debate
True, though I think the suttas give mixed messages on the"timescale" required for reaching Nibbana.lyndon taylor wrote:As you have a thousand fold increase in your chance of realizing the dhamma over 1000 lifetimes as you do over one.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 10154
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: the great rebirth debate
There seems to be quite a few different positions in this debate.
Is this a fair summary of the main ones?
1. The Buddha taught literal rebirth and it's relevant to practice;
2. The Buddha taught literal rebirth but it isn't relevant/necessary to practice;
3. The Buddha taught rebirth as a metaphor;
4. The Buddha didn't teach rebirth atall, these teachings were added in later.
Is this a fair summary of the main ones?
1. The Buddha taught literal rebirth and it's relevant to practice;
2. The Buddha taught literal rebirth but it isn't relevant/necessary to practice;
3. The Buddha taught rebirth as a metaphor;
4. The Buddha didn't teach rebirth atall, these teachings were added in later.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: the great rebirth debate
I think "literal rebirth" is a strange locution; it's probably better to just say 'rebirth' and let analysis and discussion clarify what that means in terms of the texts and/or the practice. The later "rebirth-as-metaphor" is sufficient to differentiate the two approaches, I think.Spiny Norman wrote:There seems to be quite a few different positions in this debate.
Is this a fair summary of the main ones?
1. The Buddha taught literal rebirth and it's relevant to practice;
2. The Buddha taught literal rebirth but it isn't relevant/necessary to practice;
3. The Buddha taught rebirth as a metaphor;
4. The Buddha didn't teach rebirth atall, these teachings were added in later.
It may also pay to note that the first two options aren't clearly exclusive; the earlier discussion centered on whether it was essential, not simply relevant, and this is an important distinction.
Otherwise, those options do seem to encapsulate the general trends.
- "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]
- lyndon taylor
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
- Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
- Contact:
Re: the great rebirth debate
I you mean were supposed to let Daverupa decide what literal rebirth means, I think not......
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
Re: the great rebirth debate
You may notice that I've said it takes comparison with what the texts say.lyndon taylor wrote:I you mean were supposed to let Daverupa decide what literal rebirth means, I think not......
Protection of the truth requires us to say what the texts say, but not claim that rebirth is true unless we have abhinna to say so.
The texts showcase that rebirth of a specific sort can be an inferred outcome of paticcasamuppada. The Wager showcases the lack of necessity of a belief about this vis-a-vis a given practice; and this is a stronger approach to some modern dhammduta than a faulty insistence on the general necessity of a belief in rebirth, given the perplexity and outright materialist presumption which abounds these days.
On that note, I must disagree with the idea that rebirth can be wholly removed from the Dhamma (Spiny's #4, above); a certain sort of rebirth is a requisite consequence of the Dhamma, so parsing rebirth out altogether isn't a sustainable project. This point, and the point that rebirth is nevertheless wholly inessential (as already discussed) to ones practice, seem to be getting confused at every turn.
- "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]
Re: the great rebirth debate
lyndon taylor,lyndon taylor wrote:Chownah, As I don't see you saying anything favourable for rebirth, I hardly think your opinion on what rebirth offers practitioners is of any consequence or relevence.
In my last post I did not give my opinion about what rebirth offers practitioners and I agree with you that if I had given my opinion on that it would have been of no consequence. In fact tilt billings asked me twice to give my opinion on that and I refused both times because for me to give my opinion on what literal rebirth offers to practitioners would be of little to no consequence. I have been asking those who do hold the view of literal rebirth to tell me how it is used in their practice because only people who have that view can speak with any consequence....so we are in agreement on this.
What I did post is the two things which people who do believe in literal rebirth have said that it is relevant to their practice which are, 1) it is a motivator because I want to attain nibanna quickly since I don't want to take the chance of having a painful rebirth and 2) I don't know if I will attain nibanna in this life so I'm glad that rebirth will give me more chances to attain nibanna.
So, I hope you can see that these are not my opinions at all....they are what people who say they believe in literal rebirth have said right here in this topic......you are one of those people!......item number two is YOUR opinion!
How can it be that you think I am giving my opinion when in fact I am giving YOUR opinion? Please give this some consideration.
chownah
Re: the great rebirth debate
It depends what you practice. With strong sexual desire, why suffer celibacy?daverupa wrote: and the point that rebirth is nevertheless wholly inessential (as already discussed) to ones practice,
What about adinava sanna? Without rebirth it is rather difficult to practice..."And what is the taking on of a practice that is painful in the present but yields pleasure in the future? There is the case of a person who is normally strongly passionate by nature and frequently experiences pain & grief born of passion; a person who is normally strongly aversive by nature and frequently experiences pain & grief born of aversion; a person who is normally strongly deluded by nature and frequently experiences pain & grief born of delusion. Even though touched with pain & grief, crying with a tearful face, he lives the holy life that is utterly perfect, surpassingly pure. With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the good bourn, the heavenly world. This is called the taking on of a practice that is painful in the present but yields pleasure in the future.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html"In the same way, monks, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who hold to a doctrine, a view like this: 'There is no harm in sensual pleasures.' Thus they meet with their downfall through sensual pleasures. They consort with women wanderers who wear their hair coiled in a topknot.
"The thought occurs to them: 'Now what future danger do those [other] brahmans & contemplatives foresee that they teach the relinquishment & analysis of sensual pleasures? It's pleasant, the touch of this woman wanderer's soft, tender, downy arm.'
Thus they meet with their downfall through sensual pleasures. Then, having met with their downfall through sensual pleasures, with the break-up of the body, after death, they go to a bad bourn, destitution, the realm of the hungry shades, hell. There they experience sharp, burning pains. They say: 'This was the future danger concerning sensual pleasures those brahmans & contemplatives foresaw that they spoke of the relinquishment of sensual pleasures and described the full comprehension of sensual pleasures. It's because of sensual pleasures, as a result of sensual pleasures, that we're now experiencing these sharp, burning pains.'
"This is called the taking on of a practice that is pleasant in the present but yields pain in the future.
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Nicolás Gómez Dávila