the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by mikenz66 »

seanpdx wrote: Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
Don't you mean that Pascal's Wager was just a Christian form of the Buddha's teaching?

Metta
Mike
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by seanpdx »

mikenz66 wrote:
seanpdx wrote: Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
Don't you mean that Pascal's Wager was just a Christian form of the Buddha's teaching?

Metta
Mike
*grin* You know, I've always wondered if Pascal had read this sutta! =D
Alas, the fallacy itself is rather commonplace, so I just refer to it as Pascal's Wager even though neither is really a form of the other. I blame my history of christian debate. :thinking:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 to seanpdx wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, it does sound rather glib. I salute your abilities...
May I try then to answer your "How do you propose to do that?" question.

What underpins annihilationism or eternalism is belief in an atman (soul)... either one than transmigrates (eternalism) or one that is destroyed at death (annihilationism). The dichotomy of annihilationism vs eternalism is elegantly transcended if one does not possess a soul view, such as thus espoused in the Brahamajala Sutta.

Therefore, to repose Sean's question against that setting, "Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief if you hold no wrong views with respect to atman?"

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by seanpdx »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 to seanpdx wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, it does sound rather glib. I salute your abilities...
May I try then to answer your "How do you propose to do that?" question.

What underpins annihilationism or eternalism is belief in an atman (soul)... either one than transmigrates (eternalism) or one that is destroyed at death (annihilationism). The dichotomy of annihilationism vs eternalism is elegantly transcended if one does not possess a soul view, such as thus espoused in the Brahamajala Sutta.
I disagree on one specific point, which is actually more of semantic matter in what you wrote. I disagree that "belief in an atman" necessarily underpins each view. I agree, however, that it's transcended if one "does not possess a soul view". Belief in an atman, and belief in a lack of atman, are both soul views. One, the view that a soul exists (leading to either eternalism or annihilationism). The other, the view that a soul does not exist (which obviously cannot lead to eternalism in any seemingly rational way, but could lead to materialism/nihilism/annihilationism).

Remember... when confronted with the actual question of the existence of a soul, the Buddha remained silent. Belief in a lack of soul, I believe, can be just as bad as belief in a soul. I'm not sure if that's what you were ultimately trying to get across, or whether you think that belief in a lack of soul transcends soul views. ???
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: Therefore, to repose Sean's question against that setting, "Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief if you hold no wrong views with respect to atman?"
An extremely hypothetical question if you ask me, since all of us on this thread presumably have such wrong views...

Metta
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:An extremely hypothetical question if you ask me, since all of us on this thread presumably have such wrong views...
Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?

:thinking:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?
Of course, I'm just not sure which one... :thinking:

So is everyone here, or we'd already be awakened and not discussing such things...

Mike
seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by seanpdx »

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?
Of course, I'm just not sure which one... :thinking:

So is everyone here, or we'd already be awakened and not discussing such things...

Mike
Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.

Furthermore, according to the third noble truth, it is the extinction of tanha which results in the cessation of dukkha and, subsequently, liberation. Not the extinction of eternalist or annihilationist views.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Sean,
seanpdx wrote: Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.
I'm not talking about expressed views and beliefs, I'm talking about awakening, or lack thereof.

If you are awakened, and are beyond delusion, then I apologise for my statement... :anjali:

Metta
Mike
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by BlackBird »

seanpdx wrote: Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.
Well, Mike and Retro are quite correct to say so. This is because a non-ariyan mind, left to it's own devices (which is most of the time) necessarily inclines itself to one of these two views, or a combination thereof, just as a river inclines itself towards the sea.

Say a person were to announce: "Well, we all have either 2 kidneys or 1 kidney" and some man were to come a long and say: "Come now my good man, please do not speak for my kidneys, please do not assume that I may or may not have 2 kidneys or 1 kidney or even kidneys at all"

Would he be right in saying such a thing?
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by nowheat »

mikenz66 wrote:Hi NoWheat,
nowheat wrote: My concern is that if this is true, rebirth accepters spread a meme that seriously slows ability to gain liberation.
Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).
HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.

:namaste:
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by Cittasanto »

seanpdx wrote:according to the third noble truth, it is the extinction of tanha which results in the cessation of dukkha and, subsequently, liberation. Not the extinction of eternalist or annihilationist views.
Hi Sean & All,
maybe worth remembering the fourth noble truth also?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by nowheat »

(apologizing to all who have answered for only answering a few posts but at the moment I'm pressed for time, and your posts aren't light reading. I will get to them though!)
mikenz66 wrote:
seanpdx wrote: What if we simply drop any and all notions of annihilationism and eternalism? Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief?
How do you propose to do that?
I propose to do it by following the Buddha's example of agnosticism. In fact, for myself, I'm past proposing; it happened to me without my ever really intending that it should. When I started reading the suttas and came to understand that the Buddha was not saying there is another life beyond this, nor was he saying that there wasn't, that he was saying that we must base our choices on what we can know directly ourselves; when I realized that I do not know whether this is my only life or one of many, my stomach did that rollercoaster-drop thing on and off for quite a while, because I was deeply, deeply disturbed by the concept. Which was pretty funny because I *thought* I'd been an agnostic for many years; I hadn't realized until I accepted his wisdom that I have to base my life on what I can know, and not simply on what others tell me (in other words; read, study, listen, choose wise teachers, but test and see for yourself) I discovered that I had a whole bunch of unexamined assumptions and letting go of them was deeply uncomfortable. I expect I still have a few more to let go of, but hopefully not too many left in this particular category; I've gotten fairly good at noticing them when they (rarely) show their heads.

:namaste:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi NoWheat,
nowheat wrote:
mikenz66 wrote: Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).
HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.
Hmm, I guess you mean:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 680#p50948" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
nowheat wrote:Bhikkhu Bodhi says that the Buddha said in this sutta that right view ripens (in other words "matures into" or "gives us fruit which is") the acquisition of "the five aggregates that constitute personal existence.' In other words, following this view causes us to continue to generate the five aggregates. Note that when it comes to the aggregates, it doesn't use a word that implies "will continue as before" but one that implies that the process of believing mundane right view *generates* the taint: *ripening* in the acquisitions.
I can see your point, but I don't necessarily accept the sort of "cause and effect" you attribute to it.

I would summarise it as: "With mundane right view there is progress but rebirth continues until there is full awakening (at which point supramundane right view arises...)." I.e. the continued becoming is a result of lack of awakening rather than a result of mundane right view.

Mike
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

Post by nowheat »

seanpdx wrote:
Ben wrote: As you know, when the Buddha was questioned by the householders of sala who were sceptical of rebirth, in the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60), he didn't try to convince them that they were wrong but used logical inference to direct them to the conclusion that living one's life as though one believed in rebirth will lead to their welfare. And I think that remains a potent message for all of us.
kind regards
Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
Except that it's not, not entirely a Pascal's Wager. The part about "will get a good rebirth after the breakup of the body" is Pascal's Wager, but the parts about "will lead a good life, praised by your peers" is not.

The best reason to be moral is because it reduces suffering, in the long run. It can do that by making one's life better: for a householder, as above, because you will have the respect of your peers and the support of your community. For a mendicant, same as for a householder *and* you set up a situation in which it is easier for you to maintain your practice.

I bet there are other good reasons, nothing to do with rebirth, for being moral.

:namaste:
Post Reply