but let me just say that I think its highly dishonest for someone to claim to be a Buddhist and at the same time reject rebirth.
This is the height of hypocrisy because if you believe this, you are by definition a materialist which is anathema to any Buddhist.
With awareness practice, however, one is not being asked to believe in anything or to operate from any theory - or even to regard ones own preferences for the afterlife - but to recognize the way it actually is at this moment.
..."So this helps me to recognize that I don't have to know what happens after physical death, because I cant know, and it doesn't really matter. I am not asking for some kind of affirmation to make me feel better"
Therefore if you cannot digest rebirth/kamma, etc. and still find value in say Vipassana, then you are highly influenced or benefited from Buddhism, but by no means do you have the right to call yourself a Buddhist.
I will get around to reading all 220+ pages of this thread,
lyndon taylor wrote:but to think your own belief is so important that it applies to everyone else, that no one can have a stronger practice because they believe in rebirth, is just going way, way to far......
lyndon taylor wrote:Well speaking for myself, my belief in rebirth is ESSENTIAL to my buddhist practice, maybe I'm the only one, but without a belief in rebirth I doubt I'd be a buddhist and or sober today. The idea that you don't need rebirth to practice some parts of Buddhism is true, but the idea that no one benefits from having a belief in rebirth can not be true, that doesn't mean that everyone benefits from a belief in rebirth, there may be some people who absolutely it would make no difference one way or the other, The point is The Buddha taught rebirth, why would you want to devote so much time and effort on a Buddhist forum to tell people that what the Buddha taught(rebirth) is not important, one way or the other, to believe. If it wasn't important, why did the Buddha bother to teach it??? What possible benefit can you have online convincing people that what the Buddha taught, rebirth, is not important to believe, Better just to make a simple statement, like "I don't understand the Buddha's teaching of rebirth" and leave it at that.
Ajatashatru wrote: If there is no rebirth and consciousness just ends with termination of brain than what use is Nibbana? ...
nowheat wrote:I recall asking you if you saw a common thread -- this seems to suggest that you do. Would you please detail what it is you see as the common thread?
What do you deem to be the origination of suffering if one has no views of self?
ancientbuddhism wrote:Ajatashatru wrote: If there is no rebirth and consciousness just ends with termination of brain than what use is Nibbana? ...
The ending of lobha dosa moha.
ancientbuddhism wrote:nowheat wrote: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 could have missed something, but where have you actually shown a text-critical analysis of 'the way the Buddha uses language', pointing to parallels or 'linguistic echos', as Norman/Gombrich would show, in the Vedas or Upaniṣads, to support your 'thesis'?
Otherwise, you could post here again in this or that thread, today or months later, and the discussion still remains circular.
Sylvester wrote:nowheat wrote:I recall asking you if you saw a common thread -- this seems to suggest that you do. Would you please detail what it is you see as the common thread?
I actually don't see any such thread. Which was the reason why I am trying to coax you to cite the thread, because if the Vedic "view" is the problem that the Buddha was hoping to address vide DA, then what was that view? Given that there are so many views in the attested pre-Buddhist literature, what common denominator underlies those views (be it psychological or doctrinal or whatever), such that the brahmin, on hearing DA, would immediately understand that DA was directed against such-&-such aspect of their prior conditioning?
nowheat wrote:What do you deem to be the origination of suffering if one has no views of self?
I'm with the RSPCA interpretation of DA. Our poor furry friends undergo the origination of suffering like the infant in MN 64. Anusayas do not require a full-blown view of self to be the condition for suffering to arise.
ancientbuddhism wrote:Spiny Norman wrote:clw_uk wrote:As for Buddhadasa I dont think he "re-wrote" D.O. but simply explained it as it was, nothing he says goes against Dhamma and everything he says is aimed at non-clinging
I do think the "psychological" or "moment-to-moment" interpretation of DO is a major departure from what's described in the suttas because:
1. The nidanas are redefined, eg birth and death are redefined to be psychological rather than physical events as described in the suttas;
2. Conditionality ( paccaya ) is redefined to have the meaning of the nidanas shaping or influencing each other, rather than the nidanas arising in dependence on each other as described by the suttas. "When this is, that is.........when this arise, that arises";
3. Craving and clinging are redefined as exclusively short-term, rather than long-term, habitual tendencies.
I tend to use "psychological" instead of "moment-to-moment" because I think it captures this interpretation better, ie purely psychological as opposed to the traditional view of DO as a psycho-physical process. And of course we all work with aspects of DO moment-to-moment, the difference is about how many nidanas we consider.
“moment to moment” is the main thrust of DO. When we look at the early sketches in Suttanipāta of what later became DO, we find a pure ethic of liberation to be experienced in the present. This was the intention discussed well before a nidāna of doctrine had developed.
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,ancientbuddhism wrote:Ajatashatru wrote: If there is no rebirth and consciousness just ends with termination of brain than what use is Nibbana? ...
The ending of lobha dosa moha.
Yep.... true regardless of precisely what rebirth is, and whether it is so.
clw_uk wrote:Please quote where someone has said "there is no rebirth"