lyndon taylor wrote:How about we talk about what is the relevence of rebirth at your death, which I assume is inevitable??
nowheat wrote: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.
I'm not sure what you missed, but I must have missed the part where I said something that indicated I believe the Buddha used language in a way that was imitating someone else so that it would have parallels or 'linguistic echoes'. I thought what I'd said was that there wasn't an expectation that teachers would speak in clear and literal ways the way we expect them to -- I'm pretty sure anyone reading the Upanisads would notice this -- but that I suspected that the Buddha was doing things with the structure of his argument that were quite remarkably brilliant, by which I mean using techniques that no one might have thought of. My argument included a point made in passing about Sariputta's moment of understanding -- if one of his most brilliant students didn't get it at first, it wasn't that he was being obvious, or talking just exactly the way everyone else did.
I also thought I'd said, at least once or twice, that what I'm arguing should be clear from the suttas alone. It is an internally consistent way of understanding what's going on that makes the inconsistencies some of us recognize in the traditional view (the "I don't discuss cosmological questions I only speak of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha" accompanied in the suttas by statements that are understood by many to be statements about cosmological questions -- those sorts of failures of logic; the direction to be more concerned with one's own life in the future than with our effect on those whose lives we touch and all life; the nothing-to-be-reborn issues) go away. If my argument is circular it is, I suppose, because it's meant to be self-supported by just the suttas, by understanding what is being said, as well as the way it is said, with the only real outside support coming from seeing how it measures up in practice. In just the same sort of way that the traditional interpretation has its own internal consistency, what I'm suggesting also has internal consistency. If that sort of circularity seems like a failing to you, well, I'm sorry that it does.
daverupa wrote:lyndon taylor wrote:How about we talk about what is the relevence of rebirth at your death, which I assume is inevitable??
Two points come up in this respect:
1. The Buddha's teaching on rebirth was not in and of itself a motive for the pre-Buddha's going forth - disease, aging, and death were. Those particular facts only occurred to him after he had trained in the fourth jhana, long after his going forth.
2. Whenever the Buddha found people who weren't upholding their own metpahysical views, but who were instead inquisitive and yet perplexed about these metaphysical issues, the Buddha taught them via the Wager, not via rebirth.
So the approach of being motivated by rebirth-view, while useful for some, is nevertheless wholly inessential and, perhaps we can say, not very good dhammaduta for many people when it is insisted upon in certain ways.
Spiny Norman wrote:“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.
Could you say which early sketches? How do you know they are early? And how do you know they are more authentic than later material?
Spiny Norman wrote:...Could you say which early sketches? How do you know they are early? And how do you know they are more authentic than later material?
For me the pivotal point is the way the nidanas are defined, because they give DO it's meaning. The suttas I know of which define the nidanas are MN9, SN12.2 and DN15, and these seem to support the traditional view. Are you saying these 3 suttas are all later additions, and that they are corruptions?
lyndon taylor wrote:Once again you have every right to speak for yourself, but I would caution you to try not to apply your opinions and beliefs to everyone else, rebirth is inessential to you, but not inessential to everyone.
ancientbuddhism wrote:Also, with reference to what could be called a DO of the present moment, the Loka Sutta of SN. 12.44 gives us a model for looking at this. Rather than post all that again, look at this discussion here.
lyndon taylor wrote:... But making statements like "rebirth is entirely..."
daverupa wrote:ancientbuddhism wrote:Also, with reference to what could be called a DO of the present moment, the Loka Sutta of SN. 12.44 gives us a model for looking at this. Rather than post all that again, look at this discussion here.
You know, I wonder if the idea of The All and how it is created, per that sutta, is being connected in nowheat's thoughts with a description of Purusa/Prajapati as the (ritually-constituted/constructed) All. Maybe this is the comparative bedrock for further unpacking DO as a reworked Vedic precedent?
lyndon taylor wrote:This is what you said, sorry you said wholly inessential, not entirely don't see as that makes one bit of difference;
ancientbuddhism wrote:You have made the claim that the method or style or ‘field’ as background for the Buddha’s teaching of DO, is connected to the Vedas, no?
What would connect the DO in the Nikāyas to the Vedas, if such can be found, is through citing the relevant texts and specific language, both of the Nikāyas and vedic materials.
Surly you understand what is asked with reference to a textual or linguistic connection, from suttanta to another body of texts? What is asked is to show this connection for what you suggest is ‘what the Buddha actually meant’ with DO and the vedic materials mentioned as underpinnings to your thesis.
Such an argument cannot be accepted as ‘self-supported by just the suttas’ when its thesis is pointing to vedic materials as part of its claim.
I could say likewise is belief in Nibbana essential to practice Buddhism? No, but it sure helps,
just like believing in rebirth helps a lot of people practice Buddhism,
there's probably little doubt that you are being honest when you say it doesn't matter TO YOU whether you believe in rebirth or not, 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.....
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 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.
"I don't understand the Buddha's teaching of rebirth"
How about we talk about what is the relevence of rebirth at your death, which I assume is inevitable??