Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

kirk5a wrote: A Buddhist meditation teacher of impeccable conduct with long experience in practice and teaching.

Ah. I have not met such a teacher, but then I live in a quite isolated and conservative place, and have been a person of very modest means for many years (aka "I don't get out much"). If you have a teacher with great patience and time on their hands who would like to have, say, an email conversation with me about it, I'd be glad of the contact.

For the purpose of seeing whether your understanding and experience is actually what you take it to be. Do you allow for any possibility of latching onto a conditioned frame of mind and supposing that is "deathless" when it is not?

I do allow for such a thing, but I am not sure that what you propose would be helpful, unless that teacher actually understands what I am saying and why I am saying it. Do you know of a meditation teacher of impeccable conduct with long experience in practice and teaching who does not have dogmatic views about, say, what Dependent Arising describes? If this would just end up being a conversation that results in coming to the conclusion that I am not interpreting the dhamma in accordance with their understanding of it then we can avoid wasting the time of the venerable because I think we all already know that.

Moderator note: A bunch of stuff having to do with the translation of amata has been moved here:

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 57#p178757" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lazy_eye wrote:

Ajahn Thanissaro wrote:Although rebirth is often presented as an unscientific view, the material sciences actually have no way at all of proving the issue one way or the other.... science is in no position to prove or disprove the Buddha's teachings on the range and powers of human action.

This a fallacious argument -- shifting the burden of proof.

The fact that science hasn't proven or disproven rebirth doesn't necessarily mean there is good cause to accept it. The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

Suppose I logged on to this board one fine morning and announced "little did you know it, but we are all living in a computer simulation being run by beings in another dimension!" Folks might be intrigued. You might ask me to supply reasons for making the claim. But suppose that instead of providing reasons, I said "well, you can't disprove it, and science has no way at all of settling the issue one way or the other!" Who would be satisfied with that answer?

I'm not saying Ajahn is wrong about rebirth, but I guess this kind of shoddy thinking is a red flag for me. When someone of his intelligence is willing to resort to known fallacies to advance an argument, it's might be because a stronger basis for the argument cannot be found.

Ajahn Thanissaro is not using this as a logical argument for rebirth. What he is saying is that logic will never lead to a satisfactory asnwer, so we need another criteria for judegement. What is that criteria? What, when I do it, will lead to long term welfare and happiness? This is the grand question that all skillful discernment is based on. So, if one wagers on no rebirth, they may be able to reduce suffering in this lifetime, but they can not achieve the full liberation of nibbana. How can one pursue liberation from rebirth in the realms of suffering if one denies rebirth to begin with? Without rebirth, one may pursue equinimity and become a relatively wise person compared to the heathen, but they will never achieve liberation from rebirth.

To just jump in to a long thread...

My stance is that this is the last life.
Rebirth is rather a historic question; what lead to this birth, not what's next.

Through meditational insight I saw a desire (craving) which lead to this birth. The desire was for many years unexplicable and deep rooted and until that moment I had not found a root cause or satisfaction for it. I was not able to distinguish a factor from childhood which would have given rise to the desire, yet it existed and played a large role on forming my character and the choices taken throughout my life. I mention, this rather personal observation, as my practice is alone and I am curious if this is could help others or others might recognise it.

Metta.

Sarva wrote:Rebirth is rather a historic question; what lead to this birth, not what's next.

I assume this is your own opinion? From the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is about both past and future. The ongoing result of the causal factors and kamma.

Buckwheat wrote:

Sarva wrote:Rebirth is rather a historic question; what lead to this birth, not what's next.

I assume this is your own opinion? From the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is about both past and future. The ongoing result of the causal factors and kamma.

Yes, Buckwheat, this is my own opinion. Thanks for the reply.
My understanding in Buddhism is that there can be a last birth because a futuristic rebirth depends on two factors: self* and karma. Actions (karma) that have been done or are happening in the present must have results. My opinion is that the result is invevitable as all action has a result, however for there to be a recipient of the results to prompt a rebirth there has to be a self concept or owner of the karma. With the oberservation that there is no self* there is the observation that there will be no more rebirth.

Metta

* There is no self which is not subject to change. So the error of clinging to a concept of self should also be kept in mind.

vinasp wrote:Hi Spiny, everyone,

Quote:
"But in DO "death" is defined in straightforward physical terms - so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here."

How can you say that "death" is described in straightforward physical terms?

1. It is clearly said to be the "death" of "a being" (satta).

2. A being is defined in terms of craving.

3. An Arahant has no craving - he is therefore, not a being.

4. So, for an Arahant, the link "death" has already ceased, since there
is no longer "a being" to die.

5. The body will, of course, at some point, stop functioning and will
disintegrate.

Regards, Vincent.

Vincent, wouldn't it be simpler to say that an Arahant still experiences ( biological ) death, but doesn't experience it as dukkha? Whereas for everyone else biological death is dukkha? And of course for everyone else dukkha ( including biological death ) arises in dependence on ( biological ) birth. That's how DO is described in the suttas.

Spiny

nowheat wrote:Any time we are engaged in activities that have reference to that sense-of-self, we are in the DA process, engaged in fueling it, adding to our concepts of self, so we are part of what is "born, ages, suffers, dies" (in that we are feeding off of those experiences).

I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.

Spiny

Spiny O'Norman wrote: I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.

Greetings, Spiny,

I've done (aging-and-) Death at great length, now you want me to do Birth and then Becoming? Will you be asking me to work backward through the entire chain? I ask because my thesis is quite lengthy.

nowheat wrote:

Spiny O'Norman wrote: I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.

Greetings, Spiny,

I've done (aging-and-) Death at great length, now you want me to do Birth and then Becoming? Will you be asking me to work backward through the entire chain? I ask because my thesis is quite lengthy.

Yes, I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the birth and becoming nidanas.

Spiny

Spiny O'Norman wrote: Yes, I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the birth and becoming nidanas.

Thanks for being interested in it, Spiny.

The thesis that underlies my lengthy post on the Buddha's use of "death" in dependent origination is no small thing, and though it simplifies (at least for me) what is being said with DO -- and sharpens its focus quite a bit, as well -- the explanation of what it is, and how all the pieces fit, and what each link means, and all the layers to it will be far less clearly understood if I try to lay them out in bits and pieces. So I don't think I'm going to give that a serious go just now. It really needs the whole thesis to be read all at once to make sense. The good news about this is that I have put the thesis in writing and submitted it for review, and it has been accepted for the jury process. When it gets published, I'll give details here.

Greetings nowheat,

nowheat wrote:It really needs the whole thesis to be read all at once to make sense. The good news about this is that I have put the thesis in writing and submitted it for review, and it has been accepted for the jury process. When it gets published, I'll give details here.

I look forward to it.

Metta,
Retro.

mikenz66 wrote:A new booklet:

The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... birth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ebirth.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a critique of Ven. Ṭhānissaro's The Truth of Rebirth by Mark Knickelbine:

“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part I

“The Truth of Rebirth”: A Review, Part 2

“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part 3

Without giving a detailed critique of Knickelbine's review, I'll just say that I found his criticisms weak primarily due to the weakness of the "secular" hermeneutic founded on the premise that the historical Buddha was either an agnostic or materialist, and that all of the teachings on rebirth found in the Pāli canon are either (i) based on a strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, or (ii) were never intended to be interpreted literally, or (iii) were composed by deluded Indians in the centuries after the Buddha's death who weren't capable of accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma.

Unfortunately, this premise is entirely speculative. The methodology of textual criticism is not able and will never be able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught. This is why a necessary distinction needs to be made between Original Buddhism and Early Buddhism. Original Buddhism refers to the actual oral teachings of the historical Gotama and his immediate disciples. Early Buddhism refers to the early formative pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism and the extant textual documents which claim to be records of the Buddha's teachings as remembered by his immediate disciples after his death.

And while we can infer some significant information about the early pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism with the help of text-critical analysis of the extant discourses, we will never be able to prove with any degree of certainty which of these doctrines and training rules actually originated with the Buddha himself. What is clearly evident, however, is that teachings pertaining to rebirth, higher and lower realms, and supernormal knowledges are found throughout the discourses and are thoroughly integrated into the thought-world of Early Buddhism. And prior to the modern age, informed as it is by empirical science and a materialist worldview, these teachings on rebirth, etc., were never questioned, denied, or dismissed by any Buddhist school or commentator.

You're certainly welcome to dispute my review of "The Truth of Rebirth" but please don't misrepresent what it says. Neither I nor any other secular dharma writer I'm aware of would make any of the oversimplified and unjustifiable claims you attribute to me. What I do say is that the Theravadin faith that the entire Pali canon presents an accurate and doctrinally and logically consistent picture of Gotama's teachings on rebirth is unjustifiable, based on either historical evidence or on the heteroglossic nature of the texts themselves. What my review says is that, to make any sense of the Pali texts, we have to interpret what we read there. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation violates common sense, scientific knowlege and the core prinicples of anatta and conditioned arising, and is no more justifiable than an interpretation based on the many passages of the canon in which Gotama advises against metaphysical speculation and in favor of liberation in this very life. I would advise folks to go to my review and read it for themselves. I welcome responsible discussion.

Mknicke wrote:What I do say is that the Theravadin faith that the entire Pali canon presents an accurate and doctrinally and logically consistent picture of Gotama's teachings on rebirth is unjustifiable, based on either historical evidence or on the heteroglossic nature of the texts themselves.

Okay then, let's start here: What precisely is inaccurate about the traditional view of the Buddha's teachings on rebirth?