clw_uk wrote:DarkDream
I dont believe fully in rebirth but do have some confidence in it, i do however like to keep some healthy skepticism so can appreciate some of your points since some are points i have asked myself
1) Consciousness can not exist without a body.
Correct, the buddha states so himself
2) Instaneous transfer of karmic energies cannot be guarantee a suitable being-to-be.
Why do you think this is? it happens everymoment of this life, kamma leads to a new birth of being in this moment
3) Difficulty in explaining population explosions.
This i feel has already been answered (one reason i have hears is because of widespread destruction of nature so many more animals are dying are more chances of human birth with more humans reproducing, also factor in other possibilites of other life in the universe given the huge scale of planets in the known universe and the traditional realms of devas, hell-beings etc)
4) Problem with infinite regress with the gandhabba.
I to have some problem with this word, however one point was made to me, the fact that buddha made reference of different concepts of the time, in this case it refered to a heavenly being, so he could have used it as a teaching method to explain a new being about to be born
5) Dubious scientific evidence.
This is of course correct, however a lack of evidence doesnt mean its impossible just currently un-testable, the deathless is untestable but still a reality
6) Questionable value for salvation.
Could you elaborate?
Thanks for your response. This was just summary of the posts I did, so naturally there is a lot wanting. Let me try to answer your points.
As for (2) you say, "Why do you think this is? it happens everymoment of this life, kamma leads to a new birth of being in this moment." I couldn't agree more. To me this is the essential point. I do believe in the notion of kamma and rebirth in this life where it happens all the time. What I was referring to is the notion of when we physically die, our kammic energies need to go some where. From what I understand from the Therevada perspective it happens instantaneously which I try to point out issues with.
(3) Yes, I talk about beings coming from other realms and so on to account for population explosions. I do, however, point out some issues with that. You would have to read what I wrote, but my first response in this subforum sums it up.
(4) As for the gandhabba, it has been seen by some to be the relinking consciousness. I just point out the difficulties with that.
(5) Agree.
(6) I said questionable value for salvation, because even if you could remember your past lives, what use would it be? When the Buddha became enlightened he did experience three knowledges. It was only the third one which he became enlightened. As mentioned in the suttas, remembering your past lives was acheived by many other religious teachers but they were not enlightened.
clw_uk wrote:
may i ask you some answers in turn however?
If the Buddha did not teach rebirth at all how do you account for the widespread use of it in so many parts of the canon?
If there is no dukkha after physical death, you do you think the buddha didnt teach that death was the end of dukkha and instead places so much importance of craving, if this ends at physical death why did he instruct followers who were about to die how to end some if not all craving?
Since i do not think the buddha would lie, why do you think he taught rebirth if he didnt know or care if it happens, there were already people at that time ready to accept non-rebirth (i.e. the followers of the materialist philosophy etc) and the buddha would not add other concepts or teachings that were not part of the Dhamma. He would only change the amount he revealed to each individual need so some would could only accept kamma, others the more advanced teachings on the four noble truths, dependent origination etc
I can understand the arguments that the buddhas teachings refer to rebirth as the birth and death of self identifcation in moments (this is one of my core understandings of his teachings) but there are many suttas where the buddha does say "so and so was reborn here". How do you account for this?
As for the first question, I need to point out that the common English translation of the word rebirth is "punarbhava" which is wrong in my opinion. The correct translation is "rebecoming." This is really fundamental. I think the Buddha purposely made this choice of word becauase "rebecoming" denotes a process and and not a thing. I think this unfortuantely has been obscured and misunderstood unfairly giving the impression in many cases that the Buddha was teaching a literal notion of rebirth.
I agree that there are suttas where the notion of rebirth can not be interpreted in any other way. I believe there are lots of reasons for it. The systemization of the Pali canon, the popularization of Buddhism, misunderstanding of the followers to takes things too literally and so on.
As for your second question, it may not be satisfactory, but the Buddha new his followers were dying and so made extra assertions to experience nibbana before they died. He did not teach nibbana was obtained when one dies, as death is a notion connected with a personality that passes on. Nibbana has no experience of a person -- it is thus beyond death.
As for your third question, I don't think the Buddha lied as well. He was a master of skill-in-means and would often take the view of the person who was talking to. So when someone would ask him, "How to I obtain union with Brahma", the Buddha would tell him by pervading the world with loving-kindness. This was not to be taken literally. The Buddha was simply using the vocabulary and the view point of the interlocator to help the person out. Some notions were so entrenched in people that he did not teach them what was ultimately true as that would have been counter productive and have led to confusion. So he did not lie, but skillfully may have led them towards a certain direction without explicitly telling them that they were wrong.
The Buddha did not say that someone was annihilated after death because this would be wrong because there was no self or person to be annihilated. He may have even thought in some sense that some inkling of the process of an individual continues in some form after death, but as for the exact mechanism and and the specifics of behind it, he never really specified. Some may argue he did, but like I said above, I think the suttas are misunderstood or were composed later.
I personally believe that our actions continue on past our death to influence future evernts. What gets reborn is the those actions that lead to a better or worse world for others.
As for the last question, yes the suttas indicate that the Buddha said this person was born here and there. I don't really have some convincing answers for that one. I think all the different rebirths were originally just questions on the level of spiritual attainment I person reached. Later through the lense of the compiles who no doubt believed in rebirth, changed the suttas. But I don't have really evidence to back this claim up. I am just speculating at this point.
You've raised some good questions. I definitely don't think I have all the answers, but that is my working propositions right now. After re-examining things I may change my mind. That is the reason I joined this forum to bounce these ideas off of people in hopes of learning and achieving a greater understanding of the dhamma.
Thanks,
--DarkDream