lyndon taylor wrote:Seems like this has become the endless clw uk and nowheat debate, not the rebirth debate, do the moderators even care if the discussion stays even vaguely on topic, because from what I can see its way off topic, with few exceptions, like Spiny.
I don't see how it has gone off topic, essentially we are discussing the interpretation of d.o. which ties in with discussions of rebirth
lyndon taylor wrote:So why don't you start you're own topic on Dependent origination??
daverupa wrote:If there was a separate thread on d.o. that became an argument about rebirth, it'd end up here anyway. It's happened many times before, as these 200+ pages amply show.
ancientbuddhism wrote:But I do think that lyndon has a point wrt a new thread. A constructive discussion on DO should be lifted out of this amalgam of DW’s ‘rebirth’ dustbin.
One place to continue that discussion: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12369
In general this thread seems to have two main debates: (1) there is rebirth vs there is no rebirth (sometimes with "vs it doesn't matter" thrown in) and (2) the Buddha taught literal rebirth as being the cosmic order vs the Buddha did not teach literal rebirth as being the cosmic order.
Since I am very specifically arguing that the Buddha did not use mentions of rebirth as a way of teaching that literal rebirth is the cosmic order, this seemed the right place to carry on the discussion. My thesis is twofold: that we have misunderstood what the Buddha is doing with his mentions of rebirth because we have not understood the way the Buddha uses language throughout the canon, and that the other reason for the misunderstanding is because we haven't understood what dependent arising is, if it's not endorsing a view of the cosmic order. I am suggesting that what he is describing in DA shows that beliefs about rebirth are part of the problem, really, rather than being the solution.
I honestly don't mind at all where this debate ends up so long as -- if it gets moved to some thread on another subject -- in my arguments, in that thread, I don't get told I can't talk about "the Buddha didn't teach literal rebirth" there because we have a "rebirth thread" for that. Or, if we're in the suggested thread, "Understanding Dependent Origination" and I start arguing about how the Buddha is using language when he talks about nutriment, or impermanence, or other subjects, he is using that specific style, I don't get shut down because it doesn't directly apply to the topic.
Seems our problem here is one of emptiness -- we're trying to force into categorical boxes things that don't have an inherent nature. Ideas like these are not so easily confined, especially since the underlying structure of the Buddha's talks really does cause almost everything he says to be related to everything else.
On the other hand, I am sympathetic to lyndon's frustration with the domination of one subject and a few people in a thread where he perhaps wants to talk about something else. I've encountered a similar situation here myself, before, and my solution is to just go away for a while and come back when it gets very quiet around here; that makes for a great moment to bring up whatever you want to talk about.