the great rebirth debate

[Ben]

Hi friends,

I don't have anything to add to the debate about rebirth, not least because I lack the expertise. But reading the last few posts about explaining the Dhamma, and particularly rebirth, to children who lack the maturity to understand such concepts....

I cannot help but wonder if perhaps in the larger scheme of things--and despite all our erudite arguments (and indeed, conviction) about rebirth and what not--we are really still babies and immature insofar as the wisdom of Dhamma is immeasurable and infinite?

Metta,
zavk

I propose we chisel the above in granite and highlight with gold leaf.
One of the most profound things ever stated on this thread, let alone, this board!
Thank you Zavk for your brilliant observation.
Metta

Ben

[Jechbi]

One weird thing: My 7-year-old often talks about things that he did in the past that I know he has not done. For example, he has talked about the wife he used to have. I think he's mostly joking about this, but the first time I asked him what he was talking about, he looked puzzled, as if he wasn't sure himself where this story came from. He actually has a place name for where he used to live before. It's "Garcia." He frequently talks about what things were like in Garcia. I figure most of it is fantasy. But I have never, ever talked with him about rebirth. Somehow he got this elaborate notion of a past lifetime in his head without any prompting or suggestion that I'm aware of.

[Dan74]

One weird thing: My 7-year-old often talks about things that he did in the past that I know he has not done. For example, he has talked about the wife he used to have. I think he's mostly joking about this, but the first time I asked him what he was talking about, he looked puzzled, as if he wasn't sure himself where this story came from. He actually has a place name for where he used to live before. It's "Garcia." He frequently talks about what things were like in Garcia. I figure most of it is fantasy. But I have never, ever talked with him about rebirth. Somehow he got this elaborate notion of a past lifetime in his head without any prompting or suggestion that I'm aware of.

You need to get more details:

* Garcia, Tarragona, a municipality in Ribera d'Ebre, Spain
* García, Nuevo León, a municipality in Mexico
* Garcia, Colorado, an unincorporated town in the United States

Sorry... ( or maybe not? )

_/|\_

[retrofuturist]

Good one Dan... maybe Jechbi ought to let his young'un play with a globe and see if any Garcia-related places of note get pointed out.

Metta,
Retro.

[pink_trike]

Does he watch tv?

[christopher:::]

How would you explain rebirth to a 3 year old, an 8 year old?

You could teach them to recognize the rising/falling circle of the seasons, and the spectral circle of dawn/day/dusk/night. They don't need concepts to learn about rebirth...they're surrounded by mirrors of it everywhere in the natural world.

I agree, PT. Rebirth is not something we've talked about that much, and we do spend a lot of time talking about how the natural world works. Both of my boys are very interested in the physical sciences...

Hi friends,

I don't have anything to add to the debate about rebirth, not least because I lack the expertise. But reading the last few posts about explaining the Dhamma, and particularly rebirth, to children who lack the maturity to understand such concepts....

I cannot help but wonder if perhaps in the larger scheme of things--and despite all our erudite arguments (and indeed, conviction) about rebirth and what not--we are really still babies and immature insofar as the wisdom of Dhamma is immeasurable and infinite?

Metta,
zavk

Greetings Chris:::,

Just to give some perspective... as far as sutta records go, the Buddha didn't "rip into" anyone because they disbelieved in rebirth. On the other hand, he had some firm words to say to those who imputed a self into the Dhamma.

MN 38: Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Mahatanhasankhaya_Sutta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would strongly recommend reading that and seeing whether what the Buddha teaches in that sutta correlates to your understanding of rebirth. Do you understand it as the Buddha teaches, or do you understand it like Sati, the fisherman's son?

Metta,
Retro.

Sounds like Sati was saying that's how things work, and even attributed his beliefs to the Buddha.

The views I hold about rebirth are a work in progress, a view that feels right to me, not factual and definitely not what Buddha taught. There are similarities with what Hinduism teaches, probably because I first heard this view from Hindu teachers, specifically Ram Dass who had a pretty strong influence on my thinking throughout the 1980s.

But even Ram Dass would say at times that beliefs are just human ideas, metaphors, myths of mind. No picture that one can hold in their imagination is going to fit the reality of the unseen, just as the word apple or even a picture of an apple is really nothing like a "true" apple....

I'm not attached to the views I hold of rebirth, and don't declare it to be the "truth." I've shared it with my sons. We've also shared with them stories of Santa Claus.



I do think there's also a dynamic here, growing up in Asia, where many Buddhist laypersons (and teachers/priests) actually do hold folk beliefs about reincarnation and an afterlife that may be closer to Christianity and Hinduism then to what Buddha actually taught.

Ancestor veneration and prayer alters for deceased family members don't make much sense if you don't believe that your ancestors are "somewhere" and somehow appreciative of your prayers for them, imo...

[Jechbi]

Does he watch tv?

Yup. Reads a lot, too.

[Lazy_eye]

Hi, Christopher,

Just wanted to mention that I have come across several Zen writers who discuss the subject in ways not dissimilar to yours. Here is Muso, in Dream Conversations, on the topic of "Passing Through the Death Experience":

When people are dying they should contemplate their mental and physical elements as being void of ultimate reality, having no independent reality and no identity of their own. Further, they should contemplate the true mind as being formless, neither coming or going, the essence of mind not coming into existence at birth and not going out of existence at death, being forever tranquil. By this means, people can leave the world; they will not be drawn to beatific visions or frightened by horrific visions, such as they may experience at death according to their mental states. The mind will be forgotten and merged with the cosmos.

And here is your take:

I view the Universe as something like a field of Mind or Awareness, potentially. A being is born, Awareness is localized for a short time. Die and your individual Awareness field either merges back into the Source- the larger field of experiential potentiality- or moves on in its individualized state, to a heaven-like dream world or to take another physical body... The Buddha's teachings of anatta point to the understanding that these individual points are not real, they are like dream bubbles flowing thru time. Eventually we all merge back into the Source.

To my ear, at least, the two passages are saying basically the same thing.

Metta,
LE

[tiltbillings]

Hi, Christopher,

Just wanted to mention that I have come across several Zen writers who discuss the subject in ways not dissimilar to yours. Here is Muso, in Dream Conversations, on the topic of "Passing Through the Death Experience":

When people are dying they. . . merged with the cosmos.[/b]

And here is your take:

I view the Universe . . . we all merge back into the Source.

To my ear, at least, the two passages are saying basically the same thing.

Metta,
LE

Still looks like Hinduism.

[Lazy_eye]

Still looks like Hinduism.

Sure. Not saying it doesn't. My purpose in posting was simply to note there is support for Christopher's view within the Zen canon.

[tiltbillings]

Still looks like Hinduism.

Sure. Not saying it doesn't. My purpose in posting was simply to note there is support for Christopher's view within the Zen canon.

Not at all. Muso is at best an individual expressing his opinion, not the tradition out of he comes.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

To me the issue isn't whether or not people believe in rebirth.
But to say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth is a different story.

[kc2dpt]

To me the issue isn't whether or not people believe in rebirth.
But to say that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth is a different story.

Yes, those are really two different discussions. Sometimes, however, people who do not believe in rebirth sometimes try to defend their belief by arguing the Buddha didn't teach it. Perhaps these people can't abide the idea that they disagree with the Buddha. In any case, this is why the two discussions often become conflated.

And then there are the two issues of a] whether the Buddha taught rebirth and b] whether Buddhist tradition teaches that the Buddha taught rebirth. Of course we cannot know what the Buddha taught apart from what the Buddhist tradition tells us. And all Buddhist traditions agree that the Buddha taught rebirth. So even if one wants to hold the belief that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth, one does so in opposition to every Buddhist tradition worldwide.

I suppose it comes down to what one thinks it means to practice Buddhism. To me it means finding a Buddhist teacher and learning from him and putting what I've learned into practice. In other words, it means being part of a tradition that (hopefully) stretches all the way back to the Buddha himself. In this age of corrupt Christianity, however, we've got lots of people who want nothing to do with any established tradition of any religion.* Such people believe that they can, all by themselves, translate and interpret the surviving scriptures and come up with a more accurate interpretation than those taught by existing Buddhist traditions. This seems like nothing more than aversion and ego to me.


* To me it seems a leap to go from "Christian bishops who persecute gay people obviously corrupted Jesus' message of love" to "Buddhist monks who teach rebirth obviously corrupted Buddha's message of anatta" and yet this is what seems to be happening.

[christopher:::]

Thanks for posting that, lazy eye.

What do you all think of this view?

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/heaven.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me it doesn't sound congruent with the link Retro provided.

And Peter, I think this comes with our age, definitely. Its not something I can change easily. I was taught by my parents and teachers to "think for myself." Religion has always been a personal matter. I've read from lots of different traditions and it wasn't until I came to E-sangha about 5 years ago (at age 43) that I heard the Buddha's transmigration view in completeness.

Prior to that I'd heard of people looking forward to the Pureland, of Tibetan Lamas reincarnating, etc and it all didn't sound very different from Christian and HIndu views, to me.

Its not that I deny what the sutras say Buddha taught, its just that a) I don't yet understand it and b) there are inconsistancies that don't yet make sense to me.

The inconsistancies include the Pureland teachings, the presentation of dieing taught by the Tibetan Book of the Dead and then things that Zen teachers have taught. Buddhist traditions don't all seem to give one consistant clear presentation. And certain things people say dont make sense, logically, to me- such as that there is no wise loving "essence" to a person that continues on for some time. I don't believe in an eternal soul or atman, but when some Buddhists talk about going to the Pureland and developing rainbow bodies but then deny that there is an essence, spirit or "soul" I just scratch my head.

It doesn't compute for me, yet...

As zavk has stated, that's okay. I have a provisional view that makes sense in my head. But I do not grasp to it or declare that its the truth. I think that's in line with the Buddha's teachings, no?



P.S. With the link that Retro provied, is the word "evil" really the best choice, in English? I have trouble accepting that Buddha actually spoke in that way. Wouldn't he have been more likely to say a view is "wrong" or "incorrect"?


MN 38: Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta
http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Mahatanhasankhaya_Sutta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ngawang Drolma.]

I have a provisional view that makes sense in my head. But I do not grasp to it or declare that its the truth. I think that's in line with the Buddha's teachings, no?

I think that's in line with the Buddha's teachings too.