the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Sarva
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sarva »

Buckwheat wrote:
Sarva wrote:Rebirth is rather a historic question; what lead to this birth, not what's next.
I assume this is your own opinion? From the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is about both past and future. The ongoing result of the causal factors and kamma.
Yes, Buckwheat, this is my own opinion. Thanks for the reply. :hello:
My understanding in Buddhism is that there can be a last birth because a futuristic rebirth depends on two factors: self* and karma. Actions (karma) that have been done or are happening in the present must have results. My opinion is that the result is invevitable as all action has a result, however for there to be a recipient of the results to prompt a rebirth there has to be a self concept or owner of the karma. With the oberservation that there is no self* there is the observation that there will be no more rebirth.

Metta

* There is no self which is not subject to change. So the error of clinging to a concept of self should also be kept in mind.
“Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.” — SN 22:86
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

vinasp wrote:Hi Spiny, everyone,

Quote:
"But in DO "death" is defined in straightforward physical terms - so I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here."

How can you say that "death" is described in straightforward physical terms?

1. It is clearly said to be the "death" of "a being" (satta).

2. A being is defined in terms of craving.

3. An Arahant has no craving - he is therefore, not a being.

4. So, for an Arahant, the link "death" has already ceased, since there
is no longer "a being" to die.

5. The body will, of course, at some point, stop functioning and will
disintegrate.

Regards, Vincent.
Vincent, wouldn't it be simpler to say that an Arahant still experiences ( biological ) death, but doesn't experience it as dukkha? Whereas for everyone else biological death is dukkha? And of course for everyone else dukkha ( including biological death ) arises in dependence on ( biological ) birth. That's how DO is described in the suttas.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

nowheat wrote:Any time we are engaged in activities that have reference to that sense-of-self, we are in the DA process, engaged in fueling it, adding to our concepts of self, so we are part of what is "born, ages, suffers, dies" (in that we are feeding off of those experiences).
I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.

Spiny
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Spiny O'Norman wrote: I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.
Greetings, Spiny,

I've done (aging-and-) Death at great length, now you want me to do Birth and then Becoming? Will you be asking me to work backward through the entire chain? I ask because my thesis is quite lengthy.

:namaste:
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

nowheat wrote:
Spiny O'Norman wrote: I can see that clinging to self is an important aspect of the clinging described in DO. But I don't see how your interpretation is consistent with the section of DO which describes biological birth arising in dependence on becoming in the 3 realms.
Greetings, Spiny,

I've done (aging-and-) Death at great length, now you want me to do Birth and then Becoming? Will you be asking me to work backward through the entire chain? I ask because my thesis is quite lengthy.

:namaste:
Yes, I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the birth and becoming nidanas.

Spiny
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Spiny O'Norman wrote: Yes, I'd be interested to hear your interpretation of the birth and becoming nidanas.
Thanks for being interested in it, Spiny.

The thesis that underlies my lengthy post on the Buddha's use of "death" in dependent origination is no small thing, and though it simplifies (at least for me) what is being said with DO -- and sharpens its focus quite a bit, as well -- the explanation of what it is, and how all the pieces fit, and what each link means, and all the layers to it will be far less clearly understood if I try to lay them out in bits and pieces. So I don't think I'm going to give that a serious go just now. It really needs the whole thesis to be read all at once to make sense. The good news about this is that I have put the thesis in writing and submitted it for review, and it has been accepted for the jury process. When it gets published, I'll give details here.

:namaste:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings nowheat,
nowheat wrote:It really needs the whole thesis to be read all at once to make sense. The good news about this is that I have put the thesis in writing and submitted it for review, and it has been accepted for the jury process. When it gets published, I'll give details here.
:thumbsup:

I look forward to it.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

mikenz66 wrote:A new booklet:

The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... birth.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ebirth.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a critique of Ven. Ṭhānissaro's The Truth of Rebirth by Mark Knickelbine:

“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part I

“The Truth of Rebirth”: A Review, Part 2

“The Truth of Rebirth” : A Review, Part 3

Without giving a detailed critique of Knickelbine's review, I'll just say that I found his criticisms weak primarily due to the weakness of the "secular" hermeneutic founded on the premise that the historical Buddha was either an agnostic or materialist, and that all of the teachings on rebirth found in the Pāli canon are either (i) based on a strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, or (ii) were never intended to be interpreted literally, or (iii) were composed by deluded Indians in the centuries after the Buddha's death who weren't capable of accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma.

Unfortunately, this premise is entirely speculative. The methodology of textual criticism is not able and will never be able to demonstrate what the historical Buddha actually taught. This is why a necessary distinction needs to be made between Original Buddhism and Early Buddhism. Original Buddhism refers to the actual oral teachings of the historical Gotama and his immediate disciples. Early Buddhism refers to the early formative pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism and the extant textual documents which claim to be records of the Buddha's teachings as remembered by his immediate disciples after his death.

And while we can infer some significant information about the early pre-sectarian period of Indian Buddhism with the help of text-critical analysis of the extant discourses, we will never be able to prove with any degree of certainty which of these doctrines and training rules actually originated with the Buddha himself. What is clearly evident, however, is that teachings pertaining to rebirth, higher and lower realms, and supernormal knowledges are found throughout the discourses and are thoroughly integrated into the thought-world of Early Buddhism. And prior to the modern age, informed as it is by empirical science and a materialist worldview, these teachings on rebirth, etc., were never questioned, denied, or dismissed by any Buddhist school or commentator.
Mknicke
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:33 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Mknicke »

You're certainly welcome to dispute my review of "The Truth of Rebirth" but please don't misrepresent what it says. Neither I nor any other secular dharma writer I'm aware of would make any of the oversimplified and unjustifiable claims you attribute to me. What I do say is that the Theravadin faith that the entire Pali canon presents an accurate and doctrinally and logically consistent picture of Gotama's teachings on rebirth is unjustifiable, based on either historical evidence or on the heteroglossic nature of the texts themselves. What my review says is that, to make any sense of the Pali texts, we have to interpret what we read there. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation violates common sense, scientific knowlege and the core prinicples of anatta and conditioned arising, and is no more justifiable than an interpretation based on the many passages of the canon in which Gotama advises against metaphysical speculation and in favor of liberation in this very life. I would advise folks to go to my review and read it for themselves. I welcome responsible discussion.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

Mknicke wrote:What I do say is that the Theravadin faith that the entire Pali canon presents an accurate and doctrinally and logically consistent picture of Gotama's teachings on rebirth is unjustifiable, based on either historical evidence or on the heteroglossic nature of the texts themselves.
Okay then, let's start here: What precisely is inaccurate about the traditional view of the Buddha's teachings on rebirth?
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SDC »

:popcorn:

3 years and 138 pages later this thread finally gets interesting.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Mknicke wrote: What I do say is that the Theravadin faith that the entire Pali canon presents an accurate and doctrinally and logically consistent picture of Gotama's teachings on rebirth is unjustifiable, based on either historical evidence or on the heteroglossic nature of the texts themselves. What my review says is that, to make any sense of the Pali texts, we have to interpret what we read there.
The suttas are so much filled with talk about devas, other realms, and rebirth that it would require cutting 3/4 of Dhamma out of the suttas. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Also I am very unconvinced when people ignore clear-as-clear-can-be phrases such as:
  • "with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in..."
and considering how the Buddha consistently defined body as:
  • "this body — endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother & father, nourished with rice & porridge",
I cannot see how one can make 2+2 equal other than 4. I cannot see how the Buddha could have been any clearer than that.

The suttas are filled with such material that cannot simply be a metaphor.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

  • TB is saying that since we do not always perceive the connection between our actions and our happiness, that means that the connection can only exist outside the framework of a single human lifetime. Therefore, unless we accept that there are multiple lifetimes, we can’t accept Gotama’s teaching as complete and defensible. Presumably, however, if one could see in this life how one’s intentions and behaviors lead to their outcomes, belief in rebirth would be unnecessary; and I would argue that this is precisely what the practice Gotama taught enables us to do.
    http://www.secularbuddhistassociation.c ... ew-part-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We often see lying, backstabbing, aggressive shrewd and cunning psychopaths get to the top because they unfairly beat those who are not so aggressive and are push overs. Within the framework of one-life, they are on the top. But if we consider that there are multiple lifetimes we can consider that their victory is only for this short life and the bad kamma will catch up on them causing more trouble than it was worth.

N8P can at times be difficult:
  • "Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If there is one life only, why not "live life to the full"? Why burden oneself with restrictions (that deny short term gain) even to the point of tears ? If there is kamma and rebirth, then being a nice guy who follows N8P, even if painful in this life, will eventually triumph in reaching Nibbana.

If there is only one life, then it is dumb to follow what can lead to pain, sorrow, tears, deprivation, etc.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Alex123 wrote:If there is one life only, why not "live life to the full"? Why burden oneself with restrictions (that deny short term gain) even to the point of tears ?
Such an appeal to incredulity is fallacious.
  • "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
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Alex123 wrote:We often see lying, backstabbing, aggressive shrewd and cunning psychopaths get to the top because they unfairly beat those who are not so aggressive and are push overs. Within the framework of one-life, they are on the top. But if we consider that there are multiple lifetimes we can consider that their victory is only for this short life and the bad kamma will catch up on them causing more trouble than it was worth.
Heaven for good people and hell for bad people? Do you really think the Dhamma is based on petty morality?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
Post Reply