the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Daverupa wrote:
I never said all were due to chance - you are putting words in my mouth
Then please explicitly state your position on my question: Is it or is it not because of Kamma that one's born rich or poor, smart or dumb, beautiful or ugly, prestigious or low, etc. ?
The list of qualities of these ariyan disciples have enough to offer the rebirth skeptic that rebirth is unnecessary here as well
.

Since Stream-Enterer wouldn't exist without Rebirth, where do you get the inspiration if HE never exists at the first place?
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Daverupa wrote:
The five clinging-aggregates are dukkha, which means that any experience you can possibly have as a putthujana is dukkha due to avijja, and the continuance of this state of affairs is samsara. The only escape is nibbana. I haven't mentioned punabhava yet because I don't need to
As usual, you've filtered out key information and only retain those that fits your viewpoint.

Definition of Samsara (ref: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)
saṃsāra : 'round of rebirth', lit. perpetual wandering', is a name by which is designated the sca of life ever restlessly heaving up and down, the symbol of this continuous process of ever again and again being born, growing old, suffering and dying. More precisely put, saṃsāra is the unbroken chain of the five-fold khandha-combinations, which, constantly changing from moment to moment follow continuously one upon the other through inconceivable periods of time. Of this saṃsāra , a single lifetime constitutes only a tiny and fleeting fraction; hence to be able to comprehend the first noble truth of universal suffering, one must let one's gaze rest upon the saṃsāra , upon this frightful chain of rebirths, and not merely upon one single life-time, which, of course, may be sometimes less painful. - Cf. tilakkhaṇa, anattā, paramattha, paṭisandhi
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

santa100 wrote:Then please explicitly state your position on my question: Is it or is it not because of Kamma that one's born rich or poor, smart or dumb, beautiful or ugly, prestigious or low, etc. ?
Well, first of all:

"Students, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."

~MN 135

Of course, I can't verify this teaching on kamma, but it doesn't negate the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path which I have verified, so I'm inclined to accept it given the common source. This is inference, and it is based on previous experience in the Dhamma, not prima facie acceptance of claims about the herebefore and the hereafter. In fact, given the numerous wrong views described in DN 1 to do with questions of the past and future, I'm inclined to focus on what the Buddha focused on in that discourse:
"When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving."
I see that views of past and future are going to be flawed at least until stream-entry is attained (how inspiring!). So, I'm going to work for that, and not bother with discussing stuff I've never experienced. This is simply a possible approach to the Dhamma, which is really the only point I have been trying to make, starting back on page 113 of this thread.
Since Stream-Enterer wouldn't exist without Rebirth, where do you get the inspiration if HE never exists at the first place?
From where I've already said it's possible to derive said inspiration, both earlier and just now. That you cannot imagine it to be sufficient is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
  • "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]
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Daverupa wrote:
The list of qualities of these ariyan disciples have enough to offer the rebirth skeptic that rebirth is unnecessary here as well.
Notice it's not my interest to win a debate. It is my interest to follow reasons, logic, and the truth. Because of that, I simply raise the question to you because they defied simple logic. First, you said you drew inspiration on the Ariyan disciples. Then you refuted my logic on item 2. which stated that Ariyan disciples only exist if Rebirth exists. I simply don't see any logic in drawing an inspiration on someone or something that never exist. If you're really for reason and truth, then you better prove it in you statements. I have not seen that.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

santa100 wrote:I simply don't see any logic in drawing an inspiration on someone or something that never exist.
Based on
santa100 wrote:Since Stream-Enterer wouldn't exist without Rebirth...
Well, it rather seems to me that stream-enterers wouldn't exist without the BuddhaDhamma, so it is the practice thereof which is my chosen emphasis, not insisting upon rebirth as a required view, which appears to be your chosen emphasis.

:shrug:
  • "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
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by acinteyyo »

What if "rebirth" doesn't mean anything else than there will be birth again after death?

Does the Buddha tell us anywhere that there is more to it?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Daverupa wrote:
Well, it rather seems to me that stream-enterers wouldn't exist without the BuddhaDhamma
Well, my take is that Stream-enterers definitely wouldn't exist with Rebirth AND they most definitely wouldn't exist without BuddhaDhamma. My emphasis is also on the BuddhaDhamma. So really, we aren't that much different. It's just that I see Rebirth as an integral part of it. That's all..
santa100
Posts: 6812
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by santa100 »

Oops, typo, it should be: my take is that Stream-enterers definitely wouldn't exist without Rebirth AND they most definitely wouldn't exist without BuddhaDhamma.. :smile:
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by chownah »

Zom wrote:
.so perhaps one could have right view without being attached to it...I guess...I don't know....
Actually in MN 22 in "raft simile" and "snake simile" Buddha shows that Dhamma is to be grasped firmly and properly, attached to.. and ONLY after you have gotten to the other shore (arahantship), only then you can release your grasp of Dhamma, but not before that :reading:

So it's the same with the views. (right) Views are your proper belief. You use them as a tool. And at the very end you will drop all views and other Dhamma tools also.
Zom,
It is good that you mention the "snake simile".....at accesstoinsight in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's introduction to the sutta he says, "This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job."[Note:the bold underlining is mine]

Looks like his view is that we should not be attached/ciinging to right view.....what do you think?

chownah
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

rowyourboat wrote:Hi Bhikkhu Pesala
I think that trying to become a better person might hinder the removal of personality view.
I'm not sure that is correct - cultivating what is wholesome (best articulated IMHO as 'becoming a better person') IS '..the teaching of the Buddhas
Not doing any evil thing, cultivating the wholesome, is obviously the right path. However, "becoming a better person" smells of conceit, which is an unwholesome Dhamma. As John Coleman once said, "I'm not the least bit conceited, though I have every reason to be." :)

Cultivating wholesome Dhammas such as reverence (garavo) and humility (nivato) means not regarding oneself as better than others due to following the "right" path of Buddha Dhamma.

Attachment to views, even right views, is a hindrance. If we have a good understanding of the Dhamma, we shouldn't get too upset when other disagree with us. If we argue too vigorously for our POV, it indicates some doubt and insecurity.

The true Dhamma never changes, whether a Buddha arises in the world to point it out or not. All of us have dust in our eyes, that is why we were reborn yet again.

When someone disagrees too vehemently, it is best not to respond. Buddhist forums should be a place to learn, or a place to teach, not a place to argue.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by PeterB »

:goodpost:

There are a handful of posters who shall remain nameless, who give me the impression that they will find something, anything, to argue about.
In the absence of an argument they occasionally argue against themselves, taking the opposite view to the view they espoused three weeks before.
Or some give the impression that they are trying to convince themselves about issues about which they have no personal experience that can in fact only be verified by guided meditation practice.
Perhaps its cultural.
Akuma
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:56 pm
Location: NRW, Germany

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Akuma »

acinteyyo wrote: What if "rebirth" doesn't mean anything else than there will be birth again after death?

Does the Buddha tell us anywhere that there is more to it?
This would lead to impossible conclusions. For example a practicioner could only "give" Nirvana, he could only not get children, because in this scenario Non-Birth is only a factor for those beings not-yet-born. It would also lead to the conclusion that Arahants are necessarily not existent because if they were existent they were born and therefore wouldnt have attained Nirvana. In short it leads to the effect that Nirvana is not attainable in that system.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by tiltbillings »

PeterB wrote::goodpost:

There are a handful of posters who shall remain nameless, who give me the impression that they will find something, anything, to argue about.
In the absence of an argument they occasionally argue against themselves, taking the opposite view to the view they espoused three weeks before.
Or some give the impression that they are trying to convince themselves about issues about which they have no personal experience that can in fact only be verified by guided meditation practice.
Perhaps its cultural.
You may be correct; however, let us not go any further down that road lest we end up with a meta-discussion and such. So back to the topic, please.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by PeterB »

Akuma wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: What if "rebirth" doesn't mean anything else than there will be birth again after death?

Does the Buddha tell us anywhere that there is more to it?
This would lead to impossible conclusions. For example a practicioner could only "give" Nirvana, he could only not get children, because in this scenario Non-Birth is only a factor for those beings not-yet-born. It would also lead to the conclusion that Arahants are necessarily not existent because if they were existent they were born and therefore wouldnt have attained Nirvana. In short it leads to the effect that Nirvana is not attainable in that system.
What if the concept of Arahants ( and the rest of the heirachy of attainment ) is the expression of a poetic ideal rather than an expression of ontological reality ?
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by acinteyyo »

Akuma wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: What if "rebirth" doesn't mean anything else than there will be birth again after death?

Does the Buddha tell us anywhere that there is more to it?
This would lead to impossible conclusions. For example a practicioner could only "give" Nirvana, he could only not get children, because in this scenario Non-Birth is only a factor for those beings not-yet-born. It would also lead to the conclusion that Arahants are necessarily not existent because if they were existent they were born and therefore wouldnt have attained Nirvana. In short it leads to the effect that Nirvana is not attainable in that system.
I really don't see how you come to those odd conclusions and actually I don't understand your post at all.
It seems you think it is more than that, then do you have anything to support your view?
BTW an arahant is not to be measured in terms of birth and death, birth and death do not apply anymore.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply