the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

daverupa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:If Dhamma practice causes more suffering in the present,...
It doesn't, though. This is a hypothetical without a referent.
Rough example: A person who is rich (or middle class) and successful in life (in all respects) becomes a monk. There, due to natural instincts, he struggles very much to keep the precepts. He lives in poverty and rough physical surroundings where he denies "life's little pleasures". His meditation is not exactly perfect, and his new life is a struggle.

If he has sufficiently strong faith in rebirth than he can bear it for future ease. But if he lacks faith, then why ordain?

Similarly to a lesser degree with a layfollower. S/he can refuse worldly pleasures and try to meditate without much success (and thus bring all the disappointments, frustrations, lack of fullfilment if haven't followed this path). Lay person could deny life's pleasures in order to perfectly follow N8P and thus suffer more.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

daverupa wrote: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.
Dhamma? Maybe. But hardly the Buddhadhamma. I can understand why someone would want to appropriate a few of the ethical and meditative aspects of Buddhism, even though they dismiss kamma, as well as nibbāna as the fruition of the noble eightfold path, and the entire Pāli tradition. But what I fail to understand is why, when they clearly aren't interested in sincerely going for refuge in the three jewels, would they nevertheless want to identify themselves as Buddhist? The views of the "Secular Buddhists" that I've read are far more compatible with Cārvāka philosophy than with any Buddhist tradition that's ever existed.
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 Ñāṇa,
Ñāṇa wrote:But what I fail to understand is why, when they clearly aren't interested in sincerely going for refuge in the three jewels, would they nevertheless want to identify themselves as Buddhist? The views of the "Secular Buddhists" that I've read are far more compatible with Cārvāka philosophy than with any Buddhist tradition that's ever existed.
It seems there's a hierarchy of belief-systems and priorities at play.

Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary. To us that is very natural, but we too have other interests and "isms" that we might sign up for too. For example, I could say that as well as being Buddhist, I am a "market Socialist". Being "market Socialist" is subordinate to being "Buddhist" and where there is conflict between the two, I will side in favour of the more primary "ism". The person to whom “market Socialism” is their primary “ism” might give me dirty looks when I come out with Dhammic thoughts that are not aligned with their primary “ism”. We need to be able to place ourselves in the other person’s shoes and avoid one-sidedness and unrealistic assumptions.

These "Secular Buddhists" you speak of are therefore happy to apply Dhammic principles where they don’t come in conflict with their primary “ism”. The thing is though, there’s nothing in the definition of Secular Buddhism that tells you what their primary “ism” is. Is it Agnosticism? Scientism? Capitalism? Vegetarianism? Humanism? Maybe their “Buddhism” isn’t even second in their scheme of things – maybe it’s third, eighth, or twenty-ninth on the priority list.

It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary, but for many, they are able to respect Buddhism, apply what parts of the Dhamma don’t conflict with their other “isms” and gain certain benefit from that. I do not think that should be derided – just called out for what it is. I also think it is good to be tolerant of people not placing Buddhism as their primary "ism", lest we turn them away from it and they drop it altogether.

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."
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Prasadachitta »

retrofuturist wrote: :goodpost:
Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary. To us that is very natural, but we too have other interests and "isms" that we might sign up for too. For example, I could say that as well as being Buddhist, I am a "market Socialist". Being "market Socialist" is subordinate to being "Buddhist" and where there is conflict between the two, I will side in favour of the more primary "ism". The person to whom “market Socialism” is their primary “ism” might give me dirty looks when I come out with Dhammic thoughts that are not aligned with their primary “ism”. We need to be able to place ourselves in the other person’s shoes and avoid one-sidedness and unrealistic assumptions.

These "Secular Buddhists" you speak of are therefore happy to apply Dhammic principles where they don’t come in conflict with their primary “ism”. The thing is though, there’s nothing in the definition of Secular Buddhism that tells you what their primary “ism” is. Is it Agnosticism? Scientism? Capitalism? Vegetarianism? Humanism? Maybe their “Buddhism” isn’t even second in their scheme of things – maybe it’s third, eighth, or twenty-ninth on the priority list.

It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary, but for many, they are able to respect Buddhism, apply what parts of the Dhamma don’t conflict with their other “isms” and gain certain benefit from that. I do not think that should be derided – just called out for what it is. I also think it is good to be tolerant of people not placing Buddhism as their primary "ism", lest we turn them away from it and they drop it altogether.

Metta,
Retro. :)
:goodpost:
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

retrofuturist wrote:It seems there's a hierarchy of belief-systems and priorities at play.

Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.
Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well; the key issue is "other views", which covers different ground when seen from a secular vantage point versus a traditional vantage point. I am sure examples can be easily called to mind, but a Thai receiving-cloth will serve as an example of something which dwells at different places in the hierarchy and belief system and prioritization of a secular 1st-generation Buddhist in the States versus a traditional nth-generation Buddhist in Thailand.
retrofuturist wrote:These "Secular Buddhists" you speak of are therefore happy to apply Dhammic principles where they don’t come in conflict with their primary “ism”. The thing is though, there’s nothing in the definition of Secular Buddhism that tells you what their primary “ism” is. Is it Agnosticism? Scientism? Capitalism? Vegetarianism? Humanism? Maybe their “Buddhism” isn’t even second in their scheme of things – maybe it’s third, eighth, or twenty-ninth on the priority list.
On this reasoning, "Thai Buddhists" put being Thai first, and Buddhist second, yet by putting 'secular' where 'Thai' once stood there is a problem. This rather looks like a double standard, given that both terms are serving the same classificatory purpose.

Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.
retrofuturist wrote:It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary,...
:|
retrofuturist wrote:... just called out for what it is.
"Other sincere practitioners of the 37 Wings seeking to put a final end to dukkha" should suffice for all.

: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]
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Alex123 wrote:But if he lacks faith, then why ordain?
Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.
  • "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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

daverupa wrote:
Alex123 wrote:But if he lacks faith, then why ordain?
Appeal to ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't imagine what the motive in such a case would be, does not thereby prove such a motive would be absent.
I am just being realistic. It is normal nature to avoid pain and go for pleasure. Like it or not, it is how most beings function unless they are Awakened.
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 Dave,
retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.
daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.
This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote: adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.
Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.

Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nondenominational wrote: adj.
Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.
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."
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Alex123 wrote:Nowheat,
nowheat wrote: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?
You didn't answer my question, Alex.
Alex123 wrote:
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.
This sounds to me as though you are saying the Buddha teaches that we should put ourselves first. Is that right?

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

retrofuturist wrote:Those of us who are very serious about the Dhamma will naturally place the Dhamma first, and other views secondary.
daverupa wrote:Generally speaking, a secular Buddhist is one who makes this claim as well... Ultimately, the lack of consideration for the possibility that the primary "ism" is actually Buddhism is quite astonishing.
retrofuturist wrote: This seems completely at odds with what I understand "secular" to mean.
I put the Buddha's dhamma first in this way: he tells us not to spend time on speculative views; I don't. This is completely compatible with the concept of being secular because the secular is firmly grounded in what is visible here and now, aka "the worldly".
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secular wrote: adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
retrofuturist wrote: Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron.

Perhaps something here is being lost in translation. Perhaps what you mean by "secular" is closer to "non-denominational"? -
If one sees Buddhism as having to do with "faith" (i.e. "faith in things not in evidence" e.g "rebirth") then Buddhism is a religion. But if one sees the Buddha as saying that that sort of faith is ill-advised, then perhaps it is not a religion. Once again, this makes Buddhism when practiced as being non-speculative, secular.

You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?

: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:You may not agree with it, but can you see that it is logical to define it that way?
Well... I can see that you've defined it that way. :tongue:

When I read "worldly" in the definition, I connect it to "worldly" goals. For example, meditating or cultivating mindfulness with the end goal to reduce anger or to learn to chillax...

:computerproblem:

What you described, however, I would describe as Agnostic Buddhism. For the purposes of this discussion feel free to replace reference to "deities" with "rebirth".
Wikipedia wrote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.
Either way, in the Dhamma, faith and wisdom should be in balance.

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."
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Lazy_eye »

Alex123 wrote: 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.
I think the argument may have been that with personality and memory gone, rebirth is a moot point. It's hard to identify any meaningful distinction between a) a cockroach and b) a cockroach that happens to have been Lazy Eye in a past life. One could say that the cockroach will inherit Lazy Eye's kamma -- maybe get stepped on or sprayed with bug killer -- but since the roach won't be able to make the connection, the connection might as well not exist.

That's why the Mahayanist-turned-Catholic, Paul Williams, rejected Buddhism. From his point of view, it practically amounted to annihilationism.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nyana »

retrofuturist wrote:It’s easy for us to regard Dhamma as primary, but for many, they are able to respect Buddhism, apply what parts of the Dhamma don’t conflict with their other “isms” and gain certain benefit from that. I do not think that should be derided – just called out for what it is. I also think it is good to be tolerant of people not placing Buddhism as their primary "ism", lest we turn them away from it and they drop it altogether.
Sure, and no derision was intended or stated. Refuge involves more than going for refuge in part of a buddha and a little bit of dhamma, regardless of one's abilities, living situation, and practice commitments. In for a penny, in for a pound.
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 Ñāṇa,

With respect to one who takes refuge in the Triple Gem, I concur with your statement.

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 »

retrofuturist wrote:Being "worldly, rather than spiritual" and "not specifically relating to religion", the notion of Secular Buddhism as being one's primary "ism" seems to be something of an oxymoron, when you consider the purpose of the Dhamma.
On a practical, day to day level of Buddhist interactions, I wonder how the time-honored, indispensable relationship between the laity and the ordained sangha fits with this idea of secularism?

Image

This is one of the most important aspects of contemporary Theravāda Buddhism: That people can still ordain and devote their entire life to the three jewels, and know that they will be supported by the lay community and have their material needs of food, clothing, and shelter met.
Post Reply