the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:32 pm

daverupa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Without literal rebirth what would the actual point of Dhamma practice be? At death, Nibbana or not, nothing.


Unwarranted conclusion, tilt. Without rebirth, there's still no necessary claim of voidness, or nothingness, or annihilation, or even heaven or anything similar. "Rebirth or Bust" is a false dichotomy.

Without rebirth of any kind, one can remain agnostic about such matters - protecting the truth, we might say - and yet practice the Dhamma due to benefits which can be seen here and now.
So, you are hedging your bet here by an agnosticism. So, there could be -- there might be -- something after death. But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished. The Dhamma becomes naught more than something like the Buddhist derived mindfulness therapies that are out there, which are not bad things, and can help someone lead a better life, but something fundamental is lost. While you can argue that belief in literal rebirth is not necessary to do the practices, which I think is true, something fundamental to the Buddha's Dhamma is lost.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:36 pm

tiltbillings wrote:As of yet, you have not shown us that you are not in over your head.

Neither have you provided any evidence for me being in over my head. Someone else could say the same -- then it would have been said three times -- and that would still not make it true, despite what Bellman says in The Hunting of the Snark.

I am simply arguing for the position that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.

But *why*, tilt. Why do you spend time and energy arguing this.

Two things here. You need to be more to the point and you need to tie your argument to actual sutta texts.

Yes, I have already agreed to this. I have already stated that I will. It will take a little time, as I have already, also, stated. At the moment I am only doing fly-through posts here to try to keep up with the thread until my schedule frees up enough time to work on it. Please be patient.

nowheat wrote:So thanks, good suggestion. Would you care to make a recommendation as to which Conze?
Secondly, I am suggesting reading Russell and Conze as example of authors who write, who make their points beautifully and concisely.

Yes, I got that, though I didn't state that I got that. Conze, being a writer on Buddhism, I thought you might have a suggestion as to one I might find useful to read for its content as well. Russell, not being about Buddhism, you wouldn't know my interests well enough to make a similar suggestion.

tiltbillings wrote:
nowheat wrote:
clw_uk wrote: Why does it play an "important" role in the description of the Buddha's awakening.?
tiltbillings wrote:Why? Damdifino, but there it is, playing an important role.

At least, unlike me, you are brief when you are not supporting your statements.
Let me briefly textually support this statement of mine: MN 36; SN 12.65 (CDB i 601) and other can be added.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as being too brief, such as when citing an entire sutta in support of a thought, and expecting folks to go read them and guess what you're talking about. Especially when your target has stated (in posts you may not have had time to read) that she is short of time. Hopefully, this is evidence of your sense of humor.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby daverupa » Fri Aug 30, 2013 6:42 pm

tiltbillings wrote:So, you are hedging your bet here by an agnosticism... But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished.


This is currently impossible to address, because the point you insist on making has to ignore the agnostic premise.

:computerproblem:
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4501
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:21 pm

daverupa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:So, you are hedging your bet here by an agnosticism... But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished.


This is currently impossible to address, because the point you insist on making has to ignore the agnostic premise.

:computerproblem:
Ignore the agnostic premise? What does agnostic premise have to offer the Dhamma? One can do the practice without a belief in a literal rebirth, but the broad, expansive ethical context of the Buddha's Dhamma is lost, but if the agnostic premise is the basis of one doing the practice that is better than no practice at all, which I suppose is a concession to the materialistic world in which we live. But as I have said, my argument here is that the suttas show that the Buddha taught a literal rebirth, not just some metaphorical rebirth.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:28 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Quite frankly, the problematic doctrine that would be far more likely to give rise to "erroneously perceiving a self and extending this false perception of self backwards and forwards in time" would be kamma. It would be interesting to see what the Dhamma would look like having kamma relegated to naught more than a metaphorical status.

Of the four categories posted, I'd have to be put in the "rebirth as a metaphor" one, though I will maintain that "metaphor" isn't an exact description, and issues of "whether it is useful to practice or not" also come into play, which seemed to have been the distinction being made for the "the Buddha taught literal rebirth"-ists. That said...

Attempting to speak from the perspective of one who fits uncomfortably into "the Buddha taught rebirth as metaphor" category, I don't see kamma as metaphorical. What's being described is, to my way of thinking, a phenomenon that is entirely visible in the here-and-now. It is a phenomenon that drives something other than literal rebirth so I guess, while still trying to fit within the category I'd be assigned to, I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:34 pm

nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:As of yet, you have not shown us that you are not in over your head.

Neither have you provided any evidence for me being in over my head.
Sylvester has graphically illustrated your problem here. Also thefact you have provided no text critical discussion of your claim for the Buddha speaking in a twilight language.

I am simply arguing for the position that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.

But *why*, tilt. Why do you spend time and energy arguing this.
Why do you care?

nowheat wrote:So thanks, good suggestion. Would you care to make a recommendation as to which Conze?
Secondly, I am suggesting reading Russell and Conze as example of authors who write, who make their points beautifully and concisely.

Yes, I got that, though I didn't state that I got that. Conze, being a writer on Buddhism, I thought you might have a suggestion as to one I might find useful to read for its content as well. Russell, not being about Buddhism, you wouldn't know my interests well enough to make a similar suggestion.
Hehas done a collection of essays. THIRTY YEARS OF BUDDHIST STUDIES.

nowheat wrote:On the other hand, there is such a thing as being too brief, such as when citing an entire sutta in support of a thought, and expecting folks to go read them and guess what you're talking about. Especially when your target has stated (in posts you may not have had time to read) that she is short of time. Hopefully, this is evidence of your sense of humor.
They are worth carefully reading.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:48 pm

nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Quite frankly, the problematic doctrine that would be far more likely to give rise to "erroneously perceiving a self and extending this false perception of self backwards and forwards in time" would be kamma. It would be interesting to see what the Dhamma would look like having kamma relegated to naught more than a metaphorical status.

Of the four categories posted, I'd have to be put in the "rebirth as a metaphor" one, though I will maintain that "metaphor" isn't an exact description, and issues of "whether it is useful to practice or not" also come into play, which seemed to have been the distinction being made for the "the Buddha taught literal rebirth"-ists. That said...

Attempting to speak from the perspective of one who fits uncomfortably into "the Buddha taught rebirth as metaphor" category, I don't see kamma as metaphorical. What's being described is, to my way of thinking, a phenomenon that is entirely visible in the here-and-now. It is a phenomenon that drives something other than literal rebirth so I guess, while still trying to fit within the category I'd be assigned to, I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself.
Kamma is "entirely visible in the here-and-now?" Not according to the Buddha (A ii 80 ).

I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself
One does not have to tie kamma to rebirth to make the point.

Quite frankly, the problematic doctrine that would be far more likely to give rise to "erroneously perceiving a self and extending this false perception of self backwards and forwards in time" would be kamma. It would be interesting to see what the Dhamma would look like having kamma relegated to naught more than a metaphorical status. "Am I experiencing this because of what I did last year?" "Will things go better for me if I do this good act?" These sort of thoughts are far more immediate and likely than worrying about one's past lives or future lives.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:08 pm

Addressing everyone, not just tilt.

tiltbillings wrote:But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished. The Dhamma becomes naught more than something like the Buddhist derived mindfulness therapies that are out there, which are not bad things, and can help someone lead a better life, but something fundamental is lost. While you can argue that belief in literal rebirth is not necessary to do the practices, which I think is true, something fundamental to the Buddha's Dhamma is lost.

For me, all this concern about whether individuals will be liberated after 7 lifetimes -- or a hundred -- misses the point of what the Buddha taught. Liberation isn't about *me* -- it isn't about anyone's *me* -- it isn't about *individuals*. The dhamma, as I understand it, is about relieving suffering for *everyone* because the things I do as a result of the views I hold don't only affect *me*. What's at issue is how "my" attitude -- the "me" attitude -- affects the whole damned world. This is no less significant if it turns out that there is continuous rebirth or there is only one life.

You can spend all your future lives working towards your liberation and after aeons what'll you have? One liberated individual. Yay you! Or you can have this opportunity to put this life's energy into removing from this one life the "me-ness" that causes so much trouble for so many around you, and have that good attitude spread, the way attitudes do, to people around you and off into the future, and you can put everything you have into doing this because *it might well be the only chance you get to make a difference*. If there is rebirth, then in your next life you presumably pick up more-or-less from where you left off and you can continue putting in the same good effort to reduce suffering for all, in your new existence as "Person X". If there is no rebirth then the Person X who inhabits the body of the person you would have been had there been rebirth at least has a marginally better world to live in because you were in it and you were focused, as if your hair was on fire, on making the world a better place. And if the teachings are understood not to be about liberating individuals but about how we affect each other, and that's what's important, not my suffering, but everyone's suffering, then maybe Person X can pick up where you left off.

I started out with a selfish motive -- I admit that I did. I wanted to relieve my own suffering, and there is nothing wrong with that being the whole of one's motive. But the process of learning the Buddha's methods for achieving that goal has made me thoroughly aware that the process that causes my suffering causes the same for *everyone* -- both by my direct action affecting those around me, and by other folks out there doing the same things the Buddha showed me that I am doing, doing them to themselves and to those around them. He led me to a point where it's no longer about *me* -- I am no longer at the top of my list of worries, except as I impact others. Will I be liberated? I don't actually care. I assume that this process leads to liberation, and if I follow it, then I get there -- but it's not the point for me. I just want to behave in ways that reduce the max amount of suffering for the sum total of people affected by my life (myself included in equal share with everyone else in proportion to how much influence my behavior will have).

Of course, I started out as a reasonably moral person, even before Buddhism -- I think most people who seek solutions and end up Buddhists probably start out the same. I wouldn't suggest that the-teaching-without-literal-rebirth would be a good solution for an amoral person or an immoral one.

So when folks ask "Without rebirth, what is the point?" this is my answer: reducing dukkha for all of us. Does this not seem to you to be a worthwhile motivation?

Am I the only one who recognizes this? I come back to this point over and over and I never hear anyone who believes the Buddha was speaking about literal rebirth and counting it as essential to practice and liberation explain why he would be fostering an attitude that *my* future suffering should be of greater concern than the effect I have on the world-at-large.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby daverupa » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:12 pm

tiltbillings wrote:What does agnostic premise have to offer the Dhamma?


It doesn't offer the Dhamma anything, tilt. It offers some people an approach to the Dhamma despite deep and abiding perplexity about certain matters, as the discourse to Pāṭaliya indicates.

One can do the practice without a belief in a literal rebirth, but the broad, expansive ethical context of the Buddha's Dhamma is lost


The broad, expansive ethical context which obtains vis-a-vis rebirth does not form a requisite foundation for one's practice of Sila. The first part is your point, the second part is my point. They can co-exist quite well.

You may think that something fundamental gets lost, but what is lost when someone says they honestly have no evidence one way or the other and they'd rather just get back to satisampajanna?
Last edited by daverupa on Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4501
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:17 pm

nowheat wrote:Addressing everyone, not just tilt.

tiltbillings wrote:But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished. The Dhamma becomes naught more than something like the Buddhist derived mindfulness therapies that are out there, which are not bad things, and can help someone lead a better life, but something fundamental is lost. While you can argue that belief in literal rebirth is not necessary to do the practices, which I think is true, something fundamental to the Buddha's Dhamma is lost.

For me, . . .
That is a nice personal statement of what you believe; however, it is not really an argument against the notion of literal rebirth.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:18 pm

daverupa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:What does agnostic premise have to offer the Dhamma?


It doesn't offer the Dhamma anything, tilt. It offers some people an approach to the Dhamma despite deep and abiding perplexity about certain matters, as the discourse to Pāṭaliya indicates.

One can do the practice without a belief in a literal rebirth, but the broad, expansive ethical context of the Buddha's Dhamma is lost


The broad, expansive ethical context which obtains vis-a-vis rebirth does not form a requisite foundation for one's practice of Sila. The first part is your point, the second part is my point. They co-exist quite well.
Sure. Actually, you make my point here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:19 pm

tiltbillings wrote:Kamma is "entirely visible in the here-and-now?" Not according to the Buddha (A ii 80 ).

"The results of kamma are inconceivable..."? That quote? Is there no difference in your mind between conception and visibility? I am saying that the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now, not that the intricacies of their working are obvious to everyone who acts. The results are visible -- generally speaking they are felt more than seen -- but that doesn't not mean they are recognized for what they are. But then, I suppose when I said "visible in the here-and-now" I was using what you would call "metaphors" whereas I would say I was just speaking the way people do. I have heard it argued, with good reason, that all language is, at base, metaphorical.

With your tendency toward reading things literally, I am not surprised that you took it the way you did.

tiltbillings wrote:
I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself
One does not have to tie kamma to rebirth to make the point.

We agree that kamma does not have to tie to rebirth to make a point.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:22 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
nowheat wrote:Addressing everyone, not just tilt.

tiltbillings wrote:But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished. The Dhamma becomes naught more than something like the Buddhist derived mindfulness therapies that are out there, which are not bad things, and can help someone lead a better life, but something fundamental is lost. While you can argue that belief in literal rebirth is not necessary to do the practices, which I think is true, something fundamental to the Buddha's Dhamma is lost.

For me, . . .
That is a nice personal statement of what you believe; however, it is not really an argument against the notion of literal rebirth.

That's true, tilt. *It wasn't supposed to be an argument against the notion of rebirth.* It was an argument that the dhamma is not bankrupt without belief in rebirth.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:26 pm

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:"being subject to birth" doesn't have to mean future birth, just the hardships that come from being born.


The weakness of this argument is that descriptions of dukkha include all those hardships, as well as birth.



Which comes to be when there is clinging to the aggregates
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:29 pm

For me the inclusion of birth in dependent origination argues strongly against a one lifetime interpretation.


Not that anyone is advocating one life, but even if there was birth would still mean the same thing

Being born is to be subject to death, unless there is non-identification with that which dies
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:30 pm

nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Kamma is "entirely visible in the here-and-now?" Not according to the Buddha (A ii 80 ).

"The results of kamma are inconceivable..."? That quote? Is there no difference in your mind between conception and visibility? I am saying that the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now, not that the intricacies of their working are obvious to everyone who acts.
You were less than clear as to what you meant, and now you are less than clear as to what you mean. You are the one that said "entirely visible in the here-and-now," but now you are saying that all that mean is that "the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now." So, "the results of our actions all fall within the here-and-now" means "entirely visible in the here-and-now" What are you talking about here?

The results are visible -- generally speaking they are felt more than seen -- but that doesn't not mean they are recognized for what they are. But then, I suppose when I said "visible in the here-and-now" I was using what you would call "metaphors" whereas I would say I was just speaking the way people do. I have heard it argued, with good reason, that all language is, at base, metaphorical.
This does not help.

With your tendency toward reading things literally, I am not surprised that you took it the way you did.
Now you are blaming me for not understanding your less entirely visible writing.

tiltbillings wrote:
I would say that kamma's relationship to rebirth is metaphorical, not kamma itself
One does not have to tie kamma to rebirth to make the point.

We agree that kamma does not have to tie to rebirth to make a point.
And you do not address the point.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby nowheat » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:32 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
I am simply arguing for the position that the Buddha taught literal rebirth.

But *why*, tilt. Why do you spend time and energy arguing this.
Why do you care?

Because I find it useful to understand others. Please answer my question.

He has done a collection of essays. THIRTY YEARS OF BUDDHIST STUDIES.

Thanks.

nowheat wrote:On the other hand, there is such a thing as being too brief, such as when citing an entire sutta in support of a thought, and expecting folks to go read them and guess what you're talking about. Especially when your target has stated (in posts you may not have had time to read) that she is short of time. Hopefully, this is evidence of your sense of humor.
They are worth carefully reading.

Oh certainly, but it isn't worth guessing at your point, which was the point I was explicitly making.

:namaste:
nowheat
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:34 pm

nowheat wrote:That's true, tilt. *It wasn't supposed to be an argument against the notion of rebirth.* It was an argument that the dhamma is not bankrupt without belief in rebirth.
Maybe, but the fact of the matter is that the Buddha did teach literal rebirth. What you are offering here is a personal, an individual, accounting of how you have tried to cope with that fact, which is not without interest.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:35 pm

But you are simply missing the point that I am making which is that if there is only this life and that is it, the point of practicing the Dhamma is greatly diminished. The Dhamma becomes naught more than something like the Buddhist derived mindfulness therapies that are out there, which are not bad things, and can help someone lead a better life, but something fundamental is lost. While you can argue that belief in literal rebirth is not necessary to do the practices, which I think is true, something fundamental to the Buddha's Dhamma is lost.



If there was only one life, I dont see how something "fundamental" is lost. Clinging would still cause dukkha and there would still be ageing and death to be free from.

But none of us know either way how many lives there are, so someone can just say "I dont know" and get on with the practice regardless.

Obviously rebirth is important to some peoples practice and to others it isnt, We could just leave it there.
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:38 pm

nowheat wrote:Because I find it useful to understand others. Please answer my question.
Because it is interesting thing to do.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 20073
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bundokji and 12 guests