stuka wrote: retrofuturist wrote:
stuka wrote:People who are beyond such views nonetheless are sick to death of being accused by crusading fatuous dilletanti of being annihiliationists.
Yes, hence my reasons for starting this topic and keeping it distinct from the melee of the Great Rebirth Debate. Even myself, I've been accused of denying rebirth in the past simply because I find non-time-delineated models of dependent origination (a la Buddhadasa) more practical than the three-lives commentarial version.
All the more bizarre because the Buddha himself never once taught or alluded to the later "three-lives" eisegesis.
We appreciate very much your efforts to clarify matters in the most peaceful ways, friend Retro.
It's important to remember, though, that non-time-delineated models of dependent origination doesn't mean that consciousness isn't "reborn." Only that it isn't reborn according to the structure of linear or relativistic time as we currently understand it. Now, by saying that I'm not putting forth a speculative theory, creating some wacky speculative combination of dependent origination and quantum physics, just that provided that the Buddha was telling the truth, consciousness is
reborn, because the non-time-delineated model of dependent origination isn't the same thing as a "one lifetime model." Indeed, with such a one-lifetime model based on materialism, you'd have to explain how the dependent origination began at birth (distinguishing this birth from jati) and ends at death (distinguishing this death from marana). This would also contradict cause & effect, but again, you might claim that cause & effect simply began once you started thinking about it and ceases when you stop thinking about it.
And yes, I'd also say I appreciate Retro's wise efforts to clarity matters in the most peaceful ways.