the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Alex,
Alex123 wrote:And lets not forget that it is wrong view to believe in one life only. With wrong view one cannot attain paths and fruits. So it is important for the path!
Annihilationist views and Eternalist views are Wrong View, as is denying the efficacy of kamma.

However why must it be so black-and-white that one either actively believes in rebirth, or actively rejects it? What happened to positions like "don't know", "don't care", "doesn't matter", "tentatively accept", "wrong question", "agnostic" and so on? Are they Wrong View? Do these positions preclude the attainment of path and fruit?

There is evidence in the Pali Canon to suggest the Buddha discouraged speculation about the future.

If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled - MN 48

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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Retro, all,
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Alex,

However why must it be so black-and-white that one either actively believes in rebirth, or actively rejects it? What happened to positions like "don't know", "don't care", "doesn't matter", "tentatively accept", "wrong question", "agnostic" and so on? Are they Wrong View? Do these positions preclude the attainment of path and fruit?
These are included in "doubt" and "ignorance" (at least according to canonical Abhidhamma). So it is a hindrance.

There is evidence in the Pali Canon to suggest the Buddha discouraged speculation about the future.

If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled - MN 48

Metta,
Retro. :)
It depends on what you mean by speculation. No atta entity passess on. It is just aggregates that arise and fall. Those who achieved recollection of former lives, and seen the working of kamma - for those good Buddhists this issue is NOT a speculation.


The topic of rebirth IS of great importance. It serves as a powerful stimulus to practice and do good. Dukkha also includes being reborn. By denying rebirth, one denies 99.9999% of Dukka, the 1st NT and makes other truths not so relevant for most people.



With metta,

Alex
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by cooran »

Hello all,

To deny rebirth is to deny kamma-vipaka.

Teachings of the Buddha on Rebirth
The skillfulness of one's actions in life determine one's destination after death: Dhp 17, Dhp 18, Dhp 240
Causes of favorable or unfavorable Rebirth: MN 135, AN 3.65, Dhp 310, Dhp 316
How to gain rebirth as an elephant or a horse: AN 10.177
The laws of kamma and ~ are as inviolable as the law of gravity: SN 42.6
What's so bad about being reborn?: SN 5.6
Why not just settle for rebirth among the devas?: SN 5.7
The preciousness of our human birth: SN 20.2, SN 56.48
Rebirth witnessed by Buddha on the night of his Awakening: See Buddha's Awakening.

"Kamma & Rebirth" (Nyanatiloka)
"Dhamma Without Rebirth?" (Bodhi)
"Does Rebirth Make Sense?" (Bodhi)
"The Thirty-one Planes of Existence" in the Path to Freedom pages
READ SUTTAS (AND ARTICLES) IN FULL AT:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-su ... ml#rebirth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Alex,
Alex123 wrote:These are included in "doubt" and "ignorance" (at least according to canonical Abhidhamma). So it is a hindrance.
Have a look at Nathan's post above, by way of example ( http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 980#p64930" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ). Does he seem to be particularly hindered by doubt or ignorance? When there is no question, where is the doubt?

He presents a middle-path between claiming rebirth exists and claiming rebirth doesn't exist. He acknowledges that he doesn't know either of these statements to be personally verified, and thus understands that for him to make a conclusive declaration on rebirth would be beyond his range. This demonstrates integrity, honesty, and an absence of ditthupadana (attachment to views). He certainly doesn't deny rebirth though, does he? That's essentially my point... the allusion that there are only two possible positions regarding rebirth - i.e. fervent belief, or fervent disbelief... is a great misrepresentation that muddies the waters, rather than clearing them.

Speaking of ditthupadana, have a look at what Aloka and PeterB said on the last page - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 740#p64590" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - see the relief and ease (sukha) that comes from relinquishing the clinging to rebirth views!
Alex123 wrote:It depends on what you mean by speculation.
By speculation, I mean the type of "conceiving in", "conceiving from", and so on as depicted in...

MN 1: Mulapariyaya Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Which is actually a very important sutta, so much so that it opens the Majjhima Nikaya even though many people skip right on past it to MN 2, not understanding its significance and the platform it lays for the entire Nikaya)

... as well as the conceptual proliferation depicted in...

MN 18: Madhupindika Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

Aloka wrote:.I'd just like to mention that there's a term used in hypnotherapy called 'cryptomnesia' which means 'buried memory'.
Aloka, this is nothing new to me. I am familiar with subconscious memories, false memories, and cryptomnesia. I am also familiar with the skeptical arguments brought forward against regression and PLEs. Believe it or not, I've studied this for a number of years and I have done my homework. The thing is: these counter arguments don't hold in the cited cases. If you had watched the video by Peter Ramster you would probably not even have brought this up. The verification experiments have been set up intentionally to exclude these types of explanations. If a person comes to a place where he/she has never been before in her life and correctly identifies obscure facts, this cannot be explained with cryptomnesia or false memories.

Yes, it is possible to implant false memories into people (though not always easy depending on their susceptibility to hypnosis and suggestion), but it is generally not possible to explain how false memories lead to veridical claims. For example, if someone refers to obscure people, events, and things that have actually existed in the past, and if these claims can be verified, false memories are an unlikely explanation. As mentioned before, the only alternative explanation is conspiracy and elaborate fraud.

Furthermore, the class of cases that Ian Stevenson reported cannot be attacked by this kind of argument, because these are not regression PLEs, but spontaneously reported memories of young children, as well as birthmarks and cases of xenoglossy. The Stevenson research is probably the best scientific
approach until today. For example, how do you explain people spontaneously remembering their (violent) death in a previous life showing birthmarks at the location of injury? Of course, they could have made it up. But what if the story is verified by third parties, as in all of Stevenson cases?

Cheers, Thomas
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nathan »

hi Retro, all

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to debate anecdotal evidence about past lives or cast doubt on rebirth. I can understand the role that both intellectual reasoning and faith in the triple gem would typically play in leading people out of ignorance and into real knowledge about things like dependent origination and rebirth. I have been suggesting that the kind of mindfulness and intellectual honesty that will be supportive of developing a lasting and entirely satisfying knowledge of one's own should be able to distinguish between the qualities of reasoning, faith and the kind of direct knowledge which neither relies on reasoning or faith. In my case I don't arrive at a satisfying kinds of direct knowledge without the capacity to distinguish that kind of evidence of things as they are from the other kinds of understanding characteristic of reasoning and faith. There is important qualitative differences between these kinds of understanding and I think it is important to be mindful of what is what in ones own mind. I wouldn't go so far as to say that reasoning and faith have no place in the process of arriving at the kind of gnosis that we ultimately seek.

To be honest I have to say that I do think I have compelling evidence that DO is something that I know to be real for me personally. To try to argue for DO or rebirth on that basis however has never contributed to developing the same kind of insight and experience for anyone else. Anything I might say about my own insights and experiences only serves to generate more argument for people who would like to argue about such things. Investigating for oneself, in the skillful ways taught by the Buddha, is the only way anyone can arrive at the kind of direct knowledge that will be found to be irrefutable by anyone who honestly applies themselves to really finding out for themselves. When we do that it doesn't matter what anyone else says about these things because we can see for ourselves how things are.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Well said, Nathan.

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
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

Alex123 wrote:If we all end up freed from one life,then there would be neither much desire nor motivation to really work hard at eradication unwholesome tendencies. Furthermore to hold the idea that "there is no rebirth" IS wrong view.
I could not agree more. There is an unfortunate tendency by some Western Buddhists to explain away rebirth by philosophical argument. These arguments interpret rebirth as a metaphor for natural processes of metamorphosis and transformation, or as a metaphor for abstract processes of cause and effect. Such interpretations are digressive. Rebirth in Buddhism is simultaneously a universal law and a personal reality. Actually, it doesn't get more personal than that.
nathan wrote:...weighed against the complete absence of any personal insight into or experience with the subject that characterizes almost all people, not merely those with a western or otherwise conditioned views, the accounts (all of the accounts ever recorded) continue to be relatively insignificant overall. I again suggest considering the overwhelming absence of accounts in most people's lives.
Let me get this straight. You state that because most people are ignorant (of past lifes), they should not consider the reports of those people who are not ignorant? Is this what you are saying? I doubt this is a valid argument. Consider a similar phenomenon: NDEs. Should we ignore NDEs just because we did not personally have one? Or is it a subject worthwhile of study nevertheless? Is personal ignorance ever a reason for NOT studying a subject? Where would that idea lead us?
nathan wrote:I think it is far more important to get your own evidence.
Unfortunately, your suggestion is a little impractical. We simply don't have the means and the resources to "get our own evidence" for any arbitrary piece of knowledge from quantum physics to reincarnation. It is of course highly beneficial to seek first-hand evidence for any subject matter close to our interest; alas not always possible.

You had the benefit of meditative insight into rebirth (if I interpret your reply correctly). I had the benefit of insight into rebirth through other (involuntary) circumstances in my life. But please consider that not everybody has first-hand experience. My point is that as long as we don't have first-hand knowledge, we need to rely on second-hand knowledge. And since we don't have a choice in that matter, we might as well make sure that our second-hand knowledge has a sound foundation. Empirical research might provide just that.
nathan wrote:While believing in rebirth may constitute right view for some people, believing in things has never contributed to reducing ignorance about anything in my case. [...] I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
You seem to suggest that views are intrinsically ambiguous and unhelpful as long as you haven't verified them personally. I can disprove this by a simple thought experiment. Consider two people with opposite beliefs. One believes that it will rain in the afternoon and the other believes that it won't rain. The first person carries an umbrella, the second doesn't. In the afternoon it rains. The person who carried an umbrella stays dry; the other one gets wet and catches a cold. Now, which of those beliefs was more useful?

You are right in saying that a belief does not reduce ignorance, even if the belief is true. However, correct belief certainly helps to make correct decisions. The epistemological problem is not belief, but justification, which is basically about the question: How do we distinguish true from false beliefs?

Cheers, Thomas :namaste:
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by PeterB »

So Pannapetar how have you arrived at your very clear view of Rebirth ? Is it as a direct seeing resulting from meditation practice or is it a shared belief ?
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Pannapetar wrote:
Aloka wrote:.I'd just like to mention that there's a term used in hypnotherapy called 'cryptomnesia' which means 'buried memory'.

Aloka, this is nothing new to me. I am familiar with subconscious memories, false memories, and cryptomnesia. I am also familiar with the skeptical arguments brought forward against regression and PLEs. Believe it or not, I've studied this for a number of years and I have done my homework. The thing is: these counter arguments don't hold in the cited cases. If you had watched the video by Peter Ramster you would probably not even have brought this up. The verification experiments have been set up intentionally to exclude these types of explanations. If a person comes to a place where he/she has never been before in her life and correctly identifies obscure facts, this cannot be explained with cryptomnesia or false memories.

Yes, it is possible to implant false memories into people (though not always easy depending on their susceptibility to hypnosis and suggestion), but it is generally not possible to explain how false memories lead to veridical claims. For example, if someone refers to obscure people, events, and things that have actually existed in the past, and if these claims can be verified, false memories are an unlikely explanation. As mentioned before, the only alternative explanation is conspiracy and elaborate fraud.

Furthermore, the class of cases that Ian Stevenson reported cannot be attacked by this kind of argument, because these are not regression PLEs, but spontaneously reported memories of young children, as well as birthmarks and cases of xenoglossy. The Stevenson research is probably the best scientific
approach until today. For example, how do you explain people spontaneously remembering their (violent) death in a previous life showing birthmarks at the location of injury? Of course, they could have made it up. But what if the story is verified by third parties, as in all of Stevenson cases?


Buddha said :
"And how, monks, does one chase after the past? One gets carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called chasing after the past.

"And how does one not chase after the past? One does not get carried away with the delight of 'In the past I had such a form (body)'... 'In the past I had such a feeling'... 'In the past I had such a perception'... 'In the past I had such a thought-fabrication'... 'In the past I had such a consciousness.' This is called not chasing after the past.

Bhaddekaratta Sutta MN 131



Also :

"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."
AN 4.77
Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable



. _/\_
Last edited by Aloka on Tue May 11, 2010 7:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

nathan wrote: I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
If you do not act upon what you believe, then probably no right view for you.
>> 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
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nathan »

Pannapetar wrote:
Let me get this straight. You state that because most people are ignorant (of past lifes), they should not consider the reports of those people who are not ignorant? Is this what you are saying? I doubt this is a valid argument. Consider a similar phenomenon: NDEs. Should we ignore NDEs just because we did not personally have one? Or is it a subject worthwhile of study nevertheless? Is personal ignorance ever a reason for NOT studying a subject? Where would that idea lead us?
No that's not what I wrote at all.
nathan wrote:I think it is far more important to get your own evidence.
Unfortunately, your suggestion is a little impractical. We simply don't have the means and the resources to "get our own evidence" for any arbitrary piece of knowledge from quantum physics to reincarnation. It is of course highly beneficial to seek first-hand evidence for any subject matter close to our interest; alas not always possible.
I think it is the only practical suggestion. We can develop the skillful means to get our own evidence and short of direct first hand evidence I always take the view that I have no satisfactory evidence. At the same time, if anyone else feels that secondhand evidence of rebirth is satisfactory for them, I'm not interested in arguing with them about it.
You had the benefit of meditative insight into rebirth (if I interpret your reply correctly). I had the benefit of insight into rebirth through other (involuntary) circumstances in my life. But please consider that not everybody has first-hand experience. My point is that as long as we don't have first-hand knowledge, we need to rely on second-hand knowledge. And since we don't have a choice in that matter, we might as well make sure that our second-hand knowledge has a sound foundation. Empirical research might provide just that.
I think empirical research provides empirical evidence and continue to think that it is misleading to confuse empirical evidence with direct firsthand knowledge.
nathan wrote:While believing in rebirth may constitute right view for some people, believing in things has never contributed to reducing ignorance about anything in my case. [...] I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
You seem to suggest that views are intrinsically ambiguous and unhelpful as long as you haven't verified them personally. You are again distorting my comments to suit an argument that you would like to have with someone. I am not interested in arguing with you or in restating my points.I can disprove this by a simple thought experiment. Consider two people with opposite beliefs. One believes that it will rain in the afternoon and the other believes that it won't rain. The first person carries an umbrella, the second doesn't. In the afternoon it rains. The person who carried an umbrella stays dry; the other one gets wet and catches a cold. Now, which of those beliefs was more useful?

You are right in saying that a belief does not reduce ignorance, even if the belief is true. However, correct belief certainly helps to make correct decisions. The epistemological problem is not belief, but justification, which is basically about the question: How do we distinguish true from false beliefs?

Cheers, Thomas :namaste:

Again, I don't think you've proven anything with this rationale that has any bearing on the comments that I've made. I'm not interested in disputing your enthusiasm for what you call 'empirical evidence', I will leave it to empiricists to do that.
:anjali:
take care
nathan
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nathan »

tiltbillings wrote:
nathan wrote: I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
If you do not act upon what you believe, then probably no right view for you.
I can act on the basis of what I know to be right view, having determined that it is undoubtedly right. I find that consistently supportive of right action. I'm simply saying I have no experience with 'right belief', I'm not knocking it. Just because I can walk without crutches doesn't imply that I make a practice of knocking down people who have difficulty doing the same without some kind of supporting device.

That said, I think arguing about these things is not helpful, I've offered some thoughts and that is all I have to say. I will not be responding any further provocations to engage in any kind of argumentation in this thread.
:anjali:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

nathan wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
nathan wrote: I can't report that believing in right view, by any definition or in any sense, has led to actual right view...
If you do not act upon what you believe, then probably no right view for you.
I can act on the basis of what I know to be right view, having determined that it is undoubtedly right. I find that consistently supportive of right action. I'm simply saying I have no experience with 'right belief', I'm not knocking it.
I guess we will never know how you made the jump from belief to what you know to be right view, unless right view just happened to pop up inside inside you without cause or condition. Alas.
>> 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
Pannapetar
Posts: 327
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:05 am
Location: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Pannapetar »

PeterB wrote:So Pannapetar how have you arrived at your very clear view of Rebirth ? Is it as a direct seeing resulting from meditation practice or is it a shared belief ?
It is primarily the result of personal experience. The first was my journey to Havana, Cuba in the early 90s. I was not only able to learn Spanish to near fluency in six months, but I also knew every building of Havana Vieja, the old part of the city, as well as the citadel and the layout of the streets without ever having been there or having read a city map. It was a very odd experience, especially when entering the plaza de la catedral for the first time, but I did not believe in rebirth at the time and the idea that I might have lived there before did not enter my mind.

The second experience could be called "meditative" although I wasn't practicing meditation. I was simply in a contemplative mood looking through a window at some trees in the garden. The best way I can describe it is "sudden realisation of deathlessness". It was like abruptly looking into another dimension of existence, one that is normally hidden but congruent with the day-to-day perception of reality. In this dimension, everything was interconnected, sentient, and there was no death, only transition. I think Zen types would call this "satori". Regrettably it occurred only once.

Another experience involves communication with recently deceased persons. It certainly sounds like baloney, and I am still skeptical myself, but this happened totally unexpected and uninvited in a state of lucid dreaming. Actually these dream figures communicated with me, asking me questions and it wasn't a very pleasant experience, sort of creepy. One one occasion, I did not even know the person (nor that she had died), but when I told my dream to others I saw their puzzled faces, because the description exactly fitted a recently deceased person.

I am aware that none of this constitutes good evidence for rebirth, but anyway it kept me wondering. Since then I have studied accounts of similar experiences, both published in literature and documentaries, as well as personal experiences from practicing Buddhists. The cases published by Ian Stevenson and Peter Ramster are some of the best empirical evidence for reincarnation that is currently available. Much more compelling than my own experiences. I have also met a number of people who had similar experiences, although in most cases these were difficult to verify. That is the reason why I consider it useful to turn to those studies where verification has been attempted.

Cheers, Thomas
Post Reply