Then why not pursue sukkha as much as possible while you still can?mal4mac wrote: I'm not sure if life is only dukkha
Death comes soon enough, anyway. I'm sure of that..
the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
Because it is the dhamma that tells me that all life is not dukkha; because the dhamma tells me that this life is precious and how I can take better care of this life I certainly do have, that I can do something with this life that makes it better not just for me but for all the lives mine touches; the dhamma tells me that this is worth doing. And I can see all that for myself -- I agree with the dhamma that life is not all suffering, that it is precious -- but I follow it because it shows me so much I can do to make this precious life better not just for me but for those whose lives mine touches. And I'm thankful for it.Alex123 wrote:Then why follow Dhamma?nowheat wrote:Because this one (myself) who neither believes nor disbelieves in rebirth disagrees that life is only dukkha.
Re: the great rebirth debate
The way you asked that question makes it tough for me to answer because if I simply answer your questions -- yes, it does matter whether we believe in it or not; yes, we should avoid clinging to views on rebirth -- that comes out sounding like I'm contradicting myself. But it's because we should avoid clinging to views that is the reason it matters whether we believe in rebirth or not.mal4mac wrote: Even if he did teach rebirth, shouldn't we avoid clinging to views on rebirth? In meditation we might think "there is rebirth!" and then shouldn't we "let go" of that thought? So does it matter at all whether we believe in rebirth or not?
That last phrase "whether we believe in rebirth or not" makes it sound like there are two options but there are at least three: (1) believe in rebirth (2) believe there is no rebirth (3) or neither of the above.
It is really that clear to me, yes, but I haven't gotten the whole of my understanding, or the whole of my reason for understanding it the way I do, out where others can see it -- most of it is still only in drafts on my laptop -- but I have gotten the most central piece of it out, in the form of a published paper, which was linked to in another topic on this forum:mal4mac wrote: Is it really that clear? Batchelor hasn't convinced many people about this. What extra arguments do you bring to the party that might lead to added clarity?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p193392
It details the hypothesis that the structure of dependent arising (DA) is (well, okay, this is how I'd put it for the purposes of this discussion, not exactly how I put it in the paper) based on the Vedic notion of three lives: physical birth (once-born), indoctrination into the Vedas/naming ceremony (twice-born), and birth into the after-life (thrice-born). I don't use the paper to say "The Buddha wasn't teaching literal rebirth" because that would not have been appropriate, but I will say here that this is my understanding of what he was doing: the Buddha used a familiar structure (Vedic life and worldview) to simultaneously describe what they thought was going on, and to deny the accuracy of it, and to point out what they should actually be studying rather than the Vedas.
I'm working on a paper about what looks like a very old sutta in the Sutta Nipata that has dependent arising not couched in the same terms as the classic 12-link DA -- not couched in terms of rebirth -- but still containing the same basic structure. I get that many of the secular scholars out there think that someone took that original DA and later came along and "Brahmanized" it, and I can understand why they would think that way, but they haven't really seen or understood the subtlety and pure elegance of what the Buddha did with the Vedic 3-births and his use of DA or they'd recognize that this isn't the half-assed work of some later disciple but the pure genius of the man himself. (I need to do a better job than I am of conveying it; mea culpa.) I think they may well be right as far as this: there was an early DA that didn't use rebirth as a model, but it was not long before he developed the model and then he used it consistently because it was the perfect structure to say what he wanted to say, in the style of the day, to the folks he was speaking to; that it actually allowed him to speak on the dual level that was the most useful in his times.
So in answer to the question "What extra arguments do you bring to the party that might lead to added clarity?" this is it: that all throughout the Buddha's discussions when he refers to rebirth, it is DA he is referring to (not DA as modern Buddhists think of it), and that his speaking style (mentioned in my just-earlier posts in this thread) supports this, that if we understand both his style and what structure he was using in DA, what he's saying becomes clear: holding onto views of any kind* is detrimental to our well-being.
I am trying, here, to work out ways to explain what I'm seeing -- and am wanting anyone who can see a flaw in my logic to point it out. I don't need anyone to tell me there is another way to see it -- I understand the Theravadan way of seeing all this -- I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone who is entirely happy with that way of seeing it give it up. But I am saying that for anyone who isn't sure, you might want to take a look because there is another way of seeing it that isn't a piecemeal method of "I kinda sorta think the Buddha was being metaphorical" but a really solid paradigm. At least I think it is. Unless someone here can show me a fatal flaw.
* re: views, to Alex's point:
Just so. But there is a difference between "having a reasoned opinion" and "clinging to a view". We need opinions -- theories -- about how the world works in order to make choices (stop at the stoplight or run it?) but whether they are integral to "self" is the issue. When I talk about "views" I am talking about things we cling to as part of self, not opinions and theories simply used to guide us through life and easily revised on new evidence.Alex123 wrote:There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Having spent days discussing the difference between Thanissaro's and Bodhi's translation of one line of the Pali canon, and still not knowing which is the right translation, I don't hold out any hope of determining "the understanding he intended".nowheat wrote:I was stating that there is a theoretical goal post for all of us: to practice in the way, and with the understanding he intended, with the outcome he was suggesting. That goal post remains the same regardless of any individual's opinion on what the Buddha meant.
So the "theoretical goal post" you have is not mine! The approach I'm considering is to take a respected teacher as defining the "theoretical goal post", living with it, in depth, and then trying another if it comes up short. For instance, I might start with Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught". Then, to paraphrase you, "I will practice in Rahula's way, with the understanding Rahula intended, with the outcome he was suggesting".
The "theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended" is something that we can never know. You can talk about Rahula's conjecture of the theoretical ideal, or Bodhi's, or Thanissaro's, but you *cannot* talk about the Buddha's theoretical ideal, because it is hidden from us forever, behind a veil of silence, because he didn't write anything down!Where our opinions on his intention comes into it is in the relationship of each individual's actual practice and understanding, to the theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended...
- Mal
Re: the great rebirth debate
Because I'm finding that a simple life of philosophy, virtue, and meditation leads to deeper happiness. I'm not going to pursue worldly pleasures because Buddha (and the Greek philosophers...) have shown me better, more fruitful, happier things to do... Read Epicurus to see a "one life" appreciation of these mattersAlex123 wrote:Then why not pursue sukkha as much as possible while you still can?mal4mac wrote: I'm not sure if life is only dukkha
Death comes soon enough, anyway. I'm sure of that..
- Mal
Re: the great rebirth debate
Alex123 wrote:There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?
Issue of rebirth is crucial.
If life is ultimately only dukkha, and escape from it is not to be reborn, then why not suicide? Instant parinibbana!
If there is rebirth, then suicide of course is NOT the answer.
Unless we see it as not being born into ideas ...
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be. All stemming from contact between mind and thoughts (in this case about death) and the resultant feeling born from that contact
All of which is happening in the present moment, as is the escape from it
All of which is happening in the present moment, as is the escape from it
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
The Buddha saw that whatever the mind gives rise to are just transitory, conditioned phenomena, which are really empty. When this dawned on him, he let go, gave up, and found an end to suffering. You too must understand these matters according to the truth. When you know things as they are, you will see that these elements of mind are a deception, in keeping with. the Buddha's teaching that this mind has nothing, does not arise, is not born, and does not die with anyone. It is free, shining, resplendent, with nothing to occupy it. The mind becomes occupied only because it misunderstands and is deluded by these conditioned phenomena, this false sense of self.
Therefore, the Buddha had us look at our minds. What exists in the beginning? Truly, not anything. This emptiness does not arise and die with phenomena. When it contacts something good, it does not become good; when it contacts something bad, it does not become bad. The pure mind knows these objects clearly, knows that they are not substantial.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn ... 0Teachings
If you consciously notice this awareness, and appreciate it, you move more towards being nobody, towards not knowing anything at all, rather than being someone who knows everything about everything, and having all the answers to all the questions, and knowing the solutions to every problem. To be nobody knowing nothing is scary, isn't it? But this attitude helps to direct us, because there is a strong desire in us to become, to attain and achieve. Even with the best of intentions, if that kind of desire is not recognised, it will always control you, whether it is the desire to become something, the desire to control things, or the desire to get rid of annoying things or bad thoughts or irritations around you. So trust in this awareness, this openness, this receptivity, attention, listening. And question the personality. For instance, I bring up my own personality, 'I'm Ajahn Sumedho. These are my robes, and these are my spectacles.
...
No matter how intimidated you are by your thinking, trust in the awareness of it and not in the judging of it. You don't need to get rid of it, but recognise: thinking is like this, views, opinions, attachment to views and opinions are like this. Then you'll begin to see what attachment is as a reality, as a habit that we've developed. And you'll see personality, when it arises and when it ceases, when there's attachment to it and when there's non-attachment.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn ... nality.htm
We can see this in our thoughts and views, they change all the time. They can't be sustained and so they are anicca, dukkha and anatta
So we should just observe them as they rise and fall, but let them go
You yourself have demonstrated how views change (and so should be let go of) with your initial view of radical faith and acceptance of rebirth, to scepticism
Just like I have
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
if there is only one life, Who cares if suicide is immoral, craving, etc, if it leads to parinibbana?clw_uk wrote:Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be.
Dying with craving matters only if there is going to be rebirth after death.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Alex123 wrote:if there is only one life, Who cares if suicide is immoral, craving, etc, if it leads to parinibbana?clw_uk wrote:Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be.
Dying with craving matters only if there is going to be rebirth after death.
Which is a view/opinion/thought that arises and creases in the present moment
That thought is not you
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
What is the point of saying:clw_uk wrote:Which is a view/opinion/thought that arises and creases in the present momentAlex123 wrote:if there is only one life, Who cares if suicide is immoral, craving, etc, if it leads to parinibbana?clw_uk wrote:Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be.
Dying with craving matters only if there is going to be rebirth after death.
"Which is a view/opinion/thought that arises and creases in the present moment" or
"Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be."?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Because they both point to things arising in the present moment, which are not-self and dukkha if held to (because they change)
As I said, views and opinions can't be sustained, they change and so are dukkha and not-self
Freedom is found in observing their rise and fall, without chasing after them
As I said, views and opinions can't be sustained, they change and so are dukkha and not-self
Freedom is found in observing their rise and fall, without chasing after them
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
I think that in one way or another, we all tend to express our views and opinions on the internet.clw_uk wrote:
As I said, views and opinions can't be sustained, they change and so are dukkha and not-self
Freedom is found in observing their rise and fall, without chasing after them
Craig, I highly recommend this talk from Ajahn Sumedho, which I went to at Amaravati Monastery before he retired :
"Who Needs Enlightenment When I Have My Opinions"
http://forestsanghapublications.org/viewTalk.php?id=639
with metta,
Aloka
Re: the great rebirth debate
Thanks
“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.”
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.”
Re: the great rebirth debate
I'm not sure if you're not understanding what I'm saying, or what but... I'll just set this aside.mal4mac wrote:Having spent days discussing the difference between Thanissaro's and Bodhi's translation of one line of the Pali canon, and still not knowing which is the right translation, I don't hold out any hope of determining "the understanding he intended".nowheat wrote:I was stating that there is a theoretical goal post for all of us: to practice in the way, and with the understanding he intended, with the outcome he was suggesting. That goal post remains the same regardless of any individual's opinion on what the Buddha meant.
So the "theoretical goal post" you have is not mine!
To paraphrase Alex, <begin rhetorical question> then why follow the dhamma at all? If the Pali canon is not worth dealing with -- if it makes no sense to you or is dismissable because it came from an oral tradition rather than being in writing -- what makes it Buddhism at all to you? If what we have of what the Buddha said is useless to you, you're not following the Buddha, right? you're following Buddhists?<end rhetorical question>The approach I'm considering is to take a respected teacher as defining the "theoretical goal post", living with it, in depth, and then trying another if it comes up short. For instance, I might start with Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught". Then, to paraphrase you, "I will practice in Rahula's way, with the understanding Rahula intended, with the outcome he was suggesting".
The "theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended" is something that we can never know. You can talk about Rahula's conjecture of the theoretical ideal, or Bodhi's, or Thanissaro's, but you *cannot* talk about the Buddha's theoretical ideal, because it is hidden from us forever, behind a veil of silence, because he didn't write anything down!
I guess you aren't the right person for me to be having this discussion with, though, if the Pali canon is, in your view, not worth studying, since I strongly disagree with that position, and the canon is where I am starting from. More power to you and good wishes on your journey, though.