The funny thing is that our daily practice and value of Dhamma remains the same even if that is the case.PeterB wrote: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 ?
the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
If you say "there will be birth again after death" this implies the birth of all sorts of living beings in all sorts of worlds after your death. Since Nirvana is among other things characterized by no-birth your only capability of realizing Nirvana would be for other beings not to be born after you. And your way to do that is to either kill living beings or to not give birth to one yourself. The latter was actually a view proposed by a person on the german forum - he saw the ending of ignorance in the ending of the wish to create more humans.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.
Re: the great rebirth debate
What if its true for enlightenment, too?PeterB wrote: 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 ?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Isnt it ?
I rather thought that it was not a description of an ontological reality. I thought that was rather the point.
I rather thought that it was not a description of an ontological reality. I thought that was rather the point.
Akuma wrote:What if its true for enlightenment, too?PeterB wrote: 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 ?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Then which points of the Dhamma would not be expressions of a poetic ideal? Where does one draw the line? If the entirety of the Dhamma was the expression of a poetic ideal, would our practice remain the same? I think not.PeterB wrote:Isnt it ?
I rather thought that it was not a description of an ontological reality. I thought that was rather the point.Akuma wrote:What if its true for enlightenment, too?PeterB wrote: 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 ?
If this notion had any merit, I think the Buddha would have mentioned this feature of his teaching. Instead, what he said was during the time when the Dhamma was in decline, teachers would be basically poets. If I recall correctly.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: the great rebirth debate
" Would our practice remain the same " ? I cant answer that.
Does MY practice remain the same..yes.
Does the notion have any merit ?
For me it does ..yes.
Perhaps you would care to show the reference for the Buddha saying that teachers will be poets ?
It would instantly become my favourite quotation of his.
Does MY practice remain the same..yes.
Does the notion have any merit ?
For me it does ..yes.
Perhaps you would care to show the reference for the Buddha saying that teachers will be poets ?
It would instantly become my favourite quotation of his.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Ontological reality or poetic ideal....choose your weapon and come out firing!!!!
chownah
chownah
Re: the great rebirth debate
Or simply watch as bald men argue over combs.
There is an assumption made here that truth and the poetical are somehow incompatible.
I would argue that the poetical can be more true than a recitation of factual data.
This becomes particularly the case when what is under discussion is experiential rather than merely philosophical.
The Buddha did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus..or Brahma.
He arose in a culture with a particular world view already formed from ancient times.
He used those elements to arrive at a non ontological view, but one which borrowed from the ontology of the prevailing culture.
We each have to decide which of those elements are useful to us and which not.
"Where we draw the line " is a issue vital to the authenticity of our individual journey.
There is an assumption made here that truth and the poetical are somehow incompatible.
I would argue that the poetical can be more true than a recitation of factual data.
This becomes particularly the case when what is under discussion is experiential rather than merely philosophical.
The Buddha did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus..or Brahma.
He arose in a culture with a particular world view already formed from ancient times.
He used those elements to arrive at a non ontological view, but one which borrowed from the ontology of the prevailing culture.
We each have to decide which of those elements are useful to us and which not.
"Where we draw the line " is a issue vital to the authenticity of our individual journey.
-
- Posts: 1952
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?
I agree, but the question is, is becoming a better person, an aid to self-view or conceit- it can be- so can samatha and vipassana progress- that doesnt mean we should stop pursuing it- what we need to stop doing is be blinkered into thinking that ALL of the dhamma is samatha and vipassana- it is broader, gentler, deeper..Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:...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...rowyourboat wrote:Hi Bhikkhu Pesala
- cultivating what is wholesome (best articulated IMHO as 'becoming a better person') IS '..the teaching of the BuddhasI think that trying to become a better person might hinder the removal of personality view.
The issue of becoming a 'better person' becomes critical AFTER stream entry- that is after you have got rid of the Self-view- because removing all defilements is required for Anagami stage practice. So self view is NOT a big issue- even though conceit might be- but then even conceit is undermined by the erradication of self view.
Just my opinion..
with metta
Matheesha
With Metta
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Re: the great rebirth debate
Is there even a single clear quote about that?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?
best wishes, acinteyyo
Rebirth is often said after "with the break-up of the body, after death..."
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p143597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The "Body" is defined as the physical body that exists for a long time:
"Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Buddha had so often, and in so many suttas have defined body as literal body that it is very unbelievable to refuse His definition in order to make the body sound like something else, thus refuting what the "with the break-up of the body, after death..." line means.
Most suttas would NOT make sense if we remove the rebirth of the body.
Re: the great rebirth debate
Au contraire..
As Ajahn Buddhadasa has pointed out clearly and repeatedly , if we put the Three Lives Model to one side a whole series of meanings start to leap out of the Suttas that are obscured by a semi Hindu model. A model necessitated by the culture which the Buddha commenced his teaching ministry.
In a very real sense the dissolution of the body and its rebirth happen with every breath.
As Ajahn Buddhadasa has pointed out clearly and repeatedly , if we put the Three Lives Model to one side a whole series of meanings start to leap out of the Suttas that are obscured by a semi Hindu model. A model necessitated by the culture which the Buddha commenced his teaching ministry.
In a very real sense the dissolution of the body and its rebirth happen with every breath.
Last edited by PeterB on Fri Aug 12, 2011 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: the great rebirth debate
In MN130 He rejected the idea that He borrowed elements such as Hell Realms:PeterB wrote: The Buddha did not spring fully formed from the head of Zeus..or Brahma.
He arose in a culture with a particular world view already formed from ancient times.
He used those elements to arrive at a non ontological view, but one which borrowed from the ontology of the prevailing culture.
``Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it.û
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... uta-e.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Furthermore, His philosophic culture was very very diverse. There were teachers who denied rebirth. There were Materialists, Sceptics and other kinds of Teachers. He could take Materialist or Skeptic view if that was true and useful. He didn't.
I find it preposterous if He "borrowed" false teaching from culture of his listeners just to get bigger Audience and more converts... I take it as Axiom that what He said is true, for if we allow Him to speak falsehood, then entire teaching could be negated, or one could pick-and-chose what to believe and what not to believe.
Re: the great rebirth debate
PeterB wrote:Au contraire..
As Ajahn Buddhadasa has pointed out clearly and repeatedly , if we put the Three Lives Model to one side a whole series of meanings start to leap out of the Suttas that are obscured by a semi Hindu model. In a very real sense the dissolution of the body and its rebirth happen with every breath.
Maybe it is the Hindu model that took Buddha's teaching and made their own teaching?
Why limit D.O. only to one model such as momentary? I believe it can be used for 3-1 lifetimes, momentary,, and structural.
It doesn't refute Rebirth. It depends on it. For why end suffering if we are going to be done with it even if we don't do anything and die? Hitler and Mother Theresa would equally achieve parinibbana... With one life 99.999% of dukkha is already gone...
The Buddha clearly explained what He meant by Body:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p143597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is denial to assume that He meant something else by the word body, unless he redefined the term.
"[9] "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away & re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Please note how the Body is defined in that sutta. There is absolutely no hint that it was any other body than the one that can walk, stand, sit, lie, decompose in the cemetery, is made of bodyparts (31 are listed for contemplation), and is made of 4 elements (earth, water, fire, air).
Re: the great rebirth debate
PeterB wrote:Perhaps you would care to show the reference for the Buddha saying that teachers will be poets ?
It would instantly become my favourite quotation of his.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"This, monks, is the third future danger, unarisen at present, that will arise in the future. Be alert to it and, being alert, work to get rid of it.
"And again, there will be in the course of the future monks undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment. They — being undeveloped in body... virtue... mind... discernment — will not listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, profound, transcendent, connected with the Void — are being recited. They will not lend ear, will not set their hearts on knowing them, will not regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping and mastering. Thus from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt discipline; from corrupt discipline, corrupt Dhamma.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230