the great rebirth debate

[stuka]

If so, that would only be a problem for one who is attached to such speculative/superstitious views.

Could you elaborate

You might want to elaborate on your understanding of the Cārvāka view as you understand it. The short of it, though, is that the Buddha's transcendent teachings transcend speculative and superstitious views, including the various speculative and superstitious views of kamma and reincarnation/"rebirth".

[clw_uk]

ok sure,

My understanding of the Cārvāka teaching on kamma is this

They taught that actions produce results but as they held the view that there was no other existence apart from the one that is experienced now not all results would bear to fruitation so they limited kamma to just this existence, which is the only logical way it could be if there was but one existence for kamma to operate.

At least that is my understanding of their teachings reguarding kamma.

[clw_uk]

If so, that would only be a problem for one who is attached to such speculative/superstitious views.

Could you elaborate

You might want to elaborate on your understanding of the Cārvāka view as you understand it. The short of it, though, is that the Buddha's transcendent teachings transcend speculative and superstitious views, including the various speculative and superstitious views of kamma and reincarnation/"rebirth".

Sorry for not adding this in last post i didnt see the rest of yours.

If kamma is a speculative view then why did the buddha expound it as a fact not as a speculation?

[stuka]

ok sure,

My understanding of the Cārvāka teaching on kamma is this

They taught that actions produce results but as they held the [stuka: speculative] view that there was no other existence apart from the one that is experienced now not all results would bear to fruitation

...see...?

so they limited [stuka: their speculative view's definition] of kamma to just this existence, which is the only logical way it could be if there was but one existence for [stuka: a speculative view of] kamma to operate.

...see...?

At least that is my understanding of their teachings reguarding [stuka: the Cārvāka speculative view of] kamma.

...see...? The Cārvāka is but one of many speculative views of kamma, each with its own set of "rules" by which the kamma they imagine is supposed to operate.

The Buddha pointed out that none of them really account for the complexities of life in the real world in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.

[clw_uk]

But if all questions about kamma and rebirth are just speculations and inherently misunderstandings and/or useless then how does one come to know for sure if kamma or rebirth etc is true at all in any sense?

Thank your for your reply though you have given me much to contemplate

[stuka]

If kamma is a speculative view then why did the buddha expound it as a fact not as a speculation?

Because the Buddha, as a good teacher, taught according to the mental abilities and understandings of the listener, pointing toward his own teachings. Kamma and reincarnation beliefs were entrenched in the culture of his time. He was knowledgeable and well-versed in all of the major philosophies and religions of his time and place, and conversed with persons who approached him using their own lexicon and base of understanding to point toward his own teachings. For example, when asked by a "naked dog-duty ascetic" and a "naked ox-duty ascetic" where they would be reincarnated, he pointed out that as one practices, so one goes: each would become a dog or an ox. His own (transcendent) teaching was that "kamma" is intention (cetana). Our mental, verbal, and bodily actions follow our intentions.

[stuka]

But if all questions about kamma and rebirth are just speculations and inherently misunderstandings and/or useless then how does one come to know for sure if kamma or rebirth etc is true at all in any sense?

Does it really matter? The Buddha taught that speculative view is an obstacle to the eradication of misery and suffering.

Thank your for your reply though you have given me much to contemplate

You're quite welcome.

[clw_uk]

So he only taught rebirth/kamma in order to get his message through in some way to the people he was teaching. As such they are only concepts, only words to convey a deeper meaning?

[stuka]

So he only taught rebirth/kamma in order to get his message through in some way to the people he was teaching. As such they are only concepts, only words to convey a deeper meaning?

Many could not see his own transcendent teachings at all. Too far outside of their little box of speculative views. The same is true today.

[clw_uk]

So he only taught rebirth/kamma in order to get his message through in some way to the people he was teaching. As such they are only concepts, only words to convey a deeper meaning?

Many could not see his own transcendent teachings at all. Too far outside of their little box of speculative views. The same is true today.

That may well be true. However does it really do any harm for one to take rebirth as literal? I mean apart from the buddha there are others who attained what he attained in the centuries since his death, if rebirth was so detremental to the dhamma you would have thought at least one arahant during all these centuries would have done something to correct it.

[clw_uk]

Acctually ive just kinda realised, all my posts revolved around "me" just pandering to craving. I kinda now see it as there is no rebirth as there is no "I" to be reborn as at everymoment there is just rise and fall without and "I" passing through. It was like "I" was asking what will be reborn next without realising, which is absurd because right here, right now there is no permanent self so there can be no "I" to be reborn as all is anatta.


Funny it was just like a light bulb went on,

Thanks to all who participated in this post as it has really helped my understanding

Metta
Craig

[Element]

I kinda now see it as there is no rebirth as there is no "I" to be reborn. Right now there is no permanent self so there can be no "I" to be reborn as all is anatta.

Funny it was just like a light bulb went on.

Indeed.

However, when the crunch comes, this lightbulb must be transformed into realisation. Realisation is the clear discernment that this light bulb can end any form of dukkha, both gross & subtle.

[clw_uk]

DO you mean i need to contemplate on the i just had?

[Element]

Clw

The purpose of the Buddha's teaching, including anatta, is to end suffering.

Thus when death approaches our life, dukkha or unease may potentially arise, in either gross or subtle forms.

If we realise anatta, there will be no dukkha at all because there will be no 'me' dying.

There is the realisation, this life was merely life, merely aggregates, but never 'ours'.

With realisation, there will be the effortless 'dispossession' of life as though is was never possessed in the first place.

With metta,

Element

[Prasadachitta]

I think all teachings are best not taken altogether literally. Learning needs space for new understandings to flower. I dont think real knowledge can come from taking a bunch of concepts we already think we understand and mixing them up in various ways to form new meanings. If we listen to the words of the Buddha with a strictly defined idea of what each word means then we will only get a different way of looking at what we already know. It seems to me that the Buddha knew this was the case. I think he taught in a way that would bring a greater degree of happiness and prosperity for those who take him literally as well as in a way that would lead some to transcendence. This is where I think we must tread very lightly. We must do our best to allow for literal understandings which foster well being. This is not easy and that is why I defer to the Buddha. I actually think Karma and Rebirth is the closest and most compassionate way reality can be described when we expect to be taken literally.


Metta


Gabriel

Edited for more clarity

[Element]

This is not easy and that is why I defer to the Buddha. I actually think Karma and Rebirth is the closest and most compassionate way reality can be described.

In fact, Buddha rarely used Karma & Rebirth to describe reality. If we actually read the suttas, we will find the vast minority of teachings are about Karma & Rebirth. When we defer to the Buddha, we will aspire to realisation of the core teachings that are connected with Emptiness.

[Prasadachitta]

Element

gabrielbranbury wrote:This is not easy and that is why I defer to the Buddha. I actually think Karma and Rebirth is the closest and most compassionate way reality can be described.


In fact, Buddha rarely used Karma & Rebirth to describe reality. If we actually read the suttas, we will find the vast minority of teachings are about Karma & Rebirth. When we defer to the Buddha, we will aspire to realisation of the core teachings that are connected with Emptiness.

It appears you are not paying attention to the context of my statement. Oh well....

Metta

Gabriel

[Prasadachitta]

Doesn't two thousand five hundred years of a broad spectrum of people approaching the teachings of the Buddha from many angles with virtually no great recognized teacher disputing the value of rebirth as a teaching have at least some weight?


I feel it does and I am not really that attached to rebirth.

Metta

Gabriel

[clw_uk]

True but this could just mean that rebirth is good to have as a view but not a representation of an actual process.

It is call right view with effulents in the pali canon and when they discuss supermundane right view it never covers rebirth only thinkgs like 4 noble truths etc.

[Prasadachitta]

True but this could just mean that rebirth is good to have as a view but not a representation of an actual process.

It is call right view with effulents in the pali canon and when they discuss supermundane right view it never covers rebirth only thinkgs like 4 noble truths etc.

Bingo!!!

And we should all know that super mundane right view does not come about through talking. We will not be able to describe it and it will transform all our notions of being and not being. Also I tend to think it will include upholding the idea that we will inherit the fruit of our actions into future lives as well as guarding against the idea that we will not. Twenty five hundred years of evidence backs this up. I tend to see the Buddhist tradition as peppered with enlightened beings from the Buddha until now.


Metta

Gabriel