This is still an appeal to ignorance, which is fallacious argumentation.Alex123 wrote:If there is no rebirth then why follow it, especially if it brings more complications and restrictions?
the great rebirth debate
Re: the great rebirth debate
- "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]
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: the great rebirth debate
That is less than helpful. Show how it is an appeal to ignorance.daverupa wrote:This is still an appeal to ignorance, which is fallacious argumentation.Alex123 wrote:If there is no rebirth then why follow it, especially if it brings more complications and restrictions?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: the great rebirth debate
Sorry;
This ignores the possibility of someone deciding on the precepts/ordination as a comparatively greater good versus other ways they might comport their lives. Rebirth need not apply for this motive to obtain; this single example showcases how the question being asked suffers from severe myopia, tending towards a false dichotomy (rebirth, or there's no way you can be motivated to practice).
It takes the same form as the argument that "without God, how can anyone be moral?"
The question is rhetorical because the answer is assumed to be self-evident; if there is no rebirth, adding Buddhist complications and restrictions to ones livelihood must be nonsensical.Alex123 wrote:If there is no rebirth then why follow it, especially if it brings more complications and restrictions?
This ignores the possibility of someone deciding on the precepts/ordination as a comparatively greater good versus other ways they might comport their lives. Rebirth need not apply for this motive to obtain; this single example showcases how the question being asked suffers from severe myopia, tending towards a false dichotomy (rebirth, or there's no way you can be motivated to practice).
It takes the same form as the argument that "without God, how can anyone be moral?"
Last edited by daverupa on Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:55 pm, edited 2 times 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]
Re: the great rebirth debate
I am sorry to say that I don't quite follow what you're saying with this sutta example or your comments, and I would definitely like to understand your point. Could you put it a different way, perhaps?daverupa wrote:Note, here, that he does NOT provide them with anything resembling the boilerplate "right view with effluents" as the corrective view. So, this view is not refuted the way other views are, but nor is it lauded when it would be most appropriate to do so.AN 10.93 wrote: When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have...
Re: the great rebirth debate
Where has Mark Knickelbine gone? I paid for an argument!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.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5
Re: the great rebirth debate
What is your source for that?rowboat wrote: It's my understanding that before he died Ven. Buddhadasa disavowed his early writings on rebirth.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: the great rebirth debate
The article is buried somewhere in the bookmarks of my old dead laptop, though I'll have a look around the web.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5
Re: the great rebirth debate
Briefly, it's primarily intended to support the idea that one can have attained to right view without any view on rebirth; that right view can be conveyed without rebirth-talk at all (this conclusion is also borne out by MN 9 as well as others). The context of saying that "disbelief in rebirth is a view" is the secondary target; to disbelieve there is flying teacup around Jupiter is to refrain from such a view on account of poor evidence, but it is not making a counter-claim that such a teacup is certainly impossible or certainly nonexistent.nowheat wrote:Could you put it a different way, perhaps?
- "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]
Re: the great rebirth debate
Thanks, I'd be interested to see what he had to say, if you can find that.rowboat wrote:The article is buried somewhere in the bookmarks of my old dead laptop, though I'll have a look around the web.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Re: the great rebirth debate
The setting aside of the ten undeclared questions doesn't pertain to the issue of the next world. Involvement with the former is a fetter of views, while the latter is a right view (sammādiṭṭhi) and a true dhamma (saddhamma), because there actually is a next world and this can be known by arahants with the appropriate higher knowledges. MN 60 Apaṇṇaka Sutta:daverupa wrote:Note, here, that he does NOT provide them with anything resembling the boilerplate "right view with effluents" as the corrective view. So, this view is not refuted the way other views are, but nor is it lauded when it would be most appropriate to do so.AN 10.93 wrote: When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have...
- Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is a next world' is his right view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is a next world,' that is his right resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is a next world,' that is his right speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he is says that 'There is a next world,' he doesn't make himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is a next world,' that is persuasion in what is true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is true Dhamma, he doesn't exalt himself or disparage others. Whatever bad habituation he previously had is abandoned, while good habituation is manifested. And this right view, right resolve, right speech, non-opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is true Dhamma, non-exaltation of self, & non-disparagement of others: These many skillful activities come into play, in dependence on right view.
Re: the great rebirth debate
kirk5a, please refer to http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... uppada.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;kirk5a wrote:What is your source for that?rowboat wrote: It's my understanding that before he died Ven. Buddhadasa disavowed his early writings on rebirth.
Here's a quote from Ven. Buddhadasa's book Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination
"The teachings of many mainstream schools are based on Buddhaghosa's essay (Visuddhimmaga). By treating Buddhaghosa's misinterpretation of the Buddha Dhamma as standard, they obscured the Truth. Buddhaghosa explained the doctrine of dependent origination based on the idea of three connected lifetimes (past, present, and future). According to his idea, ignorance and action in the past gave birth to the present; the consequences of past actions are thus experienced in the present. The process causes our vexation (due to Craving and Clinging) in the present life, while transmigration [the cyclical process of death and rebirth or samsara] delivers us to births and sufferings in future lives. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu examines such an interpretation and raises these critical questions: If the Buddha taught the absence of an ego (anatta), then what is migrating from one life to the next? If the cause of suffering is instilled in one lifetime and its consequence emerges in another, how do we free ourselves from suffering in our practice in this life?"
Last edited by Notron on Fri Mar 23, 2012 1:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: the great rebirth debate
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?
Alex123 wrote: 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?
nowheat wrote: You didn't answer my question, Alex.
And in yet another thread in the conversation:Alex123 wrote:The usefulness of Dhamma without rebirth would be minimal for most. Ultimately Dhamma is to end rebirth and all dukkha that comes with it. If there is no rebirth then why follow it, especially if it brings more complications and restrictions?
nowheat wrote: This sounds to me as though you are saying the Buddha teaches that we should put ourselves first. Is that right?
I ask you direct questions about your understanding of or agreement with what the Buddha teaches, you quote me as if you will answer them, and then you don't answer the question I asked, but instead just offer the same basic opinions which are apparently yours, not what you believe the Buddha teaches, so I think it wisest to stop asking you questions, since this isn't moving us forward at all.Alex123 wrote: Liberate yourself first, then help others. If you can't save even yourself, how can you save others?
Re: the great rebirth debate
Again. First of all you liberate yourself, then help others.nowheat wrote:nowheat wrote: This sounds to me as though you are saying the Buddha teaches that we should put ourselves first. Is that right?I ask you direct questions about your understanding of or agreement with what the Buddha teaches, you quote me as if you will answer them, and then you don't answer the question I asked, but instead just offer the same basic opinions which are apparently yours, not what you believe the Buddha teaches, so I think it wisest to stop asking you questions, since this isn't moving us forward at all.Alex123 wrote: Liberate yourself first, then help others. If you can't save even yourself, how can you save others?
- "Cunda, it is impossible that one who is himself sunk in the mire[23] should pull out another who is sunk in the mire. But it is possible, Cunda, that one not sunk in the mire himself should pull out another who is sunk in the mire.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... -mn-008-23" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: the great rebirth debate
If the Buddha taught the absence of an ego (anatta), then what receives results of practice?Notron wrote: ... If the Buddha taught the absence of an ego (anatta), then what is migrating from one life to the next?
Re: the great rebirth debate
I'm sorry Kirk5a, I've scoured the web and I haven't found the original source. I remember the information being from an interview with someone from Suan Mokkh or from an article looking at the period between Ven. Buddhadasa's stroke and his death. I'll have a look again later.
Rain soddens what is covered up,
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5
It does not sodden what is open.
Therefore uncover what is covered
That the rain will not sodden it. Ud 5.5