the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

Mknicke wrote: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.
Let's take a look at some of your claims. In your review you juxtapose what you call a "metaphysical Gotama" against a "pragmatic, phenomenalist Gotama." I assume that you're not suggesting that the Buddha suffered from a dissociative identity disorder. Yet you opine that the teachings of these two personalities are in conflict, indicating what you see as a "dramatic discrepancy" within the canonical discourses. You suggest that we should read the teachings of the former Gotama regarding past and future lives as merely comprising "metaphorical poetry." Is this not an assertion that either (i) the teachings of the "metaphysical Gotama" are based on an intentional strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, or (ii) these teachings were never intended to be interpreted literally, or (iii) they were composed and inserted into the canon by devotees who were incapable of accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma?

And again, in Authenticity, Anxiety, and the Revision of the Pali Canon you see more conflict and discord. You propose that "significant portions of the Samyutta Nikaya appear to be propaganda, designed either to denigrate the leader of one faction or reinforce the authority of another." Is this not another charge that significant portions of this Nikāya were composed and inserted into the canon by deluded devotees who were more concerned with (and consumed by) unskillful worldly dhammas than with accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma?

And in The Goal of Practice you suggest that there is evidence throughout the canon of attempts to "reconcile Buddhist thought with Vedic soteriology." That is, the traditional formulation of the four noble truths wherein the noble eightfold path leads to the fruition of nibbāna is nothing short of "a metaphysical claim, one that tends to tame the subversive nature of Gotama's teachings and bring them back in line with the mainstream Vedantic doctrine that prevailed in the society of northern India in Gotama's era." Is this not another assertion that at some point after the Buddha's death the dhamma was reworked by devotees who were incapable of accurately retaining and transmitting Gotama's true dhamma?
Last edited by Nyana on Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Ñāṇa wrote:
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?
If I could hazard a guess, it
Mknicke wrote: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.
Well, much of the Dhamma might be said to violate common sense, as common sense is often not common, nor sensible, and Dhamma practitioners are trying to go against the grain anyway. The rest seems to me to be fairly put, however.

One last point, on heteroglossia:
Ñāṇa wrote:at some point after the Buddha's death the dhamma was reworked by devotees...
This certainly happened, and certainly multiple times. The Nikayas are not a homogenous monolith.
Last edited by daverupa on Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • "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]
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

daverupa wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Okay then, let's start here: What precisely is inaccurate about the traditional view of the Buddha's teachings on rebirth?
If I could hazard a guess, it
Mknicke wrote: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.
Yes, yes, according to Knickelbine, Secular Buddhism exists, in part, because "the metaphysics of ancient India cannot be embraced by an educated, intellectually honest person today."

But back to the question: How precisely do the Buddhist teachings on rebirth violate common sense, scientific knowledge, and the core prinicples of anatta and conditioned arising? What precisely is inaccurate about the traditional view of the Buddha's teachings on rebirth?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
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?

No, but I am realistic about defilements and motivations of people. When the going gets tough, one needs sufficient amount of reasons to follow Dhamma rather than something more pleasant in the short term. If there is only one life, then it is silly to cause oneself suffering and deprivation for the goal that would be achieved anyways at dying, before which one would be indulging in sensual pleasures before death - Parinibbana.

If there is rebirth than it makes full sense to follow Dhamma which may in this life lead to pain and sorrow to the point of tears only to stop much greater amount of sorrow and suffering if one didn't follow Dhamma.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Ñāṇa wrote:Is this not an assertion that either (i) the teachings of the "metaphysical Gotama" are based on an intentional strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma...
Is there something disturbing about that possibility?
To move his listeners from mundane right view to transcendent right view, the Buddha used the teaching on rebirth to inspire not only a sense of heedfulness in his listeners, but also a sense of samvega: dismay and terror at the prospect of not gaining release from rebirth.”
This quote from Mark's article is clear evidence of a belief that the Buddha used rebirth view on people who were not yet capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, the one of transcendent right view. Shocking, isn't it, that anyone would put forth that view, especially when it's a quote from Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

:namaste:
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

daverupa wrote:One last point, on heteroglossia:
Ñāṇa wrote:at some point after the Buddha's death the dhamma was reworked by devotees...
This certainly happened, and certainly multiple times. The Nikayas are not a homogenous monolith.
As you probably know, I don't dispute that there was expansion and redaction of the canon. But the claims of Knickelbine and Batchelor, et al, go much further than this. Where I see a canon that displays a remarkably high degree of internal consistency and integrated harmony -- a dhamma that is just as relevant today as it was 2000+ years ago -- Knickelbine sees dramatic doctrinal discrepancies and evidence of conflict and discord inserted by devotees who couldn't maintain an accurate transmission uncontaminated by worldly dhammas. This seems to me to be a highly cynical reading of the texts and amounts to belittling the entire received tradition.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Hello Geoff, all,
Ñāṇa wrote: But back to the question: How precisely do the Buddhist teachings on rebirth violate common sense, scientific knowledge, and the core prinicples of anatta and conditioned arising? What precisely is inaccurate about the traditional view of the Buddha's teachings on rebirth?
Rebirth makes sense only if we consider anatta. It doesn't work if one believes in atta (as some kind of personality with memory).
  • Unless and until someone reveals an observable entity or substance that can contain human memory and personality after the death of the body, there is no real evidence we can hope to find of rebirth.
    http://www.secularbuddhistassociation.c ... ew-part-i/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is the same kind of objection that I've seen Mahayanist-turned-Catholic use. He claimed that rebirth is like death because when a person is reborn as, lets say, a coachroach, then one isn't the same person because all the past memories and personality is gone. And since this person clings to the idea of a Self that has such and such memories and personality, he couldn't accept that so he rejected rebirth.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

nowheat wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:Is this not an assertion that either (i) the teachings of the "metaphysical Gotama" are based on an intentional strategy for teaching morality to people who weren't capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma...
Is there something disturbing about that possibility?
It's not disturbing, just inaccurate.
nowheat wrote:
To move his listeners from mundane right view to transcendent right view, the Buddha used the teaching on rebirth to inspire not only a sense of heedfulness in his listeners, but also a sense of samvega: dismay and terror at the prospect of not gaining release from rebirth.”
This quote from Mark's article is clear evidence of a belief that the Buddha used rebirth view on people who were not yet capable of understanding Gotama's true dhamma, the one of transcendent right view. Shocking, isn't it, that anyone would put forth that view, especially when it's a quote from Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Nothing's shocking. But I'd suggest that you're misunderstanding Ṭhānissaro.
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by reflection »

Mknicke wrote:
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.
For many people it is common sense that rebirth doesn't exists, for many others it is common sense that it does. As said, common sense says nothing.

If science were to disprove rebirth, you would have a point. However, it does not. We could go into an entire debate about this, but let's not. Let me just say that most significant, there is no tested theory on how consciousness arises in the brain, only speculations. So, scientific knowledge is not violated here, only scientific hypotheses. But that doesn't prove anything. Hypotheses have often been proved wrong in the past.

It is exactly dependent origination/arising that describes how rebirth can happen without a solid self, without a soul - in the traditional interpretation. I know some teachers tempt to have another interpretation of dependent arising, but I don't think you can't use their interpretation to back up your statement that the suttas don't match, because as far as I know, Thanissaro also thinks that it teaches rebirth.
Last edited by reflection on Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

Alex123 wrote:Rebirth makes sense only if we consider anatta.
Yes, of course.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Alex123 wrote: If there is only one life, then it is silly to cause oneself suffering and deprivation for the goal that would be achieved anyways at dying, before which one would be indulging in sensual pleasures before death - Parinibbana.
Except that this flies in the face of the evidence of this Secular Buddhist who has strongly hedonistic tendencies. My practice doesn't cause me suffering and deprivation. It reduces suffering and enriches my life beyond measure.
If there is rebirth than it makes full sense to follow Dhamma which may in this life lead to pain and sorrow to the point of tears only to stop much greater amount of sorrow and suffering if one didn't follow Dhamma.
If there is rebirth it makes full sense to follow the Dhamma. If there is not rebirth, it makes full sense to follow the dhamma and get the very most out of this life that I have. This is what the Buddha taught: whether there is or is not rebirth, the dhamma is the best path. Do you actually disagree with the Buddha on that point?

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Ñāṇa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Rebirth makes sense only if we consider anatta.
Yes, of course.
I ask these questions often and have never gotten a good answers:

Why would the Buddha teach that I should be more concerned with *my* next life than the lives of all sentient beings?

How does concern with the quality of my next life help to distance me from "This is me, this is my self, this I am"?

:namaste:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

Nowheat,
nowheat wrote:Иf there is not rebirth, it makes full sense to follow the dhamma and get the very most out of this life that I have. This is what the Buddha taught: whether there is or is not rebirth, the dhamma is the best path. Do you actually disagree with the Buddha on that point?
:namaste:
If Dhamma practice causes more suffering in the present, the why would follow it if one believed in one-life-only? Why cause oneself more suffering for the goal that would be reached even without it?
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

nowheat wrote: Why would the Buddha teach that I should be more concerned with *my* next life than the lives of all sentient beings?
If your head is on fire, why be concerned about putting out the fire? It hurts.

As for helping others: You can't really help others until you can help yourself first.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Alex123 wrote:If Dhamma practice causes more suffering in the present,...
It doesn't, though. This is a hypothetical without a referent.
Ñāṇa wrote:Where I see a canon that displays a remarkably high degree of internal consistency and integrated harmony -- a dhamma that is just as relevant today as it was 2000+ years ago -- Knickelbine sees dramatic doctrinal discrepancies and evidence of conflict and discord inserted by devotees who couldn't maintain an accurate transmission uncontaminated by worldly dhammas. This seems to me to be a highly cynical reading of the texts and amounts to belittling the entire received tradition.
And where you see high cynicism and belittling analysis, I see a vibrant discussion of the Dhamma in the West which doesn't have to climb out from under the baggage of having put this or that received (and often nationalist) tradition, in toto, on an unassailable pedestal of religious infallibility.

(Of course, if "infallible" isn't part of your claim, then these different perspectives are simply a matter of preferential degree as pertains to how much scholastic investigation we are going to let inform our understanding of the Dhamma, in which case these arguments amount to "my heuristic is better than your heuristic", whereupon we should all be ashamed, and we should all read MN 48 and MN 104.)

:heart:
  • "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]
Post Reply