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

User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4647
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

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

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Endless Equivocation a.k.a. eel-wriggling is also listed in the Brahmajāla Sutta as one of the wrong views.

The alternatives are Yes, No, and I am not sure, rather than Yes, No, and maybe. The Buddha taught literal rebirth. Of that there is no doubt. Some believe that is in accordance with reality, and others do not. Then others (me included) admit that they have no direct experience of rebirth, so they have to take it on faith or confidence based on knowledge.

When astronomers tell as that Black Holes exist, it is not the same as saying “The Fly Spaghetti Monster” exists, or “Godzilla is Real.” They actually have some measurements and calculations to support the statement. Nevertheless, no one has ever seen a black hole, and their true nature is still a big mystery to science.

When a jury decide on the basis of the evidence presented to the court that a criminal is guilty as charged, beyond all reasonable doubt, they are making that decision based on critical reasoning and logical inference. It should not be a decision based on prejudice, though that may happen. It also happens that many decide not to believe in rebirth (or to believe in rebirth) due to an inherited prejudice, not having studied the texts or listened to the teachings of learned monks.

The latter believers and non-believers are not in the same boat. Neither have made a critical analysis, but the believers will be more inclined to do meritorious deeds and to abstain from demeritorious deeds due to their fear of kammic retribution.

Regarding this, see the Incontrovertible Discourse
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

I think the "eel-wrigglers" position is closer to not wanting to take a stance on anything, that's difference from "I don't know if there is rebirth". The first is doctrinal, the second isn't.


Now of course you can say "I don't know, but I believe it to be so" however someone can say "I don't know, it's not relevant to me". Once again that's different from "I shouldn't assert yes or no because I don't want to fall into error and suffer".
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
MisterRunon
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Post by MisterRunon »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Endless Equivocation a.k.a. eel-wriggling is also listed in the Brahmajāla Sutta as one of the wrong views.

The alternatives are Yes, No, and I am not sure, rather than Yes, No, and maybe. The Buddha taught literal rebirth. Of that there is no doubt. Some believe that is in accordance with reality, and others do not. Then others (me included) admit that they have no direct experience of rebirth, so they have to take it on faith or confidence based on knowledge.

When astronomers tell as that Black Holes exist, it is not the same as saying “The Fly Spaghetti Monster” exists, or “Godzilla is Real.” They actually have some measurements and calculations to support the statement. Nevertheless, no one has ever seen a black hole, and their true nature is still a big mystery to science.

When a jury decide on the basis of the evidence presented to the court that a criminal is guilty as charged, beyond all reasonable doubt, they are making that decision based on critical reasoning and logical inference. It should not be a decision based on prejudice, though that may happen. It also happens that many decide not to believe in rebirth (or to believe in rebirth) due to an inherited prejudice, not having studied the texts or listened to the teachings of learned monks.

The latter believers and non-believers are not in the same boat. Neither have made a critical analysis, but the believers will be more inclined to do meritorious deeds and to abstain from demeritorious deeds due to their fear of kammic retribution.

Regarding this, see the Incontrovertible Discourse
What significant difference is there between "I don't know" and "maybe"?
SamKR wrote:
MisterRunon wrote:
silver surfer wrote:I call myself a buddhist and I don't accept anything, I just try to see things as they truely are, see the streams, tendencies and their natural destinations. I believe it's the only way I'll become a rocking buddha one day.

:anjali:
I don't call myself a Buddhist and I don't accept anything that I have not experienced for myself. The use of labels is just so.. imperfect. There are tons of people who consider themselves Buddhists; they proselytize, donate to their local temples, believe in karma/rebirth, and have altars with Buddha statues in their homes... yet they don't practice any of his teachings. And then there are people who put real effort into the practice and teachings of mindfulness and uprooting fetters, yet they don't even consider themselves Buddhists.
Donating and karma/rebirth are integral parts of his teachings. So, by donating and believing in karma/rebirth they are still practicing his teachings. But it does not mean that if you do not donate or do not believe in karma/rebirth you are not a Buddhist. Accepting kamma and rebirth is not a requirement to be a Buddhist.
We might be heading down a slippery slope, but the Buddha himself advised against blind faith, which would be believing in kamma/samsara without actually experiencing it. I also think it would be a different thing to believe it and work towards actualizing it rather than just believing it, and hoping that your faith in Buddha will magically take you there.

Edit: Let's play with a thought experiment here. Suppose everybody in the Buddha Sangha died, save for "Person A" who considers himself to be a Buddhist. Others look to him to for guidance to rebuild the framework of the Buddha's teachings. Person A has no experience beyond anything but proselytizing, dana, and blind faith in Samsara/Rebirth/Kamma. Do you think this person would be sufficient in reviving the sangha?

Meanwhile, "Person B" (who also lives in a world without the Buddha sangha) does not consider himself a Buddhist and though he does not have scholarly knowledge in the Suttas, he has experience in meditation and the teachings of the Buddha. Who do you think would be better at revivng the sangha?

In the end, labels are just labels.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19944
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 »

MisterRunon wrote: We might be heading down a slippery slope, but the Buddha himself advised against blind faith, which would be believing in kamma/samsara without actually experiencing it. I also think it would be a different thing to believe it and work towards actualizing it rather than just believing it, and hoping that your faith in Buddha will magically take you there.
It's clear that a certain amount of faith/confidence is necessary. Most (all?) of us here have not experienced nibbana...
"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; ...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

clw_uk wrote:I think the "eel-wrigglers" position is closer to not wanting to take a stance on anything, that's difference from "I don't know if there is rebirth". The first is doctrinal, the second isn't.


Now of course you can say "I don't know, but I believe it to be so" however someone can say "I don't know, it's not relevant to me". Once again that's different from "I shouldn't assert yes or no because I don't want to fall into error and suffer".
How is holding the view "I don't know if there is rebirth" not wanting to not take a position on rebirth?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
MisterRunon
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Post by MisterRunon »

mikenz66 wrote:
MisterRunon wrote: We might be heading down a slippery slope, but the Buddha himself advised against blind faith, which would be believing in kamma/samsara without actually experiencing it. I also think it would be a different thing to believe it and work towards actualizing it rather than just believing it, and hoping that your faith in Buddha will magically take you there.
It's clear that a certain amount of faith/confidence is necessary. Most (all?) of us here have not experienced nibbana...
"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; ...

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
:anjali:
Mike
You're talking about something different though. I wasn't talking about faith, but rather blind faith and how it applies to the definition of a Buddhist. If all you have is blind faith, as I spoke of in the thought experiment, I would say Person A (blind faith Buddhism) knows less about the teachings of Buddhism than Person B (one who does not identify with Buddhism but knows of the core tenets). In the end, labels are subjective.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

MisterRunon wrote:You're talking about something different though. I wasn't talking about faith, but rather blind faith and how it applies to the definition of a Buddhist. If all you have is blind faith, as I spoke of in the thought experiment, I would say Person A (blind faith Buddhism) knows less about the teachings of Buddhism than Person B (one who does not identify with Buddhism but knows of the core tenets). In the end, labels are subjective.
Can you provide a clear definition of what you think "faith" is vs. what you think "blind faith" is? An example alone is not enough.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
MisterRunon
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Post by MisterRunon »

Mkoll wrote:
MisterRunon wrote:You're talking about something different though. I wasn't talking about faith, but rather blind faith and how it applies to the definition of a Buddhist. If all you have is blind faith, as I spoke of in the thought experiment, I would say Person A (blind faith Buddhism) knows less about the teachings of Buddhism than Person B (one who does not identify with Buddhism but knows of the core tenets). In the end, labels are subjective.
Can you provide a clear definition of what you think "faith" is vs. what you think "blind faith" is? An example alone is not enough.
I think I mentioned it in an above post, but blind faith (in this context) is someone who believes in things such as Kamma/Rebirth but does not put in the effort to practice towards actualizing it. Non-blind faith is someone who absorbs all the intellectual teachings, including the instructions, and then begins to unravel those things step-by-step. So, if I were a newbie meditator and read about the descriptions of meditation and its effects, I would try it out and see if it works. If it does indeed show some sort of promise, then I have faith that my continual practice will lead to greater insights (such as rebirth and kamma).
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

Thanks.

I'm curious: how would you classify taking refuge in the Triple Gem?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
MisterRunon
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:43 pm

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

Post by MisterRunon »

Mkoll wrote:Thanks.

I'm curious: how would you classify taking refuge in the Triple Gem?
If all you do is just state that you believe in it, then it is blind faith. If you actually try to investigate what the Triple Gem are, then it's just plain faith.
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

Thanks for answering my questions.

:thanks:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22413
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

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

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:I think the "eel-wrigglers" position is closer to not wanting to take a stance on anything, that's difference from "I don't know if there is rebirth". The first is doctrinal, the second isn't.


Now of course you can say "I don't know, but I believe it to be so" however someone can say "I don't know, it's not relevant to me". Once again that's different from "I shouldn't assert yes or no because I don't want to fall into error and suffer".
How is holding the view "I don't know if there is rebirth" not wanting to not take a position on rebirth?

I would say the not wanting of the eel wriggles Is based on aversion to being wrong because of doctrine, while saying "I don't know if there is rebirth, and it's not relevant to my practice" isn't based on aversion, it's quite neutral.

Not wanting to take a position on X is different from not taking a position on X.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 6594
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: USA

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

Post by Mkoll »

clw_uk wrote:
Mkoll wrote:
clw_uk wrote:I think the "eel-wrigglers" position is closer to not wanting to take a stance on anything, that's difference from "I don't know if there is rebirth". The first is doctrinal, the second isn't.


Now of course you can say "I don't know, but I believe it to be so" however someone can say "I don't know, it's not relevant to me". Once again that's different from "I shouldn't assert yes or no because I don't want to fall into error and suffer".
How is holding the view "I don't know if there is rebirth" not wanting to not take a position on rebirth?

I would say the not wanting of the eel wriggles Is based on aversion to being wrong because of doctrine, while saying "I don't know if there is rebirth, and it's not relevant to my practice" isn't based on aversion, it's quite neutral.

Not wanting to take a position on X is different from not taking a position on X.
I don't think that's true when it's asked of someone. If I ask someone what their position on gay marriage is and they say that they don't take a position either way, that means they don't want to take a position either way. Same with rebirth: if I ask someone what their position is on rebirth and they say they don't take a position either way, that means they don't want to take a position either way. Instead, in both cases, they want to take the position of being where they don't take a position. That in itself is their position.

It doesn't have anything to do with doctrine. It has to do with views.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
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 »

clw_uk wrote: I would say the not wanting of the eel wriggles Is based on aversion to being wrong because of doctrine, while saying "I don't know if there is rebirth, and it's not relevant to my practice" isn't based on aversion, it's quite neutral.
"I don't know if there is rebirth, and I don't know if it's relevant to my practice" would be neutral. They are actually two separate questions.

"It's not relevant to my practice" is a view, disagreeing with the view that rebirth is relevant to practice.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
SarathW
Posts: 21244
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

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

Post by SarathW »

It is not necessary to accept Kamma and Rebirth to be a Buddhist.
The way I understand the only requirement to be a Buddhist is to take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.


That is :
a) Faith that suffering can be ended. (Buddha or Nibbana)
b) Faith that there is a path to end suffering (Dhamma or Four Noble Truths). It is not required to know the Four Noble Truths.
c) Faith that there are teachers who can guide you to understand Dhamma. (Sangha)

See:
Are you a Buddhist?

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 611&hilit=
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply