The Danger of Rebirth

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:46 pm

You are of course correct, at the moment we sometimes cant help going off into the past and future and it can be thought of in those terms, as long as it brings ones to the present moment which is key




In reguards to the question if Buddhadasa's teaching of jati being higher dhamma teaching meaning birth of "I" in moments or rebirth in moments only being taught unique to him, i have come accross works by other monks that teach it/understand it in the same way


Its starts about rebirth but does touch on the aspect of birth of "I" in moments



http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TqKb ... &ct=result
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby kc2dpt » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:48 pm

clw_uk wrote:You do raise a very good point and your quote does seem to show dependent origination as three lives and discussing conventional death etc. However the point i raise is this

Since dependent origination does occur in moments reguardless, its extremely useful to see and understanding how it comes about in the moment. This way one knows how dukkha arises dependent on conditions and can work to remove it in the moment which is what i feel is in line with the buddhas teachings since he was concerned with liberation in the here and now. When one sees depenent origination in the moments then one comes to a deeper understanding of it which allows for nibbana by quenching all craving

I think it all comes down to whats practical which i feel is seeing it in moments since its not removed from the present, all links are rising and ending here

Craig, I disagree with your assertion that a one-life model has anything to offer over a three-life model. As I said before...

-----

The three lives teaching teaches it's happening right now. It also teaches that it happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But there is nothing about this teaching which moves one's practice out of the here and now. That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.

Ignorance and formations have arisen in the past... and they also arise in the present and will arise in the future.
Feelings and clinging arise in the present... and they also have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.

In fact, these two lines are really just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Why did I only focus on those bits? Because those bits represent causes. They are the bits where our practice must focus. We can't do anything about results (other than understand how they came to arise) but we can do something about causes. Seeing feelings as just feelings, seeing all phenomena as annica/dukkha/anatta, leads to the eradication of ignorance. With no ignorance there can be no craving. With no craving there can be no karmic formations.

-----

I suppose this is perhaps a difference of focus. I think the Buddha taught that I-making happens as a result of craving & clinging. I think the practice he teaches is focused on ending the craving & clinging. When craving & clinging have ceased, I-making also ceases.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the focus should be on the I-making itself, seeing how it is "born" and "dies", that somehow focusing in this way will stop it from happening.

When I look at what I consider to be the prime sutta regarding anatta I find the focus is not on discerning how I-making happens but rather on seeing how nothing whatsoever is worth clinging to as "me", "mine", or "myself".

Buddha in SN 22.59 wrote:Any form, feeling, perception, fabrication, or consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every one of them is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'


Ignorance, craving, clinging, seeing the result of contact as it really is... this to me is the part of paticcasamuppada where the work has to be done. And as I pointed out above, the three-lives model does put this all squarely in the present.


Craig, perhaps you could show specifically where you think the three-lives model takes one's practice out of the present moment?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby kc2dpt » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:51 pm

clw_uk wrote:In reguards to the question if Buddhadasa's teaching of jati being higher dhamma teaching meaning birth of "I" in moments or rebirth in moments only being taught unique to him, i have come accross works by other monks that teach it/understand it in the same way

Its starts about rebirth but does touch on the aspect of birth of "I" in moments

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TqKb ... &ct=result

You metioned Ajahn Sumedho before and your quote from him shows he was merely repeating what he learned from Buddhadasa.

clw_uk wrote:Just to balance from the above post I have just discovered quite a good article by Ajahn Sumedho...
Ajahn Sumedho wrote:In Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on Dependent Origination...
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:08 pm

Peter

Im not telling you how it is, i was saying what works for me. I see focusing on the moment as more practical since its about the here and now and any attempt to gain insight to dependent origination would be via the hear and now. The three lives model is all well and good but to me its to spread out, one wont see dependent origination via three lives, it will be in the present.





I suppose this is perhaps a difference of focus. I think the Buddha taught that I-making happens as a result of craving & clinging. I think the practice he teaches is focused on ending the craving & clinging. When craving & clinging have ceased, I-making also ceases.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the focus should be on the I-making itself, seeing how it is "born" and "dies", that somehow focusing in this way will stop it from happening.

When I look at what I consider to be the prime sutta regarding anatta I find the focus is not on discerning how I-making happens but rather on seeing how nothing whatsoever is worth clinging to as "me", "mine", or "myself".



When you see clearly how I-making comes to be via D.O. in the present moment because craving and clinging leads to a sense of "I" you then know how to effectively end this process, by being mindful whenever there is feeling.




Craig, perhaps you could show specifically where you think the three-lives model takes one's practice out of the present moment?


Because it focuses on things that have gone, that have already ceases. Ignorance in the past was just ignorance. When you focus on dependent origination, its going to be in the moment, not stretched over three lives.

Since it can only be directly known and stopped in the moment, i dont see the point of having it stretched out over three lives, it just adds confusion, to me only the knowing of it in the present moment is important since this is the only place it can be seen


That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.


Then why have it as three lives at all would be my response


This is how i see it, of course you can take it as you wish thats your choice of practice

:namaste:
Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:09 pm

They are two different books, i only quoted the second one since it included a little extract on Ajahn Chahs view of D.O. as well as the use of the word rebirth which ties in with this thread

As far as im aware Ajahn Sumedho never learnt from Buddhadasa only from Ajahn Chah, he just states he agrees with Buddhadasa, as it seems did Ajahn Chah in this reguard


:namaste:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby kc2dpt » Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:53 pm

clw_uk wrote:Ignorance in the past was just ignorance.

As I said earlier, ignorance led to formations in the past... and ignorance leads to formations in the present... and ignorance will lead to formations in the future. Nothing about the three-lives model says that ignorance only happened in the past. This has been explained to you are few times already, and not just by me. I suggest perhaps you don't know enough about the three-lives model to dismiss it so readily.

Since it can only be directly known and stopped in the moment, i dont see the point of having it stretched out over three lives
...
Then why have it as three lives at all would be my response

Because it explains so much more than just why we feel stress in the present moment. Why are we here? Where did we come from? What happens when we die? Is there any order to the universe? Is it all just random? Is there an all-powerful god overseeing and directing our lives? Is there a purpose to life? All these questions, question people throughout history have spend countless hours pondering about, are addressed by the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada.

We can relieve stress in the present moment with a cup of coffee, or a backrub, or TV, or drugs. But those won't address the wider problem of what happens later. Even if we are reborn into a blissful heavenly realm, where there is nothing but pleasure all the time for years and years, we aren't addressing the problem of what happens later. Tell a drug addict that the only thing worth focusing on is the present moment and he will simply look for his next fix. Tell a Christian that any pleasure of the flesh is only temporary and he will simply look forward to rebirth in heaven. A broader perspective is absolutely necessary.

I remember a teacher made an analogy comparing the Path to driving in a car to a mountain. If you keep looking at the mountain in the distance then you'll crash the car into the side of the road or into another car. If you only look at the road right in front of you then you'll never know if you're heading towards the mountain or not. Both perspectives are necessary.

If a teacher feels his students are too obsessed with the mountain that they are driving erratically then perhaps he will stress the road right in front of them. If a teacher feels his students are so obsessed with the road right in front of them that they are ignorant of the mountain then perhaps he will stress the mountain.

A teacher that stresses one so much that he denounces the other is, in my opinion, misrepresenting the Buddha.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
kc2dpt
 
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Ngawang Drolma. » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:00 pm

If a teacher feels his students are too obsessed with the mountain that they are driving erratically then perhaps he will stress the road right in front of them. If a teacher feels his students are so obsessed with the road right in front of them that they are ignorant of the mountain then perhaps he will stress the mountain.

A teacher that stresses one so much that he denounces the other is, in my opinion, misrepresenting the Buddha.


Lovely! :buddha2:
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:48 pm

Peter


As I said earlier, ignorance led to formations in the past... and ignorance leads to formations in the present... and ignorance will lead to formations in the future. Nothing about the three-lives model says that ignorance only happened in the past. This has been explained to you are few times already, and not just by me. I suggest perhaps you don't know enough about the three-lives model to dismiss it so readily.



Im not saying that the three lives states that they only happen in the past, just its unimportant to include them when teaching D.O.

Ignorace is leading to formations now which is leading on through to clinging and so on to dukkha. It needs to be seen here and now so i see it as more important in moments than three lives



Because it explains so much more than just why we feel stress in the present moment. Why are we here? Where did we come from? What happens when we die? Is there any order to the universe? Is it all just random? Is there an all-powerful god overseeing and directing our lives? Is there a purpose to life? All these questions, question people throughout history have spend countless hours pondering about, are addressed by the Buddha's teaching of paticcasamuppada.



To me D.O. was never taught to address these issues, as they fall under questions about is the world eternal or not etc. The buddha taught D.O. for the ending of dukkha only, not to answer metaphysical questions that people may have. This is one reason why i feel D.O. in three lives is not completely in-line with its original meaning since it goes into metaphysics


We can relieve stress in the present moment with a cup of coffee, or a backrub, or TV, or drugs. But those won't address the wider problem of what happens later. Even if we are reborn into a blissful heavenly realm, where there is nothing but pleasure all the time for years and years, we aren't addressing the problem of what happens later. Tell a drug addict that the only thing worth focusing on is the present moment and he will simply look for his next fix. Tell a Christian that any pleasure of the flesh is only temporary and he will simply look forward to rebirth in heaven. A broader perspective is absolutely necessary.


I can see where you are coming from but i disagree with you here, as someone who has in the past endulged heavily and done some of these i can assure you that they dont relieve anything at all and just make more dukkha in this life let alone any other life. Even if you spent your life maximizing pleasure there would always be dukkha, which of course is what the buddha taught. The only way to relieve stress is via the Dhamma reguardless of rebirth or not. Of course the buddha did teach rebirth to deal with these issues but i see it that D.O. was taught to show how dukkha arises and how to end it in the present, not how past lives were or how future lives will be



I remember a teacher made an analogy comparing the Path to driving in a car to a mountain. If you keep looking at the mountain in the distance then you'll crash the car into the side of the road or into another car. If you only look at the road right in front of you then you'll never know if you're heading towards the mountain or not. Both perspectives are necessary.

If a teacher feels his students are too obsessed with the mountain that they are driving erratically then perhaps he will stress the road right in front of them. If a teacher feels his students are so obsessed with the road right in front of them that they are ignorant of the mountain then perhaps he will stress the mountain.


Very good analogy and i feel this is why rebirth was taught but D.O. was not taught for this reason in my view


Metta
:namaste:
Last edited by clw_uk on Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby nathan » Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:51 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Craig, perhaps you could show specifically where you think the three-lives model takes one's practice out of the present moment?


Because it focuses on things that have gone, that have already ceases. Ignorance in the past was just ignorance. When you focus on dependent origination, its going to be in the moment, not stretched over three lives.

Since it can only be directly known and stopped in the moment, i dont see the point of having it stretched out over three lives, it just adds confusion, to me only the knowing of it in the present moment is important since this is the only place it can be seen


That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.


Then why have it as three lives at all would be my response


This is how i see it, of course you can take it as you wish thats your choice of practice

:namaste:
Hi folks. Still obsessed? Thought I would pop in.

NO. I Can't "take it as I wish", I'm a little bit beyond that point you've found yourself at, I have to take it as it IS.

Well, mainly because, perceptually you are becoming a victim of your own conceptual medusa. If all you can perceive is conditional dependence in the moment then just keep doing it until you find that this is not enough to cover your insight into your experience. If you still think your experience is the arbiter of the Tipitaka or of everyone else's experience, then I will see you in another 12 pages to find out if your baseless contentions have still got everyone kicking your preconceptual a$$. If you are practicing diligently then sooner or later you will come to see that D O covers the relationships between conditions past, present and future as well as in the moment. Short of that there is no basis for correctly understanding the existence of conditions past, conditions present and conditions future and that would mean no hope whatsoever. Lucky for you, you were wrong, are wrong and will be wrong until you see this for yourself. Til' then any suggestion that your insights are superior to those who's include this understanding as well are simply laughable.

I have seen the wisdom of not being stuck in this, your moment.

See you in another 120 posts. Have fun.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:01 pm

Nathan

Hi folks. Still obsessed? Thought I would pop in.

NO. I Can't "take it as I wish", I'm a little bit beyond that point you've found yourself at, I have to take it as it IS.

Well, mainly because, perceptually you are becoming a victim of your own conceptual medusa. If all you can perceive is conditional dependence in the moment then just keep doing it until you find that this is not enough to cover your insight into your experience. If you still think your experience is the arbiter of the Tipitaka or of everyone else's experience, then I will see you in another 12 pages to find out if your baseless contentions have still got everyone kicking your preconceptual a$$. If you are practicing diligently then sooner or later you will come to see that D O covers the relationships between conditions past, present and future as well as in the moment. Short of that there is no basis for correctly understanding the existence of conditions past, conditions present and conditions future and that would mean no hope whatsoever. Lucky for you, you were wrong, are wrong and will be wrong until you see this for yourself. Til' then any suggestion that your insights are superior to those who's include this understanding as well are simply laughable.

I have seen the wisdom of not being stuck in this, your moment.

See you in another 120 posts. Have fun



I dont think its skillfull to simply state "Lucky for you, you were wrong, are wrong and will be wrong " since it can discourage people from practice and also comes accross as quite aggresive.


Til' then any suggestion that your insights are superior to those who's include this understanding as well are simply laughable.


Im not stating im superior to anybody, ive recently been very careful to state that my posts simply refelct my own understandings and not how others should practice. What me and peter are doing is simply discussing, we are not telling each other how it is. Also forgive me but it seems your asserting that your insights are superior to mine, in reality we cant know either way for sure since we dont really know enough about each other to make any definite conclusion.

Furthermore im not stating that three lives is impossible, just its more practical in the moments, since any insight into it will be in the present not in past or future reguardless of if it covers three lives or not, you can only focus on the present for insight


:namaste:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby mikenz66 » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:18 pm

clw_uk wrote:As far as im aware Ajahn Sumedho never learnt from Buddhadasa only from Ajahn Chah, he just states he agrees with Buddhadasa, as it seems did Ajahn Chah in this reguard

It's hard to tell from Ajahn Sumedho's brief discussion whether he takes on the whole of Ajahn Buddhadasa's argument or just that "when meditating this is the particular stuff one experiences". On the other hand, Ajahn Brahm was a student of Ajahn Chah, and I already pointed to an article where he completely disagrees with Ajahn Buddhadasa.
http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=65

I think that you are a little hung up on the present moment thing. Delusion can be about the present as well. There are many Suttas that warn about being drawn into the past or the future, but they also warn against being deluded about the present, i.e. creating an "I" anywhere.

MN 131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nana.html
"And how, monks, does one trace back the past? He thinks: 'I was of such form in the past' and brings delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I was of such feeling in the past' and brings delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I was of such perception in the past' and brings delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I was of such formations in the past' and brings delight to bear on them. He thinks: 'I was of such consciousness in the past' and brings delight to bear on it. That is how, monks, one traces back the past.

"And how, monks, does one not trace back the past? He thinks: 'I was of such form in the past' but brings no delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I was of such feeling... of such perception... of such formations...'... He thinks: 'I was of such consciousness in the past' but brings no delight to bear on it. That is how, monks, one does not trace back the past.

"And how, monks, does one yearn for the future? He thinks: 'I may have such form in the future' and brings delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I may have such feeling... such perception... such formations...'... He thinks: 'I may have such consciousness in the future' and brings delight to bear on it. That is how, monks, one yearns for the future.

"And how, monks, does one not yearn for the future? He thinks: 'I may have such form in the future' but brings no delight to bear on it. He thinks: 'I may have such feeling... such perception... such formations...'... He thinks: 'I may have such consciousness in the future' but brings no delight to bear on it. That is how, monks, one does not yearn for the future.

"And how is one drawn into present things? Herein, monks, an uninstructed ordinary man who takes no account of the Noble Ones, is unskilled in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, untrained in the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, taking no account of the good men, unskilled in the Dhamma of the good men, untrained in the Dhamma of the good men, looks upon form as self, or self as possessed of form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He looks upon feeling as self, or self as possessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He looks upon perception as self, or self as possessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He looks upon formations as self, or self as possessed of formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He looks upon consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how, monks, one is drawn into present things.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:21 pm

I think what all this comes down to is individual need in reguards to practice. For some people the three lives model works for their practice while others like myself it does not. Of course if one is to gain insight into dependent origination it will be it happening in the present moment but i can see how the three lives model works for some




:namaste:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby nathan » Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:30 pm

clw_uk wrote:Nathan

Hi folks. Still obsessed? Thought I would pop in.

NO. I Can't "take it as I wish", I'm a little bit beyond that point you've found yourself at, I have to take it as it IS.

Well, mainly because, perceptually you are becoming a victim of your own conceptual medusa. If all you can perceive is conditional dependence in the moment then just keep doing it until you find that this is not enough to cover your insight into your experience. If you still think your experience is the arbiter of the Tipitaka or of everyone else's experience, then I will see you in another 12 pages to find out if your baseless contentions have still got everyone kicking your preconceptual a$$. If you are practicing diligently then sooner or later you will come to see that D O covers the relationships between conditions past, present and future as well as in the moment. Short of that there is no basis for correctly understanding the existence of conditions past, conditions present and conditions future and that would mean no hope whatsoever. Lucky for you, you were wrong, are wrong and will be wrong until you see this for yourself. Til' then any suggestion that your insights are superior to those who's include this understanding as well are simply laughable.

I have seen the wisdom of not being stuck in this, your moment.

See you in another 120 posts. Have fun



I dont think its skillfull to simply state "Lucky for you, you were wrong, are wrong and will be wrong " since it can discourage people from practice and also comes accross as quite aggresive.

Well for the reason given we are all lucky to be are wrong so unless you want to be especially unfortunate...?...I don't know why it is discouraging to think so or why not thinking so would be encouraging.

It seems natural that almost anything might come across as aggressive to you which is why I am avoiding this discussion. But my compassion for you as well as the compassion of many others carries it forward. So we all suffer. That's life.

Holding to many untenable statements (which many of us have also done, do or will do in our own ways and so it is not difficult to identify with your position or conditions) which you have not taken pains to evade amending (primarily to your own benefit) when provided directly with the means (repeatedly) or to competently defend (in regards to the more sweeping contentions variously made about the doctrines) the suggestions that our views should conform to yours will all very likely put you in a position which can feel quite threatened. It is a pretty precarious stance. So, all we are saying is, pretty thin ice bud.

It is fine that you think what you think. You have already presented much of that thought as representing far more than that and it would not have been compassionate for everyone else to leave the misconceptions in regards to that unaddressed. I am sure they are almost exhausted with it unless you aren't. You can be sure that we are all keen to discern and defend the truth from misperceptions and misconceptions. No doubt Buddhadassa also has suffered from many misperceptions and misconceptions and felt likewise that any assistance to lessen this suffering was much needed. He found a kind of treatment for a kind of obscuring ignorance but that does not make it the equal of the dhamma. We do not use the dhamma to deconstruct the dhamma. In doing that it is hard to tell the poison from the cure. However, the overall concern is that we do not take this kind of medicine given to us as part of an overall effort to end the suffering to be something other than what it is. In such cases, and we all experience this, the cure has become the poison. It is necessary to change prescriptions as conditions warrant.

So, if this understanding serves you now, then great. But none of us should take as a given that our provisional understanding is either sufficient or accurate until there is no longer any cause for uncertainty. So, it will not help to hold any of these kinds of views to be final, inclusive and absolute until then. Until then we already have the most competent presentation in the complete Tipitaka and otherwise we will very much need to be increasingly light handed about how we hold our views, even as we grow in certainty. So, this is the difficulty I see for you. It is very important to make the efforts you and everyone else makes to form a correct conceptual understanding. The conceptual understanding we have initially will become increasingly more empty as the truth in it is confirmed. Limits placed on the growth of further potential understanding of the dhamma, be it in the moment, or overall, will eventually become a barrier to that growth. Sorry you feel challenged. We all do.


Til' then any suggestion that your insights are superior to those who's include this understanding as well are simply laughable.


Can I do a better job of explaining why your insights are inferior, be it in the moment or in regards to DO without forcing you to identify with them even more strongly? If you do and you still have reason to feel hurt then I hope at least this much should be very obviously counterproductive to the very effort you claim to be making, in the moment. I can only assure you that as you continue on sincerly in that moment gently holding to your view for now you will come to more fully appreciate the fullness of the dhamma, just as we have found it and how much more empty your view will be. I am not sure I could tell you what my view is anymore and I don't care either, the Buddha put it all so well. But it only comes to mean more, and never less. So, compared to the Buddha's perspective of the moment, of three lives, of three hundred universes of lives, it is all more full and meaningful. No one else's since comes close, yours, mine, or bhikkhu anybody's. We don't have to accept any of it. It is only our loss if we don't.

Im not stating im superior to anybody, I didn't say you were. You asserted at length that a given view of the dhamma was superior to the entire dhamma just as it is. On the basis of the views practicality for yourself in the moment, that's a little over enthusiastic, don't you think? ive recently been very careful to state that my posts simply refelct my own understandings and not how others should practice.An encouraging step in the right direction. Kudos. What me and peter are doing is simply discussing, we are not telling each other how it is. Making those distinctions clear up front is pretty important to how statements are received. Retreating to that stance after a long time entrenched in another stance does not give this statement the air of sincerity you are now implying it has. This doesn't summarize the thread well or characterize the tone of any of the posts well. It seems like a misleading characterization of any objective reading. But let's live and let live.Also forgive me but it seems your asserting that your insights are superior to mine, in reality we cant know either way for sure since we dont really know enough about each other to make any definite conclusion.I beg to differ and I am sure you can take everything I have said in response to this in just the same way if there is a point to that. The price is merely again remaining blind to any value in the comments. Which leads me to question of what the point was in belaboring all of this has been for you?

I think if I took the approach you suggest I am taking it would feel very aggressive to you. Am I wrong? You tend to sidestep the real issues you've raised. Want me to take a crack at it? Do some kind of an autopsy on this thread? Really hit the books and totally rock your world? I think you would take it entirely the wrong way. So I'm suggesting you do it.


Furthermore im not stating that three lives is impossible, just its more practical in the moments, since any insight into it will be in the present not in past or future reguardless of if it covers three lives or not, you can only focus on the present for insight.

None of this discussion initially had anything to do with your technique or mine or anyone's. But I am glad to see that you are clearer on momentary awareness having more to do with your technique and the progress of insight into the characteristics than it does with informing our very limited conceptualizations of dependent origination before this or any other technique has brought direct knowledge and a degree of realization which makes that, in all of it's forms quite moot. I think that goes a long ways towards sorting all of this out.


:namaste:
:namaste:
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby DarkDream » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:28 pm

Thanissaro Bhikku has written a lot on dependent orgination and in this audio teaching:
http://www.audiodharma.org/mp3files/2007-05-05_ThanissaroBhikkhu_DependentCo-arising-02of10-Intro-QandA.m3u where he is critical of the three lives model because if you eliminate ignorance (first link in the chain) you will have to wait a couple of lives later to see the result of it.

The most convincing answer I have seen on how to interpret dependent coorigination can be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tg2-QU2J10YC&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=playing+with+fire+jurewicz&source=bl&ots=r8KrxNTMas&sig=CwKHecz4o-Iyb-eORBaZM5Av42c&hl=en&ei=u36gSbv4F4HasAOQ3YnUCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

This was done by a Sanskrit scholar, who effectively shows that the Buddha was using Vedic cosmology to indicate an important point. If this is correct, then there is no room for the three lifetime model.

-DarkDream
Last edited by DarkDream on Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DarkDream
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:25 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:35 pm

Thanks DarkDream

I dont know if you come accross it already in this thread or sometime before but Buddhadasa has a good way of explaining Dependent Origination thats not based on three lives (he is int fact quite critical of the three lives)

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... uppada.htm


Id recomend it if you havent already read it


:namaste:
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Dhammanando » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:01 am

Hi DarkDream,

DarkDream wrote:Thanissaro Bhikku has written a lot on dependent orgination and in this audio teaching:
http://www.audiodharma.org/mp3files/2007-05-05_ThanissaroBhikkhu_DependentCo-arising-01of10-GuidedMeditation.m3u where he is critical of the three lives model because if you eliminate ignorance (first link in the chain) you will have to wait a couple of lives later to see the result of it.


I haven't time to listen to the talk, but if you are stating T's view accurately then it is utter nonsense. None of the schools which taught the 3-life interpretation held that the result of eliminating ignorance is only experienced after another couple of lives.

If you eliminate ignorance there won't be any more lives. The result in the present life will be the pulling out of the first arrow (mental distress etc.) by Nibbana with remainder. The result in the future will be the pulling out of the second arrow (the dukkha inherent in the aggregates) by Nibbana without remainder.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby clw_uk » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:21 am

Bhante Dhammanando

Cant there be nibbana without remainder in this life though before death?
“Happy is the man who has broken the chains which hurt the mind, and has given up worrying once and for all.” Ovid
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3363
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby Dhammanando » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:33 am

Hi Craig,

clw_uk wrote:Cant there be nibbana without remainder in this life though before death?


No, Nibbana during this life is the complete extinguishing of the kilesas, not the khandhas.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu
    ...and this thought arose in the mind of the Blessed One:
    “Who lives without reverence lives miserably.”
    Uruvela Sutta, A.ii.20

    It were endless to dispute upon everything that is disputable.
    — William Penn Some Fruits of Solitude,
User avatar
Dhammanando
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Wat Pa Mieng Khun Pang, Chiang Mai

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby retrofuturist » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:34 am

Greetings Craig,

See this thread...

Nibbana-element with no residue
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=160

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14629
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:44 am

Hi Craig,

Here are the definitions:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... bb%C4%81na
Nibbāna: Sanskrit nirvāna lit. 'ceasing' nir + Ö va to cease blowing, to become extinguished; according to the commentaries, 'freedom from desire' nir+ vana Nibbāna constitutes the highest and ultimate goal of all Buddhist aspirations, i.e. absolute ceasing of that life-affirming will manifested as greed, hate and confusion, and convulsively clinging to existence; and therewith also the ultimate and absolute deliverance from all future rebirth, old age, disease and death, from all suffering and misery. Cf. parinibbāna

Extinction of greed, ceasing of hate, ceasing of confusion: this is called Nibbāna; S. XXXVIII. 1.

The 2 aspects of Nibbāna are:

1: The full ceasing of defilements kilesa-parinibbāna also called sa-upādi-sesa-nibbāna see: It. 41, i.e. 'Nibbāna with the groups of existence still remaining' see: upādi. This takes place at the attainment of Arahatship, or perfect Nobility see: ariya-puggala.

2: The full ceasing of the groups of existence khandha-parinibbāna also called an-upādi-sesa-nibbāna see: It. 41, A. IV, 118, i.e. 'Nibbāna without the groups remaining', in other words, the coming to rest, or rather the 'no-more-continuing' of this physico-mental process of existence. This takes place at the death of the Arahat. - App.: Nibbāna.

Sometimes both aspects take place at one and the same moment, i.e. at the death of the Arahat; see: sama-sīsī

This, o Bhikkhus, truly is the peace, this is the highest, namely the end of all constructions, the forsaking of every substratum of rebirth, the fading away of craving, detachment, ceasing, Nibbāna; A. III, 32.

Enraptured with lust rāga enraged with anger dosa blinded by confusion moha overwhelmed, with mind ensnared, man aims at his own ruin, at the ruin of others, at the ruin of both, and he experiences mental pain and grief. But if lust, anger and confusion are given up, man aims neither at his own ruin, nor at the ruin of others, nor at the ruin of both, and he experiences no mental pain and grief. Thus is Nibbāna visible in this life, immediate, inviting, attractive, and comprehensible to the wise; A. III, 55.

Just as a rock of one solid mass remains unshaken by the wind, even so neither visible forms, nor sounds, nor odours, nor tastes, nor bodily contacts, neither the desired nor the undesired, can cause such a one to waver. Steadfast is his mind, gained is deliverance; A, VI, 55.

Verily, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. If there were not this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, escape from the world of the born, the originated, the created, the formed, would not be possible; Ud. VIII, 3.

One cannot too often and too emphatically stress the fact that not only for the actual realization of the goal of Nibbāna, but also for a theoretical understanding of it, it is an indispensable preliminary condition to grasp fully the truth of anattā, the egolessness and insubstantiality of all forms of existence. Without such an understanding, one will necessarily misconceive Nibbāna - according to one's either materialistic or metaphysical leanings - either as annihilation of an ego, or as an eternal state of existence into which an ego or self enters or with which it merges. Hence it is said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen.; Vis.MXVI

Literature: For texts on Nibbāna, see path, 36ff. - See Vis.M XVI. 64ff. - Anattā and Nibbāna, by Nyanaponika Thera WHEEL 11; The Buddhist Doctrine of Nibbāna, by Ven. P. Vajiranana & F. Story WHEEL 165/166.

Metta
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests