the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 »

Aloka wrote:If I remember correctly, this extraodinary expression "dharma lite "was first used by the Tibetan Buddhist Alexander Berzin in his 'Berzin Archives'
One issue is rebirth. Now, rebirth is absolutely central to Dharma and there’s no denying that. If we look in terms of the three levels of motivation that we find in the lam-rim, the graded stages of the path, what’s the first level? Working to improve our future lives. How can you possibly do that if you don’t believe in future lives? Then it’s a farce. Then gaining liberation. What do we mean by liberation? Liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth. If you don’t believe that rebirth exists, why in the world would you want to get liberated from it?
Yes, and this isn't exclusive to Alex Berzin. For example, Ven. Dhammanando:
  • [T]here 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.
Ven. Ṭhānissaro:
  • [T]he terms of appropriate attention — the four noble truths — are not concerned simply with events arising and passing away in the present moment. They also focus on the causal connections among those events, connections that occur both in the immediate present and over time. If you limit your focus solely to connections in the present while ignoring those over time, you can't fully comprehend the ways in which craving causes suffering: not only by latching on to the four kinds of nutriment, but also giving rise to the four kinds of nutriment as well.

    This narrow focus places an obstacle in your ability to develop right view — and in particular, your ability to see dependent co-arising as a self-sustaining process. If, in line with the standard materialist view, you regard consciousness as a mere by-product of material processes, then there's no way you can appreciate the full power of consciousness and craving to generate the food that can sustain the processes of suffering indefinitely. And if you don't fully appreciate this power, there's no way that you can effectively bring it to an end.
Ven. Bodhi:
  • Admittedly, for most of us the primary motivation for entering upon the path of Dhamma has been a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction with the routine course of our unenlightened lives rather than a keen perception of the dangers in the round of rebirths. However, if we are going to follow the Dhamma through to its end and tap its full potential for conferring peace and higher wisdom, it is necessary for the motivation of our practice to mature beyond that which originally induced us to enter the path. Our underlying motivation must grow towards those essential truths disclosed to us by the Buddha and, encompassing those truths, must use them to nourish its own capacity to lead us towards the realization of the goal.

    Our motivation acquires the requisite maturity by the cultivation of right view, the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which as explained by the Buddha includes an understanding of the principles of kamma and rebirth as fundamental to the structure of our existence.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

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

Post by Lazy_eye »

Ñāṇa wrote: With property dualism mental properties are still caused by physical processes.
Again, this is too reductive. Physical processes are the necessary precondition for consciousness to emerge, but conscious experience itself is a complex system with its own rules and properties. Equating the two is an example of scale confusion.

Terms like "craving" or "desire" are meaningful in relation to consciousness, though they would be meaningless if we zoomed down to the subatomic level.
Lazy_eye wrote:
But craving as the origin of suffering -- even small children know that to be true!
No, they don't.
Well, I'm a parent, and they do. Not saying they have full awareness or the ability to control their cravings. But they understand -- sometimes.
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 »

Lazy_eye wrote:Physical processes are the necessary precondition for consciousness to emerge....
Which confirms with what I've already said. Of course, if you have a version of property dualism that accords with the Buddhist understanding of paṭiccasamuppāda occurring over multiple lifetimes, then by all means bring it forward. Otherwise it's a digression to want to discuss the finer points of non-Buddhist materialist philosophies.
Lazy_eye wrote:
But craving as the origin of suffering -- even small children know that to be true!
No, they don't.
Well, I'm a parent, and they do. Not saying they have full awareness or the ability to control their cravings. But they understand -- sometimes.
I highly doubt that your children or any other children understand the full existential implications of dukkha & taṇhā as these terms are used in the context of the four noble truths. Moreover, it's the trivialization of dukkha & taṇhā that precludes the arising of right view as already indicated by the Buddhist teachers quoted here.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

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

Post by Lazy_eye »

Ñāṇa wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:Physical processes are the necessary precondition for consciousness to emerge....
Which confirms with what I've already said.
Not at all. You were arguing that materialists have to reject the four noble truths because "for them, matter is the origin of suffering, not craving".

And I'm saying this is overly reductive. It draws a simplistic link between two different sets of properties, operating at different scales. "Suffering" and "craving" only have meaning within the context of conscious experience, so looking for their origin in matter is a case of mixing apples and oranges -- or, to be more precise, scale confusion as I said earlier.. It's like trying to explain Anna Karenina by referring to type fonts. There has to be a physical book (or Nook) available in order for us to read "Anna Karenina", but the nature of her predicament can't be well-explained with reference to this material pre-condition.
Of course, if you have a version of property dualism that accords with the Buddhist understanding of paṭiccasamuppāda occurring over multiple lifetimes, then by all means bring it forward.
This would actually be an interesting topic, for some other thread. David Chalmers, a naturalist dualist, argues that consciousness is governed by as-yet-undiscovered "psycho-physical laws" which operate consistently, like other laws in the universe.
Lazy_eye wrote: I highly doubt that your children or any other children understand the full existential implications of dukkha & taṇhā as these terms are used in the context of the four noble truths. Moreover, it's the trivialization of dukkha & taṇhā that precludes the arising of right view as already indicated by the Buddhist teachers...
You're missing my point. My point is that the link between suffering and craving is apparent regardless of whether consciousness has a physical or non-physical explanation. Even a small child has experiences which can be called "suffering", and which are due to craving. This is part of human experience. I am not suggesting that children "understand the full existential implications" of anything.

You seem to be arguing that Buddhist teachings make no sense to a physicalist because matter explains everything, and thus all we need to do is manipulate matter. But that is an extreme view, and a minority one (last I checked).
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 »

Lazy_eye wrote:And I'm saying this is overly reductive. It draws a simplistic link between two different sets of properties, operating at different scales.
This distinction of property dualism where everything is ultimately reducible to one physical substance:

Image

Isn't compatible with paṭiccasamuppāda.
Lazy_eye wrote:My point is that the link between suffering and craving is apparent regardless of whether consciousness has a physical or non-physical explanation. Even a small child has experiences which can be called "suffering", and which are due to craving. This is part of human experience. I am not suggesting that children "understand the full existential implications" of anything.
In the context of the four noble truths dukkha refers to all of the following:
  • birth
    aging
    illness
    death
    sorrow
    lamentation
    pain
    unhappiness
    despair
    association with what is unpleasant
    separation from what is pleasant
    not getting what is wanted
    the five clinging-aggregates
And, in the context of the four noble truths the cessation of dukkha refers to both the cessation of mental dukkha in this life as well as the cessation of the dukkha of birth, old age, sickness, and death in future lives.

I think you can readily understand the significant difference between these existential concerns and those of a small child.
Lazy_eye wrote:You seem to be arguing that Buddhist teachings make no sense to a physicalist because matter explains everything, and thus all we need to do is manipulate matter. But that is an extreme view, and a minority one (last I checked).
I've yet to come across a proponent of physicalism who accepts the Buddhist view of rebirth. Again, the consequences of this failure have already been stated above.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

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

Post by Lazy_eye »

Ñāṇa wrote: This distinction of property dualism where everything is ultimately reducible to one physical substance...
And this is the assertion which I am questioning. It sounds like an accurate description of reductive materialism, but not of physicalism as a whole let alone property dualism.

To say that certain physical conditions must be present in order for X to be present doesn't mean that X is "ultimately reducible" to those conditions. That is not how emergent properties work.

Do you yourself find it meaningful to think of your conscious experiences as nothing more than the sum total of material processes? I'm guessing the answer is no.

Lazy_eye wrote: I think you can readily understand the significant difference between these existential concerns and those of a small child.
The concerns of a small child are included in the set you have provided.
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 »

Lazy_eye wrote:And this is the assertion which I am questioning. It sounds like an accurate description of reductive materialism, but not of physicalism as a whole let alone property dualism.

To say that certain physical conditions must be present in order for X to be present doesn't mean that X is "ultimately reducible" to those conditions. That is not how emergent properties work.
Property dualism isn't the same as substance dualism. For physicalists if there is no living brain then there are no emergent mental properties. For physicalists when the brain dies there is no possibility of a post-mortem consciousness arising. This view is incompatible with paṭiccasamuppāda.
Lazy_eye wrote:The concerns of a small child are included in the set you have provided.
Your example trivializes the four noble truths. SN 15.3:
  • This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

    Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

    Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

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

Post by Lazy_eye »

Ñāṇa wrote: Property dualism isn't the same as substance dualism. For physicalists if there is no living brain then there are no emergent mental properties. For physicalists when the brain dies there is no possibility of a post-mortem consciousness arising. This view is incompatible with paṭiccasamuppāda.
Well, I haven't said anything about paṭiccasamuppāda, though I'm sure there are others who would debate that point. The question I brought up was not about paṭiccasamuppāda, but about your contention that physicalists cannot accept craving as the cause of suffering, because for them all our experiences are reducible to matter.

That's a straw man because it reflects only one, rather extreme physicalist viewpoint. And, actually, it's not even necessarily true of reductive materialism. Because even if we map every experience to a particular material process, we could still say that the (physical) process called "craving" causes the (physical) process called "suffering", which can be relieved through various meditation practices that work because of their effect on neural activity. Linking craving and suffering isn't contingent on whether experience is ultimately dependent on matter, as you seem to suggest.

Lazy_eye wrote:The concerns of a small child are included in the set you have provided.
Your example trivializes the four noble truths.
Why? Because children are incapable of experiencing dukkha?

I don't know how much time you have spent around kids, but my experience has been that they are concerned about -- and often very anxious about -- big existential questions from an early age. Most kids become aware by age 4 that living creatures die and that they too (as well as their parents) will also be gone some day. This knowledge is not without impact. I have spent more time discussing great matters of life and death with ever-questioning children than with adults (probably since many adults are too embarrassed to talk about their fears).
  • This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.

    Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

    Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
This passage does not have to be interpreted as the record of one specific individual's passage through multiple lives. It could be read more broadly as pertaining to the common experience of beings, and inviting us to consider ourselves as part of that process (as opposed to autonomous, isolated selves). Indeed, one could say this broader interpretive scope is what provides depth and resonance. Seeing the passage as a mere screed about post-mortem rebirth narrows it and, in my view, trivializes it.
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 »

Lazy_eye wrote:The question I brought up was not about paṭiccasamuppāda, but about your contention that physicalists cannot accept craving as the cause of suffering, because for them all our experiences are reducible to matter.
Craving as the origin of dukkha is what paṭiccasamuppāda describes.
Lazy_eye wrote:That's a straw man because it reflects only one, rather extreme physicalist viewpoint. And, actually, it's not even necessarily true of reductive materialism. Because even if we map every experience to a particular material process, we could still say that the (physical) process called "craving" causes the (physical) process called "suffering", which can be relieved through various meditation practices that work because of their effect on neural activity.
All physicalist views are actually reductivist. Quite incompatible with paṭiccasamuppāda.
Lazy_eye wrote:Linking craving and suffering isn't contingent on whether experience is ultimately dependent on matter, as you seem to suggest.
This statement just further demonstrates your misunderstanding of dukkha.
Lazy_eye wrote:This passage does not have to be interpreted as the record of one specific individual's passage through multiple lives. It could be read more broadly as pertaining to the common experience of beings, and inviting us to consider ourselves as part of that process (as opposed to autonomous, isolated selves). Indeed, one could say this broader interpretive scope is what provides depth and resonance. Seeing the passage as merely about post-mortem rebirth narrows it and, in my view, trivializes it.
The one perspective doesn't preclude the other. This is what engenders compassion as well as dispassion.
Lazy_eye wrote:Seeing the passage as merely about post-mortem rebirth narrows it and, in my view, trivializes it.
Trying to erase rebirth from the suttas would be a rather nonsensical thing to try to do. Ven. Bodhi:
  • The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms — the hells, the animal world, the spirit realm, the human world, and the heavens — they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally.
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 »

Ñāṇa wrote: Who's insisting that you or anyone else believe in the Buddha's dhamma?
Oh here's one. There's another one. Seriously follow the thread before jumping in with disconnected questions.
Ñāṇa wrote: This is a gross overstatement on both counts.
I don't think so. It is only obvious reality that suttas are interpreted in different ways. What matters is what is within the capacity of experiential verification. Everything else is speculation. At least for me...
Ñāṇa wrote: Let's not claim that the dhamma-lite you're advocating is the Buddhadhamma.
Do you at least know what I am advocating?
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 »

Ñāṇa wrote:they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally.
Maybe as clear as a crystal to the good monk but not necessarily to everyone. The "body" doesn't have to necessarily be physical body and death doesn't necessarily have to be death as death is usually understood in this day. As I said, suttas can be interpreted in numerous ways.

No matter, the moment is observable to everyone, verifiable to everyone, applicable to everyone. Dhamma is visible in this present life too. So whatever way one chooses to interpret these after-life stuff in suttas, the present life is still applicable to everyone. Whether or not one chooses to believe in different planes of existence or not, the present life's mental states are applicable to everyone. It is fine to focus on that and leave the rest to speculative theorizing.
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 »

Ñāṇa wrote: And, in the context of the four noble truths the cessation of dukkha refers to both the cessation of mental dukkha in this life as well as the cessation of the dukkha of birth, old age, sickness, and death in future lives.
Yet there are also suttas which talk of nibbana experienced by the Buddha during his enlightened years is the ultimate cessation of dukkha.
... he keep cultivating disenchantment/distaste with regard to form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. As he keeps cultivating disenchantment/distaste with regard to form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, he comprehends form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. As he comprehends form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, he is totally released from form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. He is totally released from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is totally released, I tell you, from suffering & stress
I read it as this: "through disenchantment to the five aggregates one is totally released from suffering in the very life after one attains nibbana". My knowledge is that the verifiable story ends here. The rest is an epilogue which lies in the realm of speculation and frankly quite irrelevant at least to some.
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 »

Lazy_eye wrote:But craving as the origin of suffering -- even small children know that to be true!
Do you know why? Because they have the Buddha nature. (This isn't tongue-in-cheek.)

The four noble truths are always veritable, by anyone, in every moment... for every age, in any situation that involves dukkha. While this Dhamma isn't always seen by just anyone, it's always present and available... especially more so if we share the teachings.
Ñāṇa wrote: I highly doubt that your children or any other children understand the full existential implications of dukkha & taṇhā as these terms are used in the context of the four noble truths. Moreover, it's the trivialization of dukkha & taṇhā that precludes the arising of right view as already indicated by the Buddhist teachers quoted here.
I think that's quite patronizing. (Besides... what does that patronizing involve? I think that this might be a good practice question.)

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

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

Post by Lazy_eye »

Ñāṇa wrote: Trying to erase rebirth from the suttas would be a rather nonsensical thing to try to do. Ven. Bodhi:
  • The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms — the hells, the animal world, the spirit realm, the human world, and the heavens — they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally.
Yes, rebirth, heavens and hells are all found in the suttas. Traditionalists will always be able to win that particular argument, as far as it goes. But the question remains: is any of it plausible?

After seeing enough discussions over the years, I think it's safe to say that these things can only be accepted on faith, as religious beliefs. Other arguments put forward are almost inevitably pseudoscientific or flawed in their reasoning.

If that works for you, then OK. Though I do wonder: if one is prepared to accept Buddhist supernaturalism, then how can we be sure that the supernatural teachings of other religions aren't true? Perhaps, from your point of view, I will go to hell for harboring wrong (annihilationist) views. But how can you be sure that you won't go to hell because Allah dislikes non-theist Buddhists? Once we enter the world of faith, things become very dicey.

Looking at Ven. Bodhi's comments about the reasons for accepting rebirth, it's interesting that what he describes is most decidedly not a process of critical enquiry, but one of religious self-indoctrination:
Admittedly, for most of us the primary motivation for entering upon the path of Dhamma has been a gnawing sense of dissatisfaction with the routine course of our unenlightened lives rather than a keen perception of the dangers in the round of rebirths. However, if we are going to follow the Dhamma through to its end and tap its full potential for conferring peace and higher wisdom, it is necessary for the motivation of our practice to mature beyond that which originally induced us to enter the path. Our underlying motivation must grow towards those essential truths disclosed to us by the Buddha and, encompassing those truths, must use them to nourish its own capacity to lead us towards the realization of the goal.

Our motivation acquires the requisite maturity by the cultivation of right view, the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path, which as explained by the Buddha includes an understanding of the principles of kamma and rebirth as fundamental to the structure of our existence.
In brief: "A person suffers existential/psychological turmoil, and turns to Buddhism. After committing himself to the path, he discovers that it (apparently) requires him to accept supernatural beliefs. By this point he is already deeply invested, perhaps having already made personal sacrifices, and having received emotional/psychological benefit from the practice, so he chooses to accept the supernatural beliefs and close off further scrutiny. That in turn leads him to supernatural understanding based on his supernatural beliefs."

Now it may be that such a process brings its own rewards. It's not my purpose to dismiss it. But it is clearly at odds with critical thinking; indeed, the two are squarely opposed.
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 the question remains: is any of it plausible?
It's a good post overall - the point about competing supernaturalisms is worthwhile to make; I'd simply ask a different question than above, to wit: is any of it practical? I think both answers are "not now". It was once very plausible, and thereby quite practical. But it's an old, old scabbard for the Dhamma sword these days...
Last edited by daverupa on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:01 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]
Post Reply