Re: the great rebirth debate
Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:53 pm
Dhamma practice can be beneficially conducted in each of those cases. I fail to see the point of asking.Alex123 wrote:Do you accept, reject or agnostic regarding Rebirth?
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Dhamma practice can be beneficially conducted in each of those cases. I fail to see the point of asking.Alex123 wrote:Do you accept, reject or agnostic regarding Rebirth?
Then your'e down to 1 venerable. Not sure if it'd make a convincing case with just 1 master's viewpoint. But please provide reference anyway.PeterB wrote:
Ajahn Buddhadasa's writings are so replete with with his eschewing of the three lifetimes model that you could stick a pin in them almost anywhere and hit a suitable passage to that end.
With Ajahn Sumedho the issue is slightly different, he simply will not become involved in such discussions.
If direct questions are put to him on the matter he shifts the emphasis and talks about the importance of not identifying with views
It looks to me that the Buddha would not agree with that, in the case of rejecting.daverupa wrote:Dhamma practice can be beneficially conducted in each of those cases. I fail to see the point of asking.Alex123 wrote:Do you accept, reject or agnostic regarding Rebirth?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.
And:neither accepting nor rejecting views on rebirth is possible while still practicing the Dhamma
Dude, something really funky with the logic here..Dhamma practice can be beneficially conducted in each of those cases
I agree as to belief or (rejecting) non-belief or agnosticism in objects, things and phenomena that are not accessible to direct experience/perception and I would like to add that - whatever you believe in this context - if a belief or (rejecting) non-belief or agnosticism of others that does not comply with your own belief disturbs you then there may be something wrong with your own.rowyourboat wrote:My stance to any belief is - if it helps you and motivates you to practice the noble eightfold path- then go ahead and believe it! if it hinders you in the path to 1) becoming a better person 2) developing mindfulness, concentration and insight- then please let go..
'The world, the world'[1] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?kirk5a wrote:It looks to me that the Buddha would not agree with that, in the case of rejecting.daverupa wrote:Dhamma practice can be beneficially conducted in each of those cases. I fail to see the point of asking.Alex123 wrote:Do you accept, reject or agnostic regarding Rebirth?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.
And? What meaning do you draw from that sutta, as it relates to the topic?chownah wrote: 'The world, the world'[1] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?
Find the answer here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
chownah
I think lt helps to understand the "next world"....as is found in the post I was replying to....kirk5a wrote:And? What meaning do you draw from that sutta, as it relates to the topic?chownah wrote: 'The world, the world'[1] it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?
Find the answer here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
chownah
I think that trying to become a better person might hinder the removal of personality view.rowyourboat wrote:My stance to any belief is - if it helps you and motivates you to practice the noble eightfold path- then go ahead and believe it! if it hinders you in the path to 1) becoming a better person 2) developing mindfulness, concentration and insight- then please let go..
If the Buddha Did Not Appear
If the sun did not appear in the world the people would be groping in the dark and some would fall into a chasm. If the Buddha did not appear, there would be no knowledge of the Dhamma, and people would fall into the chasm of Hell. It is because the Buddha appeared that wisdom prevails to distinguish Hell from nibbāna, celestial realms and so forth. Otherwise, there would be profound ignorance.
I am not " down " to anything..santa100 wrote:Then your'e down to 1 venerable. Not sure if it'd make a convincing case with just 1 master's viewpoint. But please provide reference anyway.PeterB wrote:
Ajahn Buddhadasa's writings are so replete with with his eschewing of the three lifetimes model that you could stick a pin in them almost anywhere and hit a suitable passage to that end.
With Ajahn Sumedho the issue is slightly different, he simply will not become involved in such discussions.
If direct questions are put to him on the matter he shifts the emphasis and talks about the importance of not identifying with views
Many westerners who choose Buddhism to fill a hole in themselves will believe selectively because negative contents of the religion induce fear; in this case people believe in Enlightenment which induces positive feelings and has positive attributes but not in hungry ghost realms f.e. because of its negative attributes. Most Christians interprete their scriptures in the same way regarding hell. Discussion with those people is a futile practice as their goal is not enhanced understanding but enhanced feeling and since we're dealing with a defense mechanism those people also dont have any insight into their selectivity or the reasons behind it.Alex123 wrote:Hello Ancientbuddhism,
Of course one may believe what one wants. What I don't approve of is the projecting of one's beliefs onto the Suttas.
The issue is whether or not we have reasonable cause to reject (or accept).Alex123 wrote:
What I mean is that if one is to doubt rebirth merely because one has not seen it and Science cannot prove it, then why not deny other things that one has not seen and Science cannot prove such as: Nibbāna, Arhatship, etc?
Why be selective in what aspects of the suttas one accepts and what denies?
The problem, though, is we could say the same thing about superstitions. They do indeed make people "mindful" -- of the importance of not walking under a ladder, not spilling salt, and of wearing blue to fend off the evil eye. Actually the very definition of superstition has to do with imaginary cause-and-effect relationships. Cultivating a belief in these actually has the effect of drawing us away from genuine cause-and-effect relationships and into the realm of magical fantasy. So, in short, it's not simply a question of whether someone is being heedful; it's also important to consider what they are being heedful about.Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Believing in a life after death, a heaven or hell, in the likelihood of rebirth in hungry ghost or animal realms, would tend to make someone more mindful
So:santa100 wrote:Dude, something really funky with the logic here..