REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

Hi Nana,

People only do the practice (or at least seriously) when they've encountered someone or something that they thought was noble. This is a fact. That is why it's called the Triple Gem.

How could the refuge be real if it was put on something that was never seen?

The texts do not present a consistent meaning of refuge: one side there's refuge in the Triple Gem; on the other, we find the Buddha suggesting that self refuge trumps other kinds of refuge.

...delete...

[danieLion]

TO CLARIFY:

When I ask, "How does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?" I am not necessarily saying it doesn't. I'm asking you to either demonstrate how it does or acknowledge it doesn't. If you can explicate how it's relevant to the OP with a cogent and persuasive response, I'm likely to leave it at that. If you cannot, I will label it Off Topic. If you admit it's Off Topic, I'll leave it at that.

MODERATORS: I could use your input here. While I my very self am engaging in and enjoying the rebirth only portions of this thread, they appear Off Topic to me and I'd like them extracted and merged with the Great Rebirth Debate Thread. I understand it might take some time and will also defer to you if you think they're not Off Topic (presuming I find your reasons valid).

[beeblebrox]

How does any of this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?

Hi Daniel,

I apologize if I was not skillful enough not to reply. At least I gave a thread, hopefully people will go over there.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[polarbuddha101]

I think Lonesome Yogurt's nailed it on the head here. The Buddha's doctrine of kamma entails rebirth and the first noble truth loses alot of its weight under a one life model.

Kamma entails action, behavior, consequence, simple cause and effect, and complex cause and effect; but it does not entail rebirth. And Gombrich does not state that the Buddha required belief in rebirth; only faith in kamma.

And how does your post relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?

I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote:

belief in the law of karma; and if that was not to be obviously falsified by every cot death, it had to entail belief in rebirth. pg. 27-28 of What the Buddha Thought

or what but he explicitly states that the Buddha's doctrine of kamma necessarily entails rebirth. In order to believe in the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma one has to believe in rebirth. This doesn't mean that the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma or the doctrine of rebirth are true it just means that kamma as taught by the Buddha is inseparable from rebirth. I don't see how anyone who's read the suttas could think otherwise and so I side with Gombrich on this matter.

As I said earlier, the first noble truth seems to lose alot of its oomph when it isn't seen in light of the doctrine of rebirth. Thus, those who meditate but do not believe in rebirth (and actually disbelieve in it) are generally less likely to truly strive with all their heart and mind for the total cessation of dukkha and are more likely to meditate for stress reduction, greater peace of mind, and the ability to die with dignity which is awesome but it isn't the same as when someone thinks that they're trying to escape countless aeons of aging, illness, and death, greed, hatred and delusion. When one believes that beings (themselves included) hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming and wandering on for this long long time dispassion would, I imagine, have a much stronger pull and so this means that people who believe in rebirth are certainly more likely to ordain as monastics and often are more likely to be serious lay practitioners (although this is clearly not always the case as there are plenty of lay buddhists just trying to get a better rebirth and plenty of secular buddhists who meditate everyday and take their practice seriously).

As far as explaining meditative capabilities by reference to past lives, I think that's ridiculous, probably counterproductive and that these sorts of statements when spoken as if they're fact do not preserve the truth. If people want to assert this sort of thing, then they have to qualify it by saying that it is their belief or conviction or that the tradition or scriptures say it is so but they must not state it as if fact without qualification unless they know that it is indeed a fact. The Buddha instructs that one should preserve the truth in such a way in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html .

(Edited to qualify my generalizations)

[danieLion]

...delete...

[daverupa]

the first noble truth loses alot of its oomph when it isn't seen in light of the doctrine of rebirth.............

Mileage varies between individuals in this matter; some can believe in rebirth and "get around to it later", or they can aspire to heavenly realms, which is blameable behavior. So, be mindful of generalizations being used to support personal views.

[beeblebrox]

I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote:

belief in the law of karma; and if that was not to be obviously falsified by every cot death, it had to entail belief in rebirth. pg. 27-28 of What the Buddha Thought

or what but he explicitly states that the Buddha's doctrine of kamma necessarily entails rebirth. In order to believe in the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma one has to believe in rebirth. This doesn't mean that the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma or the doctrine of rebirth are true it just means that kamma as taught by the Buddha is inseparable from rebirth. I don't see how anyone who's read the suttas could think otherwise and so I side with Gombrich on this matter.

Hi Polar Buddha,

Isn't that appealing to the authority? I don't mean the Buddha.

[Ñāṇa]

It's explicitly asserted.

Citations please.

DN 23, MN 41, MN 135, SN 3.21, AN 4.232, AN 8.36, just to name a few.

Are the suttas consistent? No, they're not.

They are far more consistent on this issue than you seem to be willing to acknowledge. In the SN there are entire saṃyuttas largely devoted to rebirth (e.g. Saṃyutta 29, 30, 31, 32).

And how does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?

You're making highly questionable assumptions and specious claims in this thread. Such as this:

Sariputta became an arahant without believing in rebirth (and likely several others became at least stream enterers without this belief).

How exactly do you know that Sāriputta didn't believe in rebirth?

And this:

All this highlights the fact it is not only "secular" Buddhists who are the only ones who see rebirth as an unnecessary teaching for ultimate liberation, and shows how strong of a fact it is because even one of the Buddha's greatest disciples was not interested in it.

How do you know that understanding rebirth is unnecessary for liberation? There has never been a Buddhist tradition that didn't explicitly assert and teach rebirth. It's one thing to acknowledge that you may not accept certain aspects of the Buddhadhamma. It's quite another to assert that those aspects are unnecessary, marginal, or unimportant.

And this:

The Pataliya Sutta is found in the Samyutta Nikaya 42.13, where the Buddha tells Pataliya the Headman not worry about rebirth becuase the law of karma is not always visible here and now.

That is not at all what the Buddha is instructing in that sutta. Reflection on rebirth is an explicit part of the dhammasamādhi that is taught therein. Moreover, it would be a case of pretty extreme compartmentalization to try to practice what is taught in SN 42.13 without giving frequent recollection to relevant discourses such as MN 60 and DN 23, etc.

And if your interpretation is the most accurate ever postulated, why doesn't Bhikkhu Bodhi mention rebirth or renewed existence in his Footnote 363 (p. 1453) where he lists three alternative interpretations of dhammasamadhi?

Rebirth is never questioned in the commentarial glosses of dhammasamādhi.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[mikenz66]

Hi Daniel,

TO CLARIFY:

When I ask, "How does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?" I am not necessarily saying it doesn't. I'm asking you to either demonstrate how it does or acknowledge it doesn't. If you can explicate how it's relevant to the OP with a cogent and persuasive response, I'm likely to leave it at that. If you cannot, I will label it Off Topic. If you admit it's Off Topic, I'll leave it at that.

MODERATORS: I could use your input here. While I my very self am engaging in and enjoying the rebirth only portions of this thread, they appear Off Topic to me and I'd like them extracted and merged with the Great Rebirth Debate Thread. I understand it might take some time and will also defer to you if you think they're not Off Topic (presuming I find your reasons valid).

First of all, meta discussion is against the TOS. If you have a request, please use the report function.

However, to answer your question. From the OP:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=16405

To support the REAL "meditation"/originalist thesis one, as Venerable Pesala typifies, seems compelled to assume or depend upon the validity of the rebirth doctrine.

That seems to be a key point in your argument, so it seems logical that it is being discussed.

PS, here is a link to the post by Bhikkhu Pesala that the OP quoted. It is always useful to have the context.
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=16391&p=233677#p233677




Mike

[polarbuddha101]

I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote:

belief in the law of karma; and if that was not to be obviously falsified by every cot death, it had to entail belief in rebirth. pg. 27-28 of What the Buddha Thought

or what but he explicitly states that the Buddha's doctrine of kamma necessarily entails rebirth. In order to believe in the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma one has to believe in rebirth. This doesn't mean that the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma or the doctrine of rebirth are true it just means that kamma as taught by the Buddha is inseparable from rebirth. I don't see how anyone who's read the suttas could think otherwise and so I side with Gombrich on this matter.

Hi Polar Buddha,

Isn't that appealing to the authority? I don't mean the Buddha.

No, Daniel earlier said that Gombrich did not say that belief in the Buddha's doctrine of kamma required belief in rebirth and I am simply showing that Gombrich does in fact say that belief in the Buddha's doctrine of kamma requires belief in rebirth. If one believes in kamma but not rebirth, then they do not believe in kamma as taught by the Buddha according to this understanding. Also, way at the beginning of this thread I simply quoted a longer portion of Gombrich's book and said that I think that Gombrich is likely correct here so I am just saying I agree with Gombrich and not that I am automatically correct because Gombrich says so. Finally, Gombrich is not an inappropriate authority to refer to so even if I am appealing to him it wouldn't be fallacious unless I assumed the conclusion was deductively true as opposed to just having a greater likelihood of being true because an expert in this topic believes it to be so. I think the suttas clearly demonstrate that Gombrich and myself are correct here though.



Read the Pataliya sutta and you'll see what I mean.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[Viscid]

followed up by Robert Anton Wilson and most recently Rupert Sheldrake, who I find very convincing.

You may be interested in Nagel's new book.

[polarbuddha101]

I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote:

I'm not. Just keeping it in context.

Seems to me you're missing my point but it isn't important because my position doesn't rely on Gombrich, so moving on.

1) It's an inferential arument Gombrich makes.
2) It's not a textual-citational point, but his own opinion.

I think his point is very clearly supported by suttas such as the Pataliya sutta. If need be I will get my copy of the Samyutta out and write the pertinent material but I'd rather not if you have your own copy of the sutta. That sutta explicitly says that those who hold to a doctrine of kamma where all vipaka is experienced in this very life hold wrong view. Also, those who do not believe in kamma have wrong view. Thus, only those who believe in a doctrine of kamma that entails rebirth hold right view according to the suttas.

...or what but he explicitly states that the Buddha's doctrine of kamma necessarily entails rebirth.

Inferences are the opposite of explicits

In order to believe in the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma one has to believe in rebirth....

That does not follow.

Yes it does, because the doctrine of rebirth is subsumed within the doctrine of kamma expounded by the Buddha (or at least I argue that the suttas prove this).

This doesn't mean that the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma or the doctrine of rebirth are true it just means that kamma as taught by the Buddha is inseparable from rebirth. I don't see how anyone who's read the suttas could think otherwise and so I side with Gombrich on this matter.

This sentence appears to me to contradict your previous one.

It does not. The difference is between belief and truth. I am saying that if one actually believes in the doctrine of kamma AS EXPOUNDED BY THE BUDDHA then they necessarily believe in rebirth because the Buddha's doctrine of kamma subsumes the notion of rebirth in its formulation. However, the Buddha might be totally wrong, there may in fact be no such thing as kamma or rebirth but that doesn't change the fact that the belief in the Buddha's doctrine of kamma entails belief in rebirth.

As I said earlier, the first noble truth loses alot of its oomph when it isn't seen in light of the doctrine of rebirth

To the contrary. It obsfuscates it.

Well I guess we just have differing opinions then on this matter.

Thus, those who meditate but do not believe in rebirth (and actually disbelieve in it) are less likely to truly strive with all their heart and mind for the total cessation of dukkha and are more likely to meditate for stress reduction, greater peace of mind, and the ability to die with dignity which is awesome but it isn't the same as when someone thinks that they're trying to escape countless aeons of aging, illness, and death, greed, hatred and delusion. When one believes that beings (themselves included) hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming and wandering on for this long long time dispassion has a much stronger pull and so this means that people who believe in rebirth are certainly more likely to ordain as monastics and often are more likely to be serious lay practitioners (although this is clearly not always the case as there are plenty of lay buddhists just trying to get a better rebirth and plenty of secular buddhists who meditate everyday and take their practice seriously).

Have you done an official survey with documented interviews? Where did you publish the results?

No, it is an inductive argument that I imagine would be generally true but generally does not mean always or nearly so. If it's true 60% of the time then it's generally true.

As far as explaining meditative capabilities by reference to past lives, I think that's ridiculous, counterproductive and that these sorts of statements when spoken as if they're fact do not preserve the truth. If people want to assert this sort of thing, then they have to qualify it by saying that it is their belief or conviction or that the tradition or scriptures say it is so but they must not state it as if fact without qualification unless they know that it is indeed a fact. The Buddha instructs that one should preserve the truth in such a way in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html .

What exacty do you mean by the "the truth" and "truth"? I don't see any mention of rebirth is this sutta you cited.

1) I don't know why you have written "the truth" and "truth" as if I'm speaking about two kinds of truth, truth is truth period. Anyway, moving on.

2) I mean that one should not make statements as if they are known fact when they are actually beliefs, convictions, or the position of unbroken tradition.

3) The sutta doesn't speak about rebirth but one can simply insert the word rebirth into the sutta instead of the vedas and then you'll see what I mean.

[beeblebrox]

Finally, Gombrich is not an inappropriate authority to refer to so even if I am appealing to him it wouldn't be fallacious unless I assumed the conclusion was deductively true as opposed to just having a greater likelihood of being true because an expert in this topic believes it to be so.

Hi Polar Buddha,

I didn't say that he was the inappropriate authority, just that it seemed like (at the time) you were appealing to him to make your point, which would've been still fallacious.

The fallacy is: an expert says that something is true, therefore there is a consensus (of other experts) that it's true.

[polarbuddha101]

Finally, Gombrich is not an inappropriate authority to refer to so even if I am appealing to him it wouldn't be fallacious unless I assumed the conclusion was deductively true as opposed to just having a greater likelihood of being true because an expert in this topic believes it to be so.

Hi Polar Buddha,

I didn't say that he was the inappropriate authority, just that it seemed (at the time) like you were appealing to him to make your point, which would've been still fallacious.

The fallacy is: an expert says that something is true, therefore there is a consensus (of other experts) that it's true.

That's not what I'm saying.