the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

chownah wrote:Nowheet,
I don't often recommend reading things but this is from the link that mikenz66 just provided:

..............
Transcendent meaning for the Buddhist is attained through “that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships” that comes from realizing that our lives and therefore our practices are woven inextricably into something far grander in scale, a rich and immense tapestry of human affairs. We realize that we are each engaged in an epic struggle with karmic forces from the ancient past and producing outcomes that will reach endlessly into the future. Our practice therefore has vastly more at stake than happiness and comfort in this present life. It has never been exclusively about this one present life. From this the urgency that impels us to deep practice develops that also opens up the prospect of Awakening.
.................

Is this at least just a tiny little bit like what you have been saying?
chownah
P.S. My automatic spell corrector changes your name into "nowhere" sometimes so if this shows up it is not some subtle anything.
chownah
What do you see as being nowheat's position?
>> 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
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

tiltbillings wrote:
chownah wrote:Nowheet,
I don't often recommend reading things but this is from the link that mikenz66 just provided:

..............
Transcendent meaning for the Buddhist is attained through “that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships” that comes from realizing that our lives and therefore our practices are woven inextricably into something far grander in scale, a rich and immense tapestry of human affairs. We realize that we are each engaged in an epic struggle with karmic forces from the ancient past and producing outcomes that will reach endlessly into the future. Our practice therefore has vastly more at stake than happiness and comfort in this present life. It has never been exclusively about this one present life. From this the urgency that impels us to deep practice develops that also opens up the prospect of Awakening.
.................

Is this at least just a tiny little bit like what you have been saying?
chownah
P.S. My automatic spell corrector changes your name into "nowhere" sometimes so if this shows up it is not some subtle anything.
chownah
What do you see as being nowheat's position?
I have been working on defining her momentum and as Heisenberg says, the more you know about her momentum the less you can know about her position! :jumping:
As for my spellchecker demon, it thinks she is nowhere!!!!! :jumping: :woohoo:
On a less serious note, with regard to rebirth I think that she is of the opinion that rebirth is a sort of beginning point in a transitional teaching which transitions at least to an expression of metta as directed toward all sentient beings and perhaps beyond as well. I'm likely wrong on this or at best maybe slightly right. I also think she has the opinion that many/most/all of the buddha's teachings are of a similar transitional nature. And by transitional I think it means that the Buddha starts with an initial element found in The World of the listener and then presents ideas which can be seen as being related to the initial element but which moves the person's thinking toward the buddha's perspective in a way which not only shows his teaching but also shows the deficiencies of the initial element......but does this in a way which usually only occurs to the listener after some reflection on what has been said. Again I may very well be wrong on this.........I think she talks a lot about the Buddha's methods and her overarching view of the implications and not so much about hammering out doctrinal issues.
I'm interested on seeing what she thinks of the excerpt I presented in my previous post.
chownah
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

chownah wrote: . . .
I have been working on defining her momentum and as Heisenberg says, the more you know about her momentum the less you can know about her position!
It is hard to pin down, which is why I have been asking here to do a concise point by point statement of what she is advocating. The long prolix expositions are way too amorphous and time consuming. Life is way too short.
As for my spellchecker demon, it thinks she is nowhere!!!!!
Inadvertent insight.
On a less serious note, . . .
Thank you. I appreciate your effort in this.
>> 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
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 »

mikenz66 wrote: 2. Rebirth is an approximation for something more subtle, potentially verifiable, yet largely
equivalent with regards to the functionality that authenticity demands. This is a view seldom
considered.
It's something I've mused on. But I feel the "psychological" interpretation of rebirth is too crude an approximation.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: 2. Rebirth is an approximation for something more subtle, potentially verifiable, yet largely
equivalent with regards to the functionality that authenticity demands. This is a view seldom
considered.
It's something I've mused on. But I feel the "psychological" interpretation of rebirth is too crude an approximation.
I know that most everyone scoffs at the idea but consider genetics.
One argument against it is that it is too physical or as you might say too crude. But consider that the genetic machinery can be seen as a book. While a book is very physical, its message transcends its physicality....and while the genetic machinery is very physical, its impact goes well beyond its physicality. Also, kamma is used to explain how a person can have characteristics with no apparent explanation in their present life time and it is well documented that the genetic machinery plays a major role in determining characteristics with no other apparent explanation in the present life time.
Another argument against is that it is too impersonal as it does not point to any sort of continuum associated with the individual. But it seems to me the the more an idea points to a continuum associated with an individual the more that idea will come into conflict with the teachings of having no doctrine of self....so for me the great distance that the genetic machinery has from an individual specific continuum is a plus factor and should be helpful.
There is also the question of how is it that an arahant has no rebirth since children will continue to be born even after the arahant's death. Maybe it is because the arahant sees no self anywhere in The World and so an adamant does not see a "child" being born but rather just sees life rearising or the aggregates manifesting....so for the arahant there is no further birth.
chownah
P.S. I have forgotten what precisely gets reborn and are there any sutta references which talk about precisely what gets reborn.
chownah
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 »

chownah wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: 2. Rebirth is an approximation for something more subtle, potentially verifiable, yet largely
equivalent with regards to the functionality that authenticity demands. This is a view seldom
considered.
It's something I've mused on. But I feel the "psychological" interpretation of rebirth is too crude an approximation.
I know that most everyone scoffs at the idea but consider genetics.
It would make sense to say that genes are continually reborn, and genes code for psychological as well as physical characteristics. But is there anything in the suttas which would support this idea? Could you for example intepret kamma as survival of the fittest?

But going back to the "psychological" interpretation of rebirth, it just feels too literal to me - like another finger pointing at the moon perhaps. Maybe part of the problem here is that old paradox of trying to describe the unconditioned by means of the conditioned.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by kirk5a »

chownah wrote:But it seems to me the the more an idea points to a continuum associated with an individual the more that idea will come into conflict with the teachings of having no doctrine of self
There is no need for a self-doctrine to explain the continuity of a particular individual from infancy to adulthood. Similarly, the process of beings continual "transmigrating & wandering on" requires no self-doctrine. There is no conflict between the anatta teachings and rebirth.
P.S. I have forgotten what precisely gets reborn and are there any sutta references which talk about precisely what gets reborn.
"There are, O monks, four nutriments for the sustenance of beings born, and for the support of beings seeking birth. What are the four?

"Edible food, coarse and fine; sense-impression is the second; volitional thought, the third; and consciousness, the fourth.

"If, O monks, there is lust for the nutriment edible food, if there is pleasure in it and craving for it, then consciousness[1] takes a hold[2] therein[3] and grows.[4] Where consciousness takes a hold and grows, there will be occurrence of mind-and-body.[5] Where there is occurrence of mind-and-body, there is[6] growth of kamma-formations.[7] Where there is growth of kamma-formations, there is a future arising of renewed existence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... html#fnt-8
"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
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by ancientbuddhism »

mikenz66 wrote:The PDF book draft by Bhikkhu Cintita that Bhante Gavesako linked to here has some interesting discussion relevant to this thread ...
This is a religious tract. Straw-man arguments such as “The view that the Buddha never taught rebirth at all requires great imagination…” does find echo on this thread, but is a position which has yet to accuse anyone here. Does Cintita's book really inform this discussion?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
chownah wrote:

I know that most everyone scoffs at the idea but consider genetics.
It would make sense to say that genes are continually reborn, and genes code for psychological as well as physical characteristics. But is there anything in the suttas which would support this idea? Could you for example intepret kamma as survival of the fittest?

But going back to the "psychological" interpretation of rebirth, it just feels too literal to me - like another finger pointing at the moon perhaps. Maybe part of the problem here is that old paradox of trying to describe the unconditioned by means of the conditioned.
I think the Buddha had no idea about the genetic mechanisms. I think he experienced The World and drew his understandings from it so genetic mechanisms would be totally unknown to not only him but to everyone of the time. There will not be anything pointing to genetic mechanism in any writings of the time. Any manifestation of genetics which was observed would be explained in another way. For instance in some cultures an animal's color being the same as the father or mother or a mixture of the two is explained as the power of the blood.....or in many cultures if a woman does not bear a son then it is explained as a defect in her while we know now that it is just a matter of the genetic machinery of the sperm. Anyway, there will not be any pointers to genetics and to find the connection one should look for the kinds of things that are influenced by genetics and understand that this genetic mechanism is the basis for what they have observed in The World. For example, if someone is beautiful the Buddha explains this through kamma as a possible explanation and rather than to disagree with this I want to point out that physical features seem to be predominantly determined by genetics.....not completely, however....so on this particular example there is room for more than one influence such as emotional makeup and societal preferences etc. and some of these influences do play out but they act after the birth and I think can not be accurately be seen as coming into expression after transiting the rebirth process. In other words, there are multiple factors which makes someone beautiful but the only one that can be directly seen associated with the rebirth process that I know of is genetics.....with some other few exceptions like fetal alcohol syndrome and other extreme things like that which effect the fetus.
For me the bottom line is that kamma is used within the context of an agent which acts across the rebirth from the previous life into the next one......I think it would be better if Buddhists saw that genetics is a factor which without a doubt acts across the rebirth from a previous life into the next one. If one argues that this is wrong because it is not the same person then my response is that there are no selves involved in this and that is exactly why genetic mechanism is appropriate.....in fact I would propose that it is likely that people's understanding of rebirth as found in the suttas is more likely to draw them into a doctrine of self than is an understanding of genetics.....if so then perhaps the genetic explanation is superior. People are always talking about "my rebirth" or "my past lives".......very clearly a self is closely associated with their ideas.

About survival of the fittest. I don't see this as having much to do with the genetic mechanism. It has more to do with what happens to beings after the genetic mechanism does its work.

Another pitfall is that people say that genetics might explain how someone is deformed (for example) but it can not explain why that particular individual is the one to get that deformity. My answer is that genetic mechanisms do not create self identity....rather the person wondering why a particular individual is the one with the deformity is the person who is expressing a view of self. Genetic material from the mother and father is brought together through the craving associated with the clinging aggregates....if that fusion of genetic material receives nutrient it will grow and mature into a child with many latent tendencies which come about because of the genetic material.....a dog has doggy tendencies, a scorpion has scorpionic tendencies, and a human has human tendencies...this is kamma coming to fruition I guess...or is it the genetic mechanism?
chownah
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:The PDF book draft by Bhikkhu Cintita that Bhante Gavesako linked to here has some interesting discussion relevant to this thread ...
This is a religious tract. Straw-man arguments such as “The view that the Buddha never taught rebirth at all requires great imagination…” does find echo on this thread, but is a position which has yet to accuse anyone here. Does Cintita's book really inform this discussion?
There is an argument to be made that the Buddha did not teach rebirth but it comes from a completely different basis than the Bhikku provides......

I think it is obvious that the Buddha taught ABOUT rebirth or that he USED rebirth to illustrate his teachings but I do not think that the Buddha taught rebirth. For me the clear example of this is that he never as far as I have seen precisely describe what was reborn and he never as far as I know ever discuss rebirth relative to having no doctrine of self. I can not imagine someone as smart and experienced as the Buddha doing such a poor job of teaching something. For instance consider The All......the Buddha was very clear about what it was and now it functioned....the same goes for The World.....the same goes for the self. When the Buddha talks about the processes of birth they are described as methods of generation and not as methods of rebirth at least that is how it is rendered in English, I hope some Pali scholar can verify if the two terms are different in Pali or not.
Too tired to continue although what I have written seems a bit garbled.
chownah
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: However it can also seem like some people need rebirth to be true
Yes, the idea of rebirth could be quite comforting because it represents a continuation of sorts, and could be a way of coping with death anxiety. So there can be both clinging and aversion to the idea of rebirth.

I agree :)

That's why it can be very insightful to look into the feelings aroused when we meet with the idea, but I think that's getting onto a separate topic
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Jhana4 »

About 5 minutes into this video the woman mentions a "Dr. Tucker" who basically did the same thing the often mentioned Dr. Stephonson of the US did.

FWIW

I'm still agnostic

In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:The PDF book draft by Bhikkhu Cintita that Bhante Gavesako linked to here has some interesting discussion relevant to this thread ...
This is a religious tract.
Of course, that's stated up front. It's a tract about Buddhism.
ancientbuddhism wrote: Straw-man arguments such as “The view that the Buddha never taught rebirth at all requires great imagination…” does find echo on this thread, but is a position which has yet to accuse anyone here. Does Cintita's book really inform this discussion?
Ven Cintita writes in a rather conversational, and sometimes iconoclastic, style, but I don't see anything particularly strawman about that particular statement, read in its full context.

I found his previous blog entries on "folk" vs "adept" buddhism, which form a part of this work, very helpful in thinking about various approaches to the Dhamma. My summary would be that a "folk" approach, by either easterner or westerners, tends to see full liberation from samasara as either impossible, or something very far off. He gives one example of Western Folk Buddhism as:
A popular understanding in the West is that Buddhism is about freeing one's authentic/innermost/true
self/nature/voice/heart, a self that has been suppressed by social conditioning and other unnatural
factors, but when unleashed is the source of creativity, spirituality, virtue and wisdom.
And one could argue that thinking of Dhamma as simply a toolbox of techniques for healing and psychotherapy is also an Western Folk approach.

That's perhaps a topic for a different thread, but it does touch on a key question of what is or is not essential to realising the Dhamma, which is, in part, what this thread is about.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

And one could argue that thinking of Dhamma as simply a toolbox of techniques for healing and psychotherapy is also an Western Folk approach.
Why does it demean Dhamma to view it as a "psychotherapy"?

If it heals someone of dukkha then does it matter what it's called?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

clw_uk wrote:
And one could argue that thinking of Dhamma as simply a toolbox of techniques for healing and psychotherapy is also an Western Folk approach.
Why does it demean Dhamma to view it as a "psychotherapy"?

If it heals someone of dukkha then does it matter what it's called?
Well, my context was:
My summary would be that a "folk" approach, by either easterner or westerners, tends to see full liberation from samasara as either impossible, or something very far off.
The "far off" arguably is a characteristic of many eastern folk approaches, whereas the reduction of the Dhamma to something that just makes life more bearable is arguably a characteristic of many western folk approaches.

My lay understanding is that the western psychotherapy does not have the goal of completely eliminating dukkha.

See also: Still Crazy after all these Years: Why Meditation isn’t Psychotherapy, by Patrick Kearney

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply