HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.mikenz66 wrote:Hi NoWheat,Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).nowheat wrote: My concern is that if this is true, rebirth accepters spread a meme that seriously slows ability to gain liberation.
the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Hi Sean & All,seanpdx wrote:according to the third noble truth, it is the extinction of tanha which results in the cessation of dukkha and, subsequently, liberation. Not the extinction of eternalist or annihilationist views.
maybe worth remembering the fourth noble truth also?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
(apologizing to all who have answered for only answering a few posts but at the moment I'm pressed for time, and your posts aren't light reading. I will get to them though!)
I propose to do it by following the Buddha's example of agnosticism. In fact, for myself, I'm past proposing; it happened to me without my ever really intending that it should. When I started reading the suttas and came to understand that the Buddha was not saying there is another life beyond this, nor was he saying that there wasn't, that he was saying that we must base our choices on what we can know directly ourselves; when I realized that I do not know whether this is my only life or one of many, my stomach did that rollercoaster-drop thing on and off for quite a while, because I was deeply, deeply disturbed by the concept. Which was pretty funny because I *thought* I'd been an agnostic for many years; I hadn't realized until I accepted his wisdom that I have to base my life on what I can know, and not simply on what others tell me (in other words; read, study, listen, choose wise teachers, but test and see for yourself) I discovered that I had a whole bunch of unexamined assumptions and letting go of them was deeply uncomfortable. I expect I still have a few more to let go of, but hopefully not too many left in this particular category; I've gotten fairly good at noticing them when they (rarely) show their heads.mikenz66 wrote:How do you propose to do that?seanpdx wrote: What if we simply drop any and all notions of annihilationism and eternalism? Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Hi NoWheat,
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 680#p50948" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I would summarise it as: "With mundane right view there is progress but rebirth continues until there is full awakening (at which point supramundane right view arises...)." I.e. the continued becoming is a result of lack of awakening rather than a result of mundane right view.
Mike
Hmm, I guess you mean:nowheat wrote:HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.mikenz66 wrote: Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 680#p50948" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I can see your point, but I don't necessarily accept the sort of "cause and effect" you attribute to it.nowheat wrote:Bhikkhu Bodhi says that the Buddha said in this sutta that right view ripens (in other words "matures into" or "gives us fruit which is") the acquisition of "the five aggregates that constitute personal existence.' In other words, following this view causes us to continue to generate the five aggregates. Note that when it comes to the aggregates, it doesn't use a word that implies "will continue as before" but one that implies that the process of believing mundane right view *generates* the taint: *ripening* in the acquisitions.
I would summarise it as: "With mundane right view there is progress but rebirth continues until there is full awakening (at which point supramundane right view arises...)." I.e. the continued becoming is a result of lack of awakening rather than a result of mundane right view.
Mike
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Except that it's not, not entirely a Pascal's Wager. The part about "will get a good rebirth after the breakup of the body" is Pascal's Wager, but the parts about "will lead a good life, praised by your peers" is not.seanpdx wrote:Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.Ben wrote: As you know, when the Buddha was questioned by the householders of sala who were sceptical of rebirth, in the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60), he didn't try to convince them that they were wrong but used logical inference to direct them to the conclusion that living one's life as though one believed in rebirth will lead to their welfare. And I think that remains a potent message for all of us.
kind regards
The best reason to be moral is because it reduces suffering, in the long run. It can do that by making one's life better: for a householder, as above, because you will have the respect of your peers and the support of your community. For a mendicant, same as for a householder *and* you set up a situation in which it is easier for you to maintain your practice.
I bet there are other good reasons, nothing to do with rebirth, for being moral.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Yes. If he did, in fact, have zero kidneys. See also: dialysis. Or if, perhaps, he had a genetic abnormality that caused more than two kidneys. See also: genetic mutation.BlackBird wrote:Well, Mike and Retro are quite correct to say so. This is because a non-ariyan mind, left to it's own devices (which is most of the time) necessarily inclines itself to one of these two views, or a combination thereof, just as a river inclines itself towards the sea.seanpdx wrote: Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.
Say a person were to announce: "Well, we all have either 2 kidneys or 1 kidney" and some man were to come a long and say: "Come now my good man, please do not speak for my kidneys, please do not assume that I may or may not have 2 kidneys or 1 kidney or even kidneys at all"
Would he be right in saying such a thing?
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Gee, you're good at that. Wish I had time to figure out how you magicked it.mikenz66 wrote: Hmm, I guess you mean:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 680#p50948" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Which is a lovely way of rewriting it leaving out the sense of "acquisition" of those aggregates that comes with "mundane right view" but I think the Buddha chose the word that meant mundane right view resulted in acquisition of the aggregates because that's what he meant. It's not even the only negative word he uses in that sequence. He says it's a tainted view (Bodhi translates it as "with influxes" implying something new being added by the process; or alternatively "corrupted"). I don't see how we can put a sweet spin on all these things that clearly say something bad is being brought in (influx) that pollutes (corrupted) and brings to fruit the aggregates of self.I would summarise it as: "With mundane right view there is progress but rebirth continues until there is full awakening (at which point supramundane right view arises...)." I.e. the continued becoming is a result of lack of awakening rather than a result of mundane right view.
(but this belongs in that other thread!)
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
I always get very uncomfortable when someone prefaces a statement with the words "The best reason...". However, I have an extremely difficult time discussing the concept of being "moral" without delving into ethics and meta-ethics. And whenever discussions of morality come up between people, it's usually blatantly obvious who has studied ethics and who has not.nowheat wrote: The best reason to be moral is because it reduces suffering, in the long run. It can do that by making one's life better: for a householder, as above, because you will have the respect of your peers and the support of your community. For a mendicant, same as for a householder *and* you set up a situation in which it is easier for you to maintain your practice.
I bet there are other good reasons, nothing to do with rebirth, for being moral.
I will _not_ get into a full discussion of consequentialism, and its ethical and meta-ethical dilemmas, but I will point out that the reason you give above is a consequentialist view of ethics. If you're interested in further investigation of this particular line of thought, hunt down some books/websites on consequentialism as an ethical theory.
That said, I consider myself more of a virtue-ethicist than a consequentialist.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Hi NoWheat,
Great points! From my point of view, yes, the person with mundane right view still has taints (asavas) because they have not been eliminated yet... Since a belief in rebirth is, of course, some sort of fixed view, it's something that would have to be let go of eventually, but it's not clear to me that it's that belief that is the major[/b] reason for continued rebirth.
I would have thought that there were lots of much worse wrongheaded views that have be let go of for awakening.
Mike
PS, if you want to link to a particular post, go to the thread and click on the heading of the post you want to quote. You can then cut and paste the address.
Great points! From my point of view, yes, the person with mundane right view still has taints (asavas) because they have not been eliminated yet... Since a belief in rebirth is, of course, some sort of fixed view, it's something that would have to be let go of eventually, but it's not clear to me that it's that belief that is the major[/b] reason for continued rebirth.
I would have thought that there were lots of much worse wrongheaded views that have be let go of for awakening.
Mike
PS, if you want to link to a particular post, go to the thread and click on the heading of the post you want to quote. You can then cut and paste the address.
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Hi Sean,
(http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p51256)
Mike
I don't really see what tricky questions of ethics have to do with the Buddha's teaching on sila. LIke Ben (and, I think, Sean) I see it as simply practical advice: doing bad stuff messes up your mind. Not doing bad stuff doesn't.seanpdx wrote: ... I have an extremely difficult time discussing the concept of being "moral" without delving into ethics and meta-ethics. And whenever discussions of morality come up between people, it's usually blatantly obvious who has studied ethics and who has not.
(http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p51256)
Mike
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
The problem comes when one encounters an individual who may be equally as moral, but without the same reasons. It can become all too easy to claim that said person is, in truth, not moral (or not as moral), or just plain wrong. A study of ethics and meta-ethics demonstrates how ludicrous such claims can be.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sean,I don't really see what tricky questions of ethics have to do with the Buddha's teaching on sila. LIke Ben I see it as simply practical advice: doing bad stuff messes up your mind. Not doing bad stuff doesn't.seanpdx wrote: ... I have an extremely difficult time discussing the concept of being "moral" without delving into ethics and meta-ethics. And whenever discussions of morality come up between people, it's usually blatantly obvious who has studied ethics and who has not.
(http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... =20#p51256)
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Greetings Mike,
Tying what you said just then to nowheat back to your earlier comments... that you have Right View with Taints, means you are not an eternalist, nor are you an annihilationist... nor you do possess any of the 62 wrong views detailed in the Brahmajala Sutta.
The tendency (anusaya) to think in terms of self is a different matter altogether, and is only completely eradicated upon attaining arahanthood.
Therefore, to repose Sean's question against that setting once more, "Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief if you hold no wrong views with respect to atman?". Feel free to answer as you see fit.
Metta,
Retro.
Tying what you said just then to nowheat back to your earlier comments... that you have Right View with Taints, means you are not an eternalist, nor are you an annihilationist... nor you do possess any of the 62 wrong views detailed in the Brahmajala Sutta.
The tendency (anusaya) to think in terms of self is a different matter altogether, and is only completely eradicated upon attaining arahanthood.
Therefore, to repose Sean's question against that setting once more, "Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief if you hold no wrong views with respect to atman?". Feel free to answer as you see fit.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
Hi Sean,
Of course, I would not claim to be following that advice particularly well, but the point is that I don't think that doing an ethical analysis would be any help at all to me developing my sila...
Metta
Mike
As far as I can see, these ethical dilemmas have nothing to do with the practicalities of trying to follow the Buddha's advice on sila. In my view, if one has some suspicion that some action that one is contemplating would violate a precept then one should not proceed with it, otherwise it will certainly generate disturbing mind states.seanpdx wrote:The problem comes when one encounters an individual who may be equally as moral, but without the same reasons. It can become all too easy to claim that said person is, in truth, not moral (or not as moral), or just plain wrong. A study of ethics and meta-ethics demonstrates how ludicrous such claims can be.mikenz66 wrote: I don't really see what tricky questions of ethics have to do with the Buddha's teaching on sila. ...
Of course, I would not claim to be following that advice particularly well, but the point is that I don't think that doing an ethical analysis would be any help at all to me developing my sila...
Metta
Mike
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
It has more to do with how one relates to other people who may have a different basis for morality, and less with the practicalities of actually following the precepts or anything of that nature.mikenz66 wrote:Hi Sean,As far as I can see, these ethical dilemmas have nothing to do with the practicalities of trying to follow the Buddha's advice on sila. In my view, if one has some suspicion that some action that one is contemplating would violate a precept then one should not proceed with it, otherwise it will certainly generate disturbing mind states.seanpdx wrote:The problem comes when one encounters an individual who may be equally as moral, but without the same reasons. It can become all too easy to claim that said person is, in truth, not moral (or not as moral), or just plain wrong. A study of ethics and meta-ethics demonstrates how ludicrous such claims can be.mikenz66 wrote: I don't really see what tricky questions of ethics have to do with the Buddha's teaching on sila. ...
Of course, I would not claim to be following that advice particularly well, but the point is that I don't think that doing an ethical analysis would be any help at all to me developing my sila...
Metta
Mike
Re: the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?
So why should I worry about it in the context of this discussion?seanpdx wrote: It has more to do with how one relates to other people who may have a different basis for morality, and less with the practicalities of actually following the precepts or anything of that nature.
Mike