Why ? How is it arbitrary ?Pannapetar wrote: . In my understanding, the definition of a human lifetime as for the purpose of the illustration of dependent origination is a purposeful though ultimately arbitrary choice.
.
Why ? How is it arbitrary ?Pannapetar wrote: . In my understanding, the definition of a human lifetime as for the purpose of the illustration of dependent origination is a purposeful though ultimately arbitrary choice.
“In the past I was the potter, Ghatikåra in Vehalinga. I supported my mother and father then As a lay follower of the Buddha Kassapa.
...I was your fellow villager,"
SN Devatå-samyutta 1.50 (10) Ghatikara
BB Trans.
“Here, friend, as I was coming down from Mount Vulture Peak, I saw a skeleton moving through the air. Vultures, crows, and hawks, pursuing it here and there, were pecking at it between the ribs, stabbing it, and tearing it apart while it uttered cries of pain. It occurred to me: ‘It is wonderful, indeed! It is amazing, indeed! That there could be such a being, that there could be such a spirit, that could be such a form of individual existence!
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, there are disciples who dwell having become vision, disciples who dwell having become knowledge, in that a disciple can know, see, and witness such a sight. In the past, bhikkhus, I too saw that being , but I did not speak about it. For if I had spoken about it, others would not have believed me, and if they would not have believed me that would have led to their harm and suffering for a long time.
“That being, bhikkhus, used to be a cattle butcher in this same Råjagaha. Having been tormented in hell for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years as a result of that kamma, as a residual
result of that same kamma he is experiencing such a form of individual existence.”&
SN19.1 - BB trans
And if Alex people agree or if they disagree what difference does it make to you and to your practice ?Alex123 wrote:Question to rebirth sceptics/agnostics.
Do you agree that Pali Canon does teaches existence of other (non-human, non-animal) realms ?
Do you agree that Pali Canon does teaches literal rebirth?
If not, how do you explain various suttas that talk about those?
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ita-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... uta-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There were many occasions where the Buddha met Devas. In this case it is reunion with a former friend with whom they were together in Buddha Kassapa's dispensation.
“In the past I was the potter, Ghatikåra in Vehalinga. I supported my mother and father then As a lay follower of the Buddha Kassapa.
...I was your fellow villager,"
SN Devatå-samyutta 1.50 (10) Ghatikara
BB Trans.
“Here, friend, as I was coming down from Mount Vulture Peak, I saw a skeleton moving through the air. Vultures, crows, and hawks, pursuing it here and there, were pecking at it between the ribs, stabbing it, and tearing it apart while it uttered cries of pain. It occurred to me: ‘It is wonderful, indeed! It is amazing, indeed! That there could be such a being, that there could be such a spirit, that could be such a form of individual existence!
Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Bhikkhus, there are disciples who dwell having become vision, disciples who dwell having become knowledge, in that a disciple can know, see, and witness such a sight. In the past, bhikkhus, I too saw that being , but I did not speak about it. For if I had spoken about it, others would not have believed me, and if they would not have believed me that would have led to their harm and suffering for a long time.
“That being, bhikkhus, used to be a cattle butcher in this same Råjagaha. Having been tormented in hell for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years as a result of that kamma, as a residual
result of that same kamma he is experiencing such a form of individual existence.”&
SN19.1 - BB trans
Greetings Peter,PeterB wrote:And if Alex people agree or if they disagree what difference does it make to you and to your practice ?
Why is this important? Because our collective understanding is always greater than our individual understanding. Debate has the potential to uncover new ways of looking at things, and to expose problems and flaws with certain points of view, both of which increase individual understanding. Personally, I find that debate is integral to dhamma practice, and that it enhances right view, right intention, right speech, and right mindfulness. Therefore it does make a difference to one's practice.
It depends on the perceptiveness of the participants, not necessarily on their understanding, and probably not on the "quality of debate" which is highly subjective, unless you mean that participants are addressing arguments in a constructive and logical fashion. Levels of understanding differ. Whether understanding is raised from level 0 to level 1 or from level 9 to to 10, the result is in both cases an increase of 1. Arrogance is certainly a problem, because it prevents perception of alternative points of view.Aloka wrote:It depends on the quality of the debate and the level of understanding of the people debating though, does it not?
Arrogance certainly is.Pannapetar wrote:It depends on the perceptiveness of the participants, not necessarily on their understanding, and probably not on the "quality of debate" which is highly subjective, unless you mean that participants are addressing arguments in a constructive and logical fashion. Levels of understanding differ. Whether understanding is raised from level 0 to level 1 or from level 9 to to 10, the result is in both cases an increase of 1. Arrogance is certainly a problem, because it prevents perception of alternative points of view.Aloka wrote:It depends on the quality of the debate and the level of understanding of the people debating though, does it not?
Cheers, Thomas
Only if the current kusala/akusala/vipāka citta is conditioned by past cittas. If citta can arise ex nihilo, then nothing can be done to affect it in any way. "Good" or "Bad" intentions would have equal (zero) effect on future citta.PeterB wrote:It makes perfect sense to develop ethical qualities because they are their own reward.
The idea is that citta isn't uncaused, but is caused by prior cittas.Pannapetar wrote:I think Peter is making good progress. Having vowed not to get involved with rebirth discussions, he has already reduced replies to single words. Peter, you're almost there.
The causal citta theory of rebirth sounds slightly contrived to me, although I am not sure if I understand it completely.