Re: REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:27 pm
...delete...
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
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.beeblebrox wrote: 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?
Hi Daniel,danieLion wrote: How does any of this 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:danieLion wrote: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.polarbuddha101 wrote:
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.
And how does your post relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?
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.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
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.polarbuddha101 wrote:the first noble truth loses alot of its oomph when it isn't seen in light of the doctrine of rebirth.............
Hi Polar Buddha,polarbuddha101 wrote: I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote: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.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
DN 23, MN 41, MN 135, SN 3.21, AN 4.232, AN 8.36, just to name a few.danieLion wrote:Citations please.Ñāṇa wrote:It's explicitly asserted.
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).danieLion wrote:Are the suttas consistent? No, they're not.
You're making highly questionable assumptions and specious claims in this thread. Such as this:danieLion wrote:And how does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?
How exactly do you know that Sāriputta didn't believe in rebirth?danieLion wrote:Sariputta became an arahant without believing in rebirth (and likely several others became at least stream enterers without this belief).
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.danieLion wrote: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.
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.danieLion wrote: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.
Rebirth is never questioned in the commentarial glosses of dhammasamādhi.danieLion wrote: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?
First of all, meta discussion is against the TOS. If you have a request, please use the report function.danieLion wrote: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).
That seems to be a key point in your argument, so it seems logical that it is being discussed.danieLion wrote: 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.
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.beeblebrox wrote:Hi Polar Buddha,polarbuddha101 wrote: I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote: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.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
Isn't that appealing to the authority? I don't mean the Buddha.