the great rebirth debate

[clw_uk]

By denying 99.99% of 1st NT

Which you have not proven that rebirth as a deva view is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the 1st NT

If there is one life only, and we are arahant in that regard (no rebirths)

Why not take happy pills or try to find pleasure in little things?

I cant see how if you understand the three marks you could say something like this

Heck, if the existence is too bad - one can hasten the final nibbāna quickly and without much effort that it would take to follow the Dhamma to the full.

If there was one life.

See?

If I believed in one life only.

See now?

[clw_uk]

Bit of a red herring really. I'm suggesting we direct our efforts towards walking the path rather than standing about arguing about the composition of the gravel.

Not really, your post suggests that we should not say a word on dukkha because we are to ignorant.

If that's what my post suggested to you then I am quite concerned that my posts are taking on a life of their own and communicating all sorts of unintended things to people.. Goodness, the nerve of them...

Sarcasm is a sign of a failing argument in a debate

[Alex123]

I'm suggesting we direct our efforts towards walking the path rather than standing about arguing about the composition of the gravel.

This thread is a debate about a part of the gravel - re-birth. Walking on the path is walking to the end of dukkha - that is all the Buddha taught.

metta

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death. Why bother with the path then if death is guaranteed anyways?

And those who want parinibbana now, the suicide would be a solution IF there was no rebirth. If there is rebirth and one doesn't become an arahant at death, then there would be a rebirth and more dukkha. But with one life only, there is one death and it doesn't matter if one followed the path or not.

[clw_uk]

I'm suggesting we direct our efforts towards walking the path rather than standing about arguing about the composition of the gravel.

This thread is a debate about a part of the gravel - re-birth. Walking on the path is walking to the end of dukkha - that is all the Buddha taught.

metta

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death. Why bother with the path then if death is guaranteed anyways?

And those who want parinibbana now, the suicide would be a solution IF there was no rebirth. If there is rebirth and one doesn't become an arahant at death, then there would be a rebirth and more dukkha. But with one life only, there is one death and it doesn't matter if one followed the path or not.

Dont you tire of repeating this mantra of yours

Has it skipped your mind that you dont know what happens, and regardless there is dukkha now?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alex,

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death.

This ranks highly amongst the silliest things you have said, Alex.



Metta,
Retro.

[Alex123]

Dont you tire of repeating this mantra of yours

Has it skipped your mind that you dont know what happens, and regardless there is dukkha now?

Do you accept the possibility of rebirth?


If I believed in one life only, I could end dukkha right now (or at least today) and I would not need Dhamma. But because of rebirth, suicide is not the way out (it is dangerous, to say at least).

[clw_uk]

Greetings Alex,

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death.

This ranks highly amongst the silliest things you have said, Alex.



Metta,
Retro.

I agree, it implies some kind of supernatural knowledge that is beyond us

[Anicca]

I agree with James. To expound on the original post - the term's of one's daily practice should be: to understand dukkha - its beginning - its end and the path that leads to its extinction.

Dukkha no more!

metta

By denying 99.99% of 1st NT, you are making the path seem less important. If there is one life only ...

Alex, by agreeing with James, I am saying that I believe in literal rebirth:

personally i believe in literal rebirth.

Clear enough?

metta

[Alex123]

Greetings Alex,

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death.

This ranks highly amongst the silliest things you have said, Alex.



Metta,
Retro.

Are you saying that pariNibbana is existence of some sort?

'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is no hint that something remains "in" parinibbana. In essence this is what would happen if there was "one-life-only". After this life ends, it is the end.
No remainder that exists happily ever after.

[Alex123]

Greetings Alex,

If there is one life only, then one is guaranteed final nibbana at death.

This ranks highly amongst the silliest things you have said, Alex.



Metta,
Retro.

I agree, it implies some kind of supernatural knowledge that is beyond us

Does it require supernatural knowledge to assume that:

If there is one life, then at death there is no consciousness of any kind remaining to experience ANY type of dukkha?

[Aloka]

It is a valid question. The Buddha searched for end of suffering. If we are all guaranteed it anyways, then why bother? Why not kill oneself and end ALL suffering in the here and now?

The suffering one experiences even in 7 lives is NOTHING compared to beeing endlessly reborn where one has shed more blood and tears than in the oceans and left enough corpses in one Aeon to be as high as a mountain.

Oh no, here we go, round in a circle, back to killing ourselves and lots of doom and gloom again.

Time for an early night !

[clw_uk]

Does it require supernatural knowledge to assume that:

If there is one life, then at death there is no consciousness of any kind remaining to experience ANY type of dukkha?

Its conjecture, speculative, guess work and missing the here and now

[Alex123]

It is a valid question. The Buddha searched for end of suffering. If we are all guaranteed it anyways, then why bother? Why not kill oneself and end ALL suffering in the here and now?

The suffering one experiences even in 7 lives is NOTHING compared to beeing endlessly reborn where one has shed more blood and tears than in the oceans and left enough corpses in one Aeon to be as high as a mountain.

Oh no, here we go, round in a circle, back to killing ourselves and lots of doom and gloom again.

Time for an early night , so nighty noddles !

Why follow Dhamma to end all suffering if suffering would end at death regardless of what one did or didn't do?
If one wants to finish all suffering today, then there would be a quick way out if there was only one life.

[BlackBird]

If that's what my post suggested to you then I am quite concerned that my posts are taking on a life of their own and communicating all sorts of unintended things to people.. Goodness, the nerve of them...

Sarcasm is a sign of a failing argument in a debate

Thanks for taking the time to condescend

To clarify, the point I am trying to make (perhaps a little too indirectly, but it's my style) is this:

Alex probably considers he knows what's what.
You probably consider you have a decent grasp of the same thing
I probably consider the same of myself.

But in the end we're not an authority until we're enlightened, and that's the urgent goal here.

You're not going to change Alex's mind, and he won't change yours. Therefore feel free to butt heads to the cows come home about Dukkha and re-birth, but I doubt you'll achieve anything, and in the end the Buddha never intended his Dhamma to be used for the purposes of debate, I don't need to go quoting MN 22, I'm sure you've read it many times.

I very much doubt anyone's going to further their own understanding by engaging in this debate, at the very least it would be a poor substitute to time on the cushion and personal contemplation, and finally it's clear to me that these sort of debates only tend to strengthen people's defilements. It's a bit of an ego trip where the goal (whether we realize it or not) is the pleasurable feeling of being right and proving it to be so, in the end though all we get is upset and annoyed when people don't see things our way.

That's how I feel about this. Perhaps you enjoy debating and you have a clear and humble mind throughout, in that case you're the exception to the rule and I wish you all the best in your debating-samadhi

With metta (actually)
Jack

[Alex123]

Does it require supernatural knowledge to assume that:

If there is one life, then at death there is no consciousness of any kind remaining to experience ANY type of dukkha?

Its conjecture, speculative, guess work and missing the here and now

So do you accept rebirth then?

[clw_uk]

Alex the point is here and now, contemplation here and now, mindfulness and clear comprehension of things as they are now

Not as they might have been in the past or might be in the future


As for the various speculations you jump to, remember this sutta

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides . He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

Your view or rebirth, is a view

Your jump to "there is nothing after death if there is no rebirth" is a view

Views are to be let go of

[tiltbillings]

Your view or rebirth, is a view

Just out of curiosity, is it a view for one whose direct experience via meditation tells him there is rebirth? Of course such an experience only speaks to the individual and carries no weight beyond the individual experiencing it, but is it, in your view, still a view?

Views are to be let go of

And when are you going to let go of this view?

[clw_uk]

Just out of curiosity, is it a view for one whose direct experience via meditation tells him there is rebirth? Of course such an experience only speaks to the individual and carries no weight beyond the individual experiencing it, but is it, in your view, still a view

Yes


As Ven. Atulo said

"The vision you saw was real, but what you saw in the vision wasn't."

The Buddha taught that such views arise because of the process of the honey ball sutta

And when are you going to let go of this view?

How do you know I havent?

[BlackBird]

P.S. I don't feel all debates are fruitless, there are quite a few (unlike this number) that do not resemble trench-warfare and probably do achieve a crystallization of the topic at hand. Again however, motivations and purpose should always be called in for accounting.

[Alex123]

Alex the point is here and now, contemplation here and now, mindfulness and clear comprehension of things as they are now

These are all to end Dukkha. Suicide could end all dukkha now IF there was no rebirth.

As for the various speculations you jump to, remember this sutta
Views are to be let go of

Letting go off views doesn't mean that one no longer knows what is right and what is wrong. It also doesn't mean that one becomes agnostic or some ignorant child that doesn't know anything.

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.

Right. That is why one shouldn't speculate and take what the suttas say. Buddha KNEW the truth. " A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views." can mean that one does not fall back on WRONG views (or just views. But what the Buddha taught wasn't a view).


Regarding hell, the Buddha has said:

``Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it.û
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... uta-e.html

So existence of Hells, and rebirth, is NOT a view. It is what was known and seen by the Buddha.