How do you know that?alan wrote: And don't believe any average person who says they know. They don't!
The Buddha himself was not specific about his rebirths.
He came to an understanding of the relation of rebirth and kamma only upon his awakening.
The kind of validation that can come from such non-mainstream views as that of Ian Stevenson can in my opinion only have the reverse of it's intended effect.
I agree.Mr Man wrote: For me Buddhist practice stands up well with out the need for "scientific" validation.
Stevenson's research has pointed to interesting phenomena that warrants a serious look, whatever the explaination. It neither proves nor disproves the Buddha's teachings, but it does not hurt to ask the question of the OP, as long as we do not get to caught in it and read more into it than is there.The kind of validation that can come from such non-mainstream views as that of Ian Stevenson can in my opinion only have the reverse of it's intended effect.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.PeterB wrote:I agree entirely Mr Man, with each of your points. My only caveat would be that I think that you are over generous in your assessment of Stevenson's credibility.
His science stinks. It would not take a Richard Dawkins to drive a coach and several pairs of horses through it.
The only reason it has stayed relative unmauled is that no one takes it seriously enough to unload any big guns in its direction.
But that does not negate what is actual interest, the accounts themselves.PeterB wrote:One inconvenient issue that is usually omitted in any Buddhist discussion of Stevenson is the fact that the data that he claims to produce supports the idea of Hindu type Reincarnation....including a " carrying forward " of various physical characteristics.... that are at odds with the Buddhist concept of Punabhava.
He is actually positing the reincarnation of an atman.
"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...
"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right view."
Yes, indeed - doubting in rebirth means that your Right View factor is not yet complete.
MN 9 wrote:The Wholesome and the Unwholesome
3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma.
4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome.
7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma."
daverupa wrote:There's only one section in the entirety of MN 9 that makes even an oblique reference to rebirth (24-27, from within 1-71), and the whole thing is couched within terms of alternative and equivalent ways of coming to Right View. The idea that rebirth is a necessary part of Right View is wholly incorrect.
A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view.
B2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is a next world' is his right view.
PeterB wrote: the most clanging of alarm bells.
Users browsing this forum: Ben, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests