the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

porpoise wrote:They do add up because the way the nidanas are defined fully supports the traditional model where the ultimate goal is pari-Nibbana, release from samsara. So straightforwardly Nibbana ( cessation of the taints ) leads to pari-Nibbana, ie the cessation of birth, ageing and death.
The goal of practice is nibbana which is repeated in suttas as "cessation of suffering". Where does it say the ultimate goal is parinibbana? Could you please quote the sutta pitaka on this one because I frankly don't know.
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

porpoise wrote:I don't see how it can be interpreted in this way.
I agree. You don't see.
porpoise wrote: why the need to impose a psychological interpretation when there is no evidence it was ever intended?
There is no "imposing". Imposing is insisting ONLY one interpretation is right. There IS evidence in sutta on the psychological interpretation.
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

Lazy_eye wrote: Thus, it seems to me that agnosticism ultimately won't do.
Then why don't you believe in rebirth? You have all the reason to believe in it right? Lol
User avatar
BlueLotus
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 7:46 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by BlueLotus »

Lazy_eye wrote: The Buddha's path requires a full commitment ("practice like your hair is on fire") which is justified by the urgency of escaping the samsaric prison.
Personally for me, full commitment is justified by the urgency to end the pain and suffering I go through right here, right now.
Lazy_eye wrote: But if we have only one life, there is no reason for urgency, as we will all achieve cessation at the moment of death.
Amusing statement coming from a "believer in denial"? :D

But then again, death is cessation of life (at least to you since you don't believe in rebirth). ;) How can cessation of life be ever equal to a life without suffering? When you die, you cease to feel and perceive. When you have attained nibbana, you continue to live in peace. 2 different concepts.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Kenshou »

Ñāṇa wrote:At any rate, in a single lifetime scenario there's no reason to disengage from any hedonistic pleasures as long as one is not causing harm and can rationalize the pleasure to pain ratio in a cost-benefit analysis.
Having lived much of my life under this mindset, I believe that this gives the benefits of hedonism too much credit, even if only within the context of a single life. Unless "rationalize" is the keyword, here. Though individual mileage is sure to vary.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by daverupa »

Lazy_eye wrote:But if we have only one life...
Agnosticism avoids this line of speculation.
Lazy_eye wrote:At some point a decision must be made because so much hinges on it.
The Buddha said something different to Pāṭaliya.
  • "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
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Aloka »

LazyEye wrote: I used to think so too, but increasingly I'm convinced that it's better to have a firm view one way or the other. The reason has to do with the nature of the Buddhist path and what it requires of practitioners.
It's fine to be honest and say "I don't know". To quote Ajahn Sumedho (Thai Forest Tradition Abbot) in 'The Sound of Silence':
“Rebirth,” like “reincarnation,” is a term that’s used generally referring to having gone through a series of different lives, and then there are various views about whether once you get reincarnated into human form where you can go, become a frog again or something like that. I was teaching a retreat in Australia at the Theosophical Society, where people’s views were split. Some held that once you made it to the human level you can’t slide back into a lesser animal one, whereas others insisted that you could. But the truth of the matter is, nobody really knows.

When Ajahn Chah taught about rebirth, he did so in the context of paticcasumappada, or dependent origination. He was talking about the kind of rebirth you can actually witness in daily life; birth is the beginning, death is the ending. How many rebirths have you gone through today, mentally ? What is born dies; what arises, ceases. Rebirth in this sense is actually provable.

In the paticcasamuppada, through desire (tanha) comes attachment (upadana), and then attachment leads to becoming (bhava), becoming leads to rebirth, and rebirth leads to suffering. Jati (birth) is the result of grasping desire.

I quite like the idea of reincarnation and rebirth, on a theoretical level. I’ve no bias against it, but it is speculative and it’s conceptual.”
_/\_
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Nyana »

daverupa wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:At any rate, in a single lifetime scenario...
So, agnosticism also refrains from claiming this.
This has already been acknowledged. The only thing I'd add is that even then it's still prudent to consider actions in the context of post-mortem continuity so as to not engage in what is potentially unskillful in that context. MN 60:
  • With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by beeblebrox »

Ñāṇa wrote:At any rate, in a single lifetime scenario there's no reason to disengage from any hedonistic pleasures as long as one is not causing harm and can rationalize the pleasure to pain ratio in a cost-benefit analysis.
You don't notice any dukkha at all with the hedonists? I think that this still can be seen clearly... even within the "single lifetime" scenario.

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

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Nyana »

beeblebrox wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:At any rate, in a single lifetime scenario there's no reason to disengage from any hedonistic pleasures as long as one is not causing harm and can rationalize the pleasure to pain ratio in a cost-benefit analysis.
You don't notice any dukkha at all with the hedonists? I think that this can be seen clearly... even within the "single lifetime" scenario.
Hedonism can be moderate, i.e. the pursuit of primarily moderate pleasures. Moreover, people who are ascetic renunciates also experience dukkha unless they're arahants.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by beeblebrox »

Ñāṇa wrote: Hedonism can be moderate, i.e. the pursuit of primarily moderate pleasures. Moreover, people who are ascetic renunciates also experience dukkha unless they're arahants.
Even when the hedonism is moderate (and experienced within a single lifetime), the dukkha is still experienced. The fact that the ascetics still have their share of the dukkha can also be seen within the single lifetime. The cessation of dukkha can be seen within a single lifetime... even the dukkha could be seen to originate from within a single lifetime.

All of that can be very easily observed. But that doesn't mean that the origination, the experience, and the cessation of dukkha would always have to happen within a single lifetime.

This fact can also be very easily observed by seeing that there is still such thing as an origination of dukkha, its experience, and the cessation, which happen beyond a single lifetime. I think this is very plain to see... but even that still doesn't mean that we should limit ourselves to some kind of a multi-lifetime worldview.

I've figured the only thing which makes this topic confusing (or difficult) for many people is when they would try to view a self within a single lifetime, or they try to spread it across many lifetimes.

If a person tries to stick with the former, then they would become baffled with some people's seeming adherence to multi-lifetime theory (because then they would try to imagine themselves going on for several lifetimes)...

If a person tries to stick with the latter as a preference to the former, then it's probably because of some perceived shortcomings that they saw with the single lifetime theory, which they in turn based on a viewpoint of self... i.e., a common argument against the single lifetime theory is that if a very wicked person dies then there won't be any chance to punish "that person" in the next lifetime, which is a very silly viewpoint to me. It's obviously based on a view of self.

I think that all of that makes for a very fertile ground for dukkha.

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

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Nyana »

beeblebrox wrote:I've figured the only thing which makes this topic confusing (or difficult) for many people is when they would try to view a self within a single lifetime, or they try to spread it across many lifetimes.

If a person tries to stick with the former, then they would become baffled with some people's seeming adherence to multi-lifetime theory (because then they would try to imagine themselves going on for several lifetimes)...

If a person tries to stick with the latter as a preference to the former, then it's probably because of some perceived shortcomings that they saw with the single lifetime theory, which they in turn based on a viewpoint of self... i.e., a common argument against the single lifetime theory is that if a very wicked person dies then there won't be any chance to punish "that person" in the next lifetime, which is a very silly viewpoint to me. It's obviously based on a view of self.

I think that all of that makes for a very fertile ground for dukkha.
I don't see anyone here asserting a permanent unchanging self. Selflessness accounts for both change and continuity.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by beeblebrox »

Ñāṇa wrote: I don't see anyone here asserting a permanent unchanging self. Selflessness accounts for both change and continuity.
I think it's always easy to deny... seems obvious that there's a debate in here, and a lot of clinging, to what?

edit: apologies... clicked on edit instead of quote.
Last edited by beeblebrox on Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by Nyana »

beeblebrox wrote:I think it's always easy to deny... seems obvious that there's a debate in here, and a lot of clinging, to what?
To state the obvious, this is a discussion pertaining to saṃsāra and related topics such as the right view of the continuity of consciousness, etc. The importance of this subject is explained by Ven. Dhammanando:
  • The orthodox understanding is that they have to be taught mundane right view in order to make them ready for ariyan right view. That is to say, there is no possibility of leaping from a state in which wrong view ("there is nothing given, nothing offered...etc.") is ever liable to arise to ariyan right view. Rather, wrong view must be dislodged and the only cause that can effect this is the arising of mundane right view ("there is what is given, there is what is offered...etc."). In effect this means that high attainment in Dhamma is out of the question for those who remain skeptical, agnostic or non-committal regarding the affirmations that constitute mundane right view.

    Kammic efficacy and rebirth are part of mundane right view. To reject or doubt rebirth is to suppose that there are some causes that don't yield effects – specifically, that there can be ignorance and craving that will not issue in further becoming. Those of such a view have not understood the conditionality of dhammas even at the intellectual/pariyatti level. To not understand this is to not understand the four noble truths, the three characteristics, or anything else that is of decisive importance in the development of paññā.
If you're interested in this subject then feel free to contribute. If you're not interested then feel free to move on.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Is hell and hungry ghost realm to be taken literally?

Post by beeblebrox »

beeblebrox wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote: I don't see anyone here asserting a permanent unchanging self. Selflessness accounts for both change and continuity.
I think it's always easy to deny... seems obvious that there's a debate in here, and a lot of clinging, to what?
To put it in another way: if no one in here, as you say, is asserting a permanent, unchanging self... then why all of this concern with the debating?
Post Reply