REAL Meditation: The Originalist Thesis

[Ñāṇa]

And rebirth has nothing to do with the practice, as Pāṭaliya was instructed.

Thank you for reminding me of 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. The Buddha instead instructs him to focus on "abandoning" which is comprised of cultivating sila and sati, and developing samadhi.

In SN 42.13 rebirth is still to be included as a part of the disciple's contemplation:

He reflects thus, '... since I am restrained in body, speech, and mind, and since, with the breakup of the body, after death, I shall be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.' [As he reflects thus] gladness is born. When one is gladdened, rapture is born. When the mind is elated by rapture the body becomes tranquil. One tranquil in body experiences happiness. The mind of one who is happy becomes concentrated.

If one were to take SN 42.13 as a guide for practice, then this would include frequently reflecting on rebirth as a part of one's dhammasamādhi.

[danieLion]

Does "name-dropping" really bother you? If so, why?

Well, on a forum such as this one we have to assume that the people we're speaking with haven't read the same material we have, especially when that material is obscure. If you're name-dropping, you're saying "you won't understand what I am trying to explain unless you are as familiar with these sources as I am" which excludes most people from the discussion. It also just looks like you're trying to impress others with how well-read you are.

or providing the sources so that others can look more closely at the source and come to a conclusion based on the same information.

Nice paraphrase. Thanks.

[robertk]

if i remember correctly the buddha explains to Pataliya that those who commit illdeeds are reborn in woeful planes and even in hell.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[Mr Man]

Well, on a forum such as this one we have to assume that the people we're speaking with haven't read the same material we have, especially when that material is obscure. If you're name-dropping, you're saying "you won't understand what I am trying to explain unless you are as familiar with these sources as I am" which excludes most people from the discussion. It also just looks like you're trying to impress others with how well-read you are.

or providing the sources so that others can look more closely at the source and come to a conclusion based on the same information.

Nice paraphrase. Thanks.

I think the meaning of "paraphrase" must have changed.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

I think the meaning of "paraphrase" must have changed.

I meant Cittsanto's paraphrase of my reply to the above, not his parphrase of the above.

[danieLion]

There's a way to abandon these states of perplexity...

Indeed. I'm working toward that. Thanks again for the reminder.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[Dmytro]

Hi Mr Man,

First, you ask personal questions, and then you insinuate that my words are pure speculation.
Why asking then?

This reminds me of scientism trick - first to limit verification to the physical phenomena, and then outlaw any subjective verification, and hence all subjective phenomena. In this way, such "scientists" are asking questions about subjective phenomena without really asking them - they already "know" the answer, - subjective phenomena "don't exist". There's nothing physical to prove that you have anything in the inner world, - so there's nothing worthwhile in your inner world. All that matters is your brain chemistry.

Hopefully the science will move into the methods of subjective verification, which will help to obtain deeper insight into such phenomena as past lives, etc. It's quite doable.

[danieLion]

...
"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.'
...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

What to speak of the Buddha, even King Ajatasattu rejected annihilationism. Yet nowadays, going by the above definition, a lot of people do hold this view.

I'm neither a materialist nor an annihilationist (or eternalist).
How does this relate to the necessity/contingency and orginalism questions of the OP and subsequent discussions?

[danieLion]

...delete...

[beeblebrox]

Why believe in something (existence) when there's no experience of it (non-existence)?

If direct perception is the only reliable criterion, then why believe that arahanthood is possible?...

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?

Also, what exactly is "spontaneously reborn beings"?

See Ven. Dhammanando's post here.

From that post:

1. Although 'spontaneously born' is the usual meaning of opapaatika, in the context of mundane right view the commentaries understand it to denote rebirth in general, no matter which of the four modes of generation is involved.

I think that's interesting. How could it be spontaneous if it was reborn?

What are the pali words for these, especially for "reborn"?

The most common terms are upapatti (rebirth) and punabbhava (renewed existence).

I think it's something worth investigating... check out this thread, for example.

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[danieLion]

...delete...

[Mr Man]

Hi Mr Man,

First, you ask personal questions, and then you insinuate that my words are pure speculation.
Why asking then?

Hi Dmytro
I asked them because I was hoping you would answer and we could take it from there. If you say "It's not so difficult to get in touch with past lives" surely my question is fair?
If you assert "In ancient times, even more people than today, were simply able to remember past lives." I am interested as to how you came to that conclusion. Or if you say "many children" I think it is fair to question what many would mean in a population of say 1.2 Billion

This reminds me of scientism trick - first to limit verification to the physical phenomena, and then outlaw any subjective verification, and hence all subjective phenomena. In this way, such "scientists" are asking questions about subjective phenomena without really asking them - they already "know" the answer, - subjective phenomena "don't exist". There's nothing physical to prove that you have anything in the inner world, - so there's nothing worthwhile in your inner world. All that matters is your brain chemistry.

Hopefully the science will move into the methods of subjective verification, which will help to obtain deeper insight into such phenomena as past lives, etc. It's quite doable.

Are you writing me off here?