To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?

To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Yes
36
58%
No
20
32%
Not Sure
6
10%
 
Total votes: 62

Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Sylvester »

clw_uk wrote:
Sylvester wrote:
clw_uk wrote: "That which is born" however still makes my point

"That which is born"
"Whatever is born"

Seems to say that same thing, or am I wrong?
I'm trying to see how you managed to transform either of Ven T's or BB's translation into "That which is born" or "Whatever is born". Your rewording has changed the subject of the sentence from jāti/birth to the thing that is born. SN 12.2's explanation concerns the event of birth, not to the thingie that was born. For your reading to work, it wouldn't say "sattānaṃ ... jāti" (birth of beings), but would need to say "jātā sattā" (beings that are born), inflecting the substantive noun and its adjective into the nominative plural to indicate that that is the subject of the sentence (see eg the explanation of the 3 bhavā, all of which are in the nominative).

It came from your post, however I'll settle for birth of beings :)
Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by mikenz66 »

Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms... :twisted:

:anjali:
Mike
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Spiny Norman »

mikenz66 wrote:
Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms... :twisted:
:anjali:
Mike
:clap:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Sylvester »

mikenz66 wrote:
Sylvester wrote: Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
Yes, it leads to rebirth in the hell of irregular verb forms... :twisted:

:anjali:
Mike

OMG! I just realised I mistyped kamma as kama. I hope he doesn't think I meant to say that it is bad sex to misrepresent me. That would be quite another type of hell to endure.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Where in my post did I say "that which is born"? It is bad kama to misrepresent a grammar nazi.
I assumed it based on what you wrote here
In order to read as a universal "whatever", the text in red should have read "yā yā", instead of "yā tesaṃ". When you have a demonstrative pronoun immediately following the relative pronoun as above, that is just for emphatic effect and can be understood in the sense of "that which is ..." (Warder p.72). Ven T's translation should be understood as simply making an emphatic, rather than a universal proposition.
Sylvester
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Sylvester »

Sigh. If in the post - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p320914, I was discussing your misreliance on Ven T's translation of the passage that dealt with the subject -
birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings
whatever made you think I would change the subject to the thing "which is born"?

How on earth can I be responsible for your misreading or change of subject?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Because you said it can be understood in the sense of "that which is", unless I'm just being really dense :reading:

However you did ask where you stated "that which is" and I showed you. I guess the only question is why you used the phrase in your post?

N.B. I know your obviously not implying a thingie that is reborn.

How on earth can I be responsible for your misreading or change of subject?

Instead of giving the obvious answer I'll just assume your being rhetorical :smile:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Sylvester »

However you did ask where you stated "that which is" and I showed you. I guess the only question is why you used the phrase in your post?
Tsk tsk tsk tsk.

If you had bothered to ready my query in that post - http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 80#p321114, I 'd had asked :
Where in my post did I say "that which is born"?
Or were you detained by the promise of bad sex in the next sentence?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Tsk tsk tsk tsk.

If you had bothered to ready my query in that post - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1022&start=180#p321114, I 'd had asked :

Where in my post did I say "that which is born"?

Here
In order to read as a universal "whatever", the text in red should have read "yā yā", instead of "yā tesaṃ". When you have a demonstrative pronoun immediately following the relative pronoun as above, that is just for emphatic effect and can be understood in the sense of "that which is ..." (Warder p.72). Ven T's translation should be understood as simply making an emphatic, rather than a universal proposition.
Sylvester
...

Or were you detained by the promise of bad sex in the next sentence?
:jumping: hardly
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: To be Buddhist you must accept kamma and rebirth?

Post by culaavuso »

clw_uk wrote:Because you said it can be understood in the sense of "that which is", unless I'm just being really dense
Perhaps the distinction being missed is "that which is birth" versus "that which is born".
Post Reply