the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Hey

First thing to understand is this: holding views and asking questions are two separate things.

They are seperate yes but intertwined. What will i be can lead to a speculative view (eternalism, annhiliationism, rebirth, non-rebirth etc) or adopting a speculative view (rebirth) can lead to the questions what will i be? etc

With regard to views, I think it's a big mistake to regard them as fully "mine" or think of them as something fully under one's own control. We have all kinds of views built into our present makeup based on past kamma. Probably you can't help whether you "believe in" rebirth at this moment. You can't force yourself to adopt a view. But over time, we all know that our views change and develop, as we create new kamma. Views are caused and conditioned by kamma.

Of course people will have speculative views before but the Buddha taught a teaching that goes beyond such speculative views by focusing on what is (4nt) so that they

A) no longer attend unwisely (and so increase the taints)
B) can go beyond all speculative views and dukkha (and in process see how such speculative views come to be via identification)

Now im not saying it is necessarily wrong or bad to have (certain) speculative views, but the Buddhadhamma is beyond speculative views (i.e. rebirth), it doesnt include them (when i say buddhadhamma i mean his own teachings, 4nt and D.O.)

That is why the Buddha often would describe the views of an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person. My reading is that these were descriptions. I don't think the Buddha advised: Okay, now immediately change your mind and hold a different view instead! Rather, I believe the Buddha advised following the full 8fold path, thus perfecting right view as a consequence. Obviously, if we're ordinary run-of-the-mill people, we're going to have some of the not-right views that the Buddha described.

He didnt teach that to those who held speculative views but to those following his own teachings he taught the NEFP, which right/noble view/understanding is of the 4NT, i.e. appropriate attention

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

And not about speculative rebirth view since this involves unwise attention

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With regard to asking questions, I don't think there's any time when the Buddha advised: Don't ask that question. Seems to me that the Buddha encouraged inquiry. BUT the Buddha seemed to caution against dwelling on certain questions or getting stuck on them, because dwelling on those questions is counterproductive.

He never said "dont you ever ask such questions" but when people took up his teachings, he advised that its unwise to ask such questions since they lead to developing and/or strengthening the taints (and so ignorance etc and so the whole mass of dukkha)

You seem to back up my point in the last sentence

"BUT the Buddha seemed to caution against dwelling on certain questions or getting stuck on them, because dwelling on those questions is counterproductive"

He taught wise attention, a way to go beyond all such speculative, counterproductive questions that dont lead to the ending of dukkha and in fact only increase/sustain it, which rebirth view/questions does

Metta

[Jechbi]

Howdy,

That is why the Buddha often would describe the views of an ordinary, run-of-the-mill person. My reading is that these were descriptions. I don't think the Buddha advised: Okay, now immediately change your mind and hold a different view instead! Rather, I believe the Buddha advised following the full 8fold path, thus perfecting right view as a consequence. Obviously, if we're ordinary run-of-the-mill people, we're going to have some of the not-right views that the Buddha described.

He didnt teach that to those who held speculative views but to those following his own teachings he taught the NEFP, which right/noble view/understanding is of the 4NT, i.e. appropriate attention

And since some of those people were not yet arahants, they almost certainly still held at least some "speculative views."

With regard to asking questions, I don't think there's any time when the Buddha advised: Don't ask that question. Seems to me that the Buddha encouraged inquiry. BUT the Buddha seemed to caution against dwelling on certain questions or getting stuck on them, because dwelling on those questions is counterproductive.

He never said "dont you ever ask such questions" but when people took up his teachings, he advised that its unwise to ask such questions since they lead to developing and/or strengthening the taints (and so ignorance etc and so the whole mass of dukkha)

When did he advise that it's unwise to ask such questions? There's a difference between asking a question that pops up into your mind and dwelling on that question. This thread seems to be an example of the latter.

You seem to back up my point in the last sentence.

Great!

He taught wise attention, a way to go beyond all such speculative, counterproductive questions that dont lead to the ending of dukkha and in fact only increase/sustain it

with you so far

which rebirth view/questions does

Stop right there. The Buddha did teach a method for going beyond, but that method does seem to be so simple as, bingo, change your view now and stop asking question. The method is the entire 8fold path. Along the way, we're probably going to be stuck temporarily with not-right views, and we're probably going to ask some counterproductive questions. This entire thread seems to be an illustration of that.

Gotta run. Won't be around for a couple days. Metta!

[kc2dpt]

So there are times when a person asks the Buddha something, and the Buddha remains silent. Yet I don't think the Buddha ever tells a person: Don't even ask me that question.

Actually, there were such times. The stock phrase used in the suttas is "Never mind that. Listen and I will teach you Dhamma."

However, the scriptures never show him giving that answer in response to a question about rebirth. Rather when asked about a person's past life he tells about that past (for example telling about how a certain blind monk was in a previous life a physician who intentionally blinded a patient). When asked about a person's future life he tells about that (for example telling how a dog-duty ascetic who perfects his practice will be reborn either as a dog or in hell).

It is only people on internet forums who are uncomfortable with rebirth teachings who say in response to questions about past and future lives "Never mind that. The Buddha didn't teach about that."

[Ceisiwr]

It is only people on internet forums who are uncomfortable with rebirth teachings who say in response to questions about past and future lives

This seems to be labouring under the assumption that everything i had said is because of some aversion to rebirth view/doctrine, which i have stated is not the case, if someone was denying rebirth outright i might say that they are acting out of aversion but that is not what is happening here

Metta

[pink_trike]

Hi Craig,

You are welcome to your view. It doesn't affect me (or my view ). However it is a little tiresome that it is wheeled out whenever anyone wants to discuss something that isn't "in the present moment".

Perhaps as tiring as the incessant, frothy, speculative religionist view of the teachings that reduces everyone to intellectual and intuitional infancy, dependent on a "Supreme Buddha" who may or may not have even existed and a stagnant, literal, archaic interpretation of the teachings. Imo, this isn't what Siddhārtha Gautama had in mind.

Visualize a post-religious Buddhism.

[mikenz66]

Hi Craig,

You are welcome to your view. It doesn't affect me (or my view ). However it is a little tiresome that it is wheeled out whenever anyone wants to discuss something that isn't "in the present moment".

Perhaps as tiring as the incessant, frothy, speculative religionist view of the teachings that reduces everyone to intellectual and intuitional infancy, dependent on a "Supreme Buddha" who may or may not have even existed and a stagnant, literal, archaic interpretation of the teachings. Imo, this isn't what Siddhārtha Gautama had in mind.

Ok, let's do this intellectually, then.

I've repeatedly asked Craig to show me a Sutta which states, or even implies, that thinking about the past and future is the problem. The Suttas he keeps quoting never say that, they say that clinging to things in the past, present, or future as self is the problem.

Repeatedly stating that any thoughts or reasoning to do with the past or future is "speculative view" isn't a sound intellectual argument.

Metta
Mike

[mikenz66]

We are not stream-winners or arahants (sorry if anyone is) so any view/question about past or future is going to be coloured by self view or conciet and so such views and questions will just increase ignorance and the taints (also they are asking the wrong questions anyway). One cant help but put "me" or "I" in the future when ignorance hasnt been removed.

You keep neglecting this:

One cannot help but put 'me' or 'I' in the present when ignorance has not been removed.

Mike

[Ceisiwr]

We are not stream-winners or arahants (sorry if anyone is) so any view/question about past or future is going to be coloured by self view or conciet and so such views and questions will just increase ignorance and the taints (also they are asking the wrong questions anyway). One cant help but put "me" or "I" in the future when ignorance hasnt been removed.

You keep neglecting this:

One cannot help but put 'me' or 'I' in the present when ignorance has not been removed.

Mike

If one keeps asking these questions then, as the text state, the taints will increase. Even though there is a sense of "me" in the present, by attending wisely to the present moment of what is (4nt) and not present moment speculative questions of "what am i" or "who am i", one works to remove the taints and dukkha. The questions "am i" "what am i" etc are not an acknowledgement and focusing of what is, instead they come from a delusional sense of self, which then goes in search of a self

[Ngawang Drolma.]

What does the question, "What am I?" have to do with ascribing to post mortem becoming?

[Ceisiwr]

I've repeatedly asked Craig to show me a Sutta which states, or even implies, that thinking about the past and future is the problem. The Suttas he keeps quoting never say that, they say that clinging to things in the past, present, or future as self is the problem.

Because of ignorance, any question/view about future lives will involve identification, "what will I be"

Or "what was I"

Or "Was I"

Or "what will my rebirth be"

The clinging that is present is the very reason that such questions/views arise in the first place, when there is no more clinging, these questions neither arise nor apply

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

[Ceisiwr]

What does the question, "What am I?" have to do with ascribing to post mortem becoming?

Mike was addresing that particular question since its a question about the present moment

However the question "what am i" can lead to speculative views about what happens after death since What am I? will lead to a search for a self and so, eventual identification and "I am" and then it can lead onto the other questions "what will i be in the future" or "was I in the past" and then onto the speculative views "i will live forever" or "i will be annihilated" or "i will be reborn" or "i wont be reborn" or "i will and wont be reborn" etc.....


All of which involves conciet and/or self view, ignorance, taints and the whole mass of dukkha

Instead of asking such questions, one focuses on what is

Dukkha
origin
quenching
path to quench

When this path is done, a "person" will see with proper wisdom

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

Because he has seen "Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance" (and same for other khandas) there is no more clinging to them as self and so all the speculative views (which only come to be via clinging to the aggregates) no longer arise or apply

Metta

[pink_trike]

We are not stream-winners or arahants (sorry if anyone is) so any view/question about past or future is going to be coloured by self view or conciet and so such views and questions will just increase ignorance and the taints (also they are asking the wrong questions anyway). One cant help but put "me" or "I" in the future when ignorance hasnt been removed.

You keep neglecting this:

One cannot help but put 'me' or 'I' in the present when ignorance has not been removed.

Mike

Yes, but interestingly, the practices all are aimed at dissolving this ignorance in the present...while the speculations of literal rebirth fosters the delusional sense of "me" and "I" in imaginary places located in the past and future. The stories of literal rebirth are inconsistent with the logic flow of the original teachings and practices - and were likely added later as a burning house means of social control. In their irrational inconsistency, they foster further irrationality and delusion, counter-effecting the elegantly logical path of waking up to this life as described by Siddhārtha Gautama

[Mexicali]

The understanding that there is a connection of causation from "birth" to "birth", not one of identity, makes sense to me.

[mikenz66]

If one keeps asking these questions then, as the text state, the taints will increase. Even though there is a sense of "me" in the present, by attending wisely to the present moment of what is (4nt) and not present moment speculative questions of "what am i" or "who am i", one works to remove the taints and dukkha. The questions "am i" "what am i" etc are not an acknowledgement and focusing of what is, instead they come from a delusional sense of self, which then goes in search of a self

Please don't keep projecting "asking these questions" into everything...

I take it that we have established that unwise attention to the past, future or present, is the problem?

Therefore, we no longer have to labour under the assumption that everything to do with thinking about the past the future is a problem. So, in considering whether something is wise or not, perhaps we can discuss the attention we are bringing to it, rather than jumping to conclusions based on temporal relationships.

Metta
Mike

[Ngawang Drolma.]

The understanding that there is a connection of causation from "birth" to "birth", not one of identity, makes sense to me.

Me too