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 »

There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?

Issue of rebirth is crucial.

If life is ultimately only dukkha, and escape from it is not to be reborn, then why not suicide? Instant parinibbana!

If there is rebirth, then suicide of course is NOT the answer.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Alex123 wrote:There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?

Issue of rebirth is crucial.

If life is ultimately only dukkha, and escape from it is not to be reborn, then why not suicide? Instant parinibbana!

If there is rebirth, then suicide of course is NOT the answer.
Because this one (myself) who neither believes nor disbelieves in rebirth disagrees that life is only dukkha.

The problem we have here, Alex, is that you're framing my argument in terms of your worldview, which is why you come to the conclusion that suicide is a workable solution. My argument has its own paradigm, and my answer works within that paradigm. If you take a piece of my paradigm and stick it into your paradigm, of course it will come out as nonsense.

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

How can you know what the Buddha intended? You can't ask him, and he didn't write anything.
I believe this side-tracks what I'm saying. My mention of the Buddha's intention was not about me knowing his intention; I was stating that there is a theoretical goal post for all of us: to practice in the way, and with the understanding he intended, with the outcome he was suggesting. That goal post remains the same regardless of any individual's opinion on what the Buddha meant.

Where our opinions on his intention comes into it is in the relationship of each individual's actual practice and understanding, to the theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended. And in looking at those relationship it's a given that no one knows for sure -- that is why there are so many different ways of practicing.

So I don't disagree that we can't ever have a conclusive answer -- even if we could ask him, even if we had a provable transcription of every word he ever said in his original language -- we still would come up with different understandings of what he was saying. But presumably those things would help us get closer to the goal post.

That we cannot, just by reading the words and working through the ideas and even by beginning our practice, get a precise understanding of what he meant (the goal post) doesn't mean we should not try to get closer to it, does it?
There is only what you can glean from the suttas and your previous understanding, that is, you can only end up with a Buddhism that you intend.
This is certainly the party line to take these days, but in putting into practice the effort of reading the suttas, it isn't a match for what I've experienced at all. I went into study of the suttas with no personal desire to arrive at any particular conclusion about what the Buddha taught at all -- my goal was simply to understand what he said and why he said it the way he did, because there were so many conflicting views out there and I was tired of being confused by them. So I told myself to go to the source (or as close to it as one can get) via the Pali canon. Along the way I discovered that I really wanted there to be such a thing as rebirth, that I really did not want my death to be the end of me.

I found the Buddha saying lots of things I didn't really like hearing. I am certain that wasn't coming from my intention to bend his words to my will. I struggled with aversion to a lot of it. Sometimes it turned out that what I thought he was saying wasn't what he was saying at all, and that's why I had the problem. But more often when this happened, it turned out that what he was saying had a good reason, and when more pieces of the puzzle filled in, what he was saying made sense, even if it still made me uncomfortable -- I would come to see the sense in it, and incorporate it into my understanding of the world and my life.

So I'm pretty sure I'm not doing as much shaping of my understanding of what the Buddha taught to conform to my own worldview (though no doubt that happens a little) but I am letting his understanding change me. Which, if we trust his teachings, is as it should be, isn't it?
For instance, Stephen Batchelor argues that talk of rebirth in the suttas is barnacle-like material that has attached itself to the raft launched by the Buddha. His Buddhism, heavily based on the suttas, but using his previous understanding, doesn't include rebirth. He tries to argue that this Buddhism is not only his Buddhism, but the Buddha's Buddhism. All I can say is "maybe", because the Buddha isn't there to ask.
I disagree with Batchelor and the whole crop of modern secular thinkers who posit that the talk of rebirth in the suttas is later additions. If that were the case we'd have to throw out the great bulk of the canon. The majority of the canon contains a consistent point of view, a well-integrated lesson, and the Buddha used rebirth as a way of getting his point across. I didn't set out to excise the bulk of what he said and take just take away the pieces I felt fit with a modern worldview, I set out to understand the whole -- working from the premise that it was a whole -- and that, and studying the philosophies and religions and teachers of his own time, whose ideas he responded to in kind, makes it possible to get what he's saying in the context of his own times. But it does require that we accept that he wasn't speaking our language; that what was clear enough to people in his own day because they lived and breathed in an environment in which teachers spoke the way this man did, isn't going to be immediately clear to us.

:namaste:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

nowheat wrote:Because this one (myself) who neither believes nor disbelieves in rebirth disagrees that life is only dukkha.
Then why follow Dhamma?
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mal4mac »

Alex123 wrote: Issue of rebirth is crucial.

If life is ultimately only dukkha, and escape from it is not to be reborn, then why not suicide? Instant parinibbana!

If there is rebirth, then suicide of course is NOT the answer.
I'm not sure if life is only dukkha

I'm not sure if rebirth exists or not, there might even be some kind of heaven. Who knows?

I'm not sure if suicide is the answer or not, so I'll stick around and see what happens, for now.

Death comes soon enough, anyway. I'm sure of that...
- Mal
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

mal4mac wrote: I'm not sure if life is only dukkha
Death comes soon enough, anyway. I'm sure of that..
Then why not pursue sukkha as much as possible while you still can?
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 wrote:Because this one (myself) who neither believes nor disbelieves in rebirth disagrees that life is only dukkha.
Then why follow Dhamma?
Because it is the dhamma that tells me that all life is not dukkha; because the dhamma tells me that this life is precious and how I can take better care of this life I certainly do have, that I can do something with this life that makes it better not just for me but for all the lives mine touches; the dhamma tells me that this is worth doing. And I can see all that for myself -- I agree with the dhamma that life is not all suffering, that it is precious -- but I follow it because it shows me so much I can do to make this precious life better not just for me but for those whose lives mine touches. And I'm thankful for it.

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

mal4mac wrote: Even if he did teach rebirth, shouldn't we avoid clinging to views on rebirth? In meditation we might think "there is rebirth!" and then shouldn't we "let go" of that thought? So does it matter at all whether we believe in rebirth or not?
The way you asked that question makes it tough for me to answer because if I simply answer your questions -- yes, it does matter whether we believe in it or not; yes, we should avoid clinging to views on rebirth -- that comes out sounding like I'm contradicting myself. But it's because we should avoid clinging to views that is the reason it matters whether we believe in rebirth or not.

That last phrase "whether we believe in rebirth or not" makes it sound like there are two options but there are at least three: (1) believe in rebirth (2) believe there is no rebirth (3) or neither of the above.
mal4mac wrote: Is it really that clear? Batchelor hasn't convinced many people about this. What extra arguments do you bring to the party that might lead to added clarity?
It is really that clear to me, yes, but I haven't gotten the whole of my understanding, or the whole of my reason for understanding it the way I do, out where others can see it -- most of it is still only in drafts on my laptop -- but I have gotten the most central piece of it out, in the form of a published paper, which was linked to in another topic on this forum:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p193392

It details the hypothesis that the structure of dependent arising (DA) is (well, okay, this is how I'd put it for the purposes of this discussion, not exactly how I put it in the paper) based on the Vedic notion of three lives: physical birth (once-born), indoctrination into the Vedas/naming ceremony (twice-born), and birth into the after-life (thrice-born). I don't use the paper to say "The Buddha wasn't teaching literal rebirth" because that would not have been appropriate, but I will say here that this is my understanding of what he was doing: the Buddha used a familiar structure (Vedic life and worldview) to simultaneously describe what they thought was going on, and to deny the accuracy of it, and to point out what they should actually be studying rather than the Vedas.

I'm working on a paper about what looks like a very old sutta in the Sutta Nipata that has dependent arising not couched in the same terms as the classic 12-link DA -- not couched in terms of rebirth -- but still containing the same basic structure. I get that many of the secular scholars out there think that someone took that original DA and later came along and "Brahmanized" it, and I can understand why they would think that way, but they haven't really seen or understood the subtlety and pure elegance of what the Buddha did with the Vedic 3-births and his use of DA or they'd recognize that this isn't the half-assed work of some later disciple but the pure genius of the man himself. (I need to do a better job than I am of conveying it; mea culpa.) I think they may well be right as far as this: there was an early DA that didn't use rebirth as a model, but it was not long before he developed the model and then he used it consistently because it was the perfect structure to say what he wanted to say, in the style of the day, to the folks he was speaking to; that it actually allowed him to speak on the dual level that was the most useful in his times.

So in answer to the question "What extra arguments do you bring to the party that might lead to added clarity?" this is it: that all throughout the Buddha's discussions when he refers to rebirth, it is DA he is referring to (not DA as modern Buddhists think of it), and that his speaking style (mentioned in my just-earlier posts in this thread) supports this, that if we understand both his style and what structure he was using in DA, what he's saying becomes clear: holding onto views of any kind* is detrimental to our well-being.

I am trying, here, to work out ways to explain what I'm seeing -- and am wanting anyone who can see a flaw in my logic to point it out. I don't need anyone to tell me there is another way to see it -- I understand the Theravadan way of seeing all this -- I'm not seriously suggesting that anyone who is entirely happy with that way of seeing it give it up. But I am saying that for anyone who isn't sure, you might want to take a look because there is another way of seeing it that isn't a piecemeal method of "I kinda sorta think the Buddha was being metaphorical" but a really solid paradigm. At least I think it is. Unless someone here can show me a fatal flaw.

* re: views, to Alex's point:
Alex123 wrote:There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?
Just so. But there is a difference between "having a reasoned opinion" and "clinging to a view". We need opinions -- theories -- about how the world works in order to make choices (stop at the stoplight or run it?) but whether they are integral to "self" is the issue. When I talk about "views" I am talking about things we cling to as part of self, not opinions and theories simply used to guide us through life and easily revised on new evidence.

:namaste:
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mal4mac »

nowheat wrote:I was stating that there is a theoretical goal post for all of us: to practice in the way, and with the understanding he intended, with the outcome he was suggesting. That goal post remains the same regardless of any individual's opinion on what the Buddha meant.
Having spent days discussing the difference between Thanissaro's and Bodhi's translation of one line of the Pali canon, and still not knowing which is the right translation, I don't hold out any hope of determining "the understanding he intended".

So the "theoretical goal post" you have is not mine! The approach I'm considering is to take a respected teacher as defining the "theoretical goal post", living with it, in depth, and then trying another if it comes up short. For instance, I might start with Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught". Then, to paraphrase you, "I will practice in Rahula's way, with the understanding Rahula intended, with the outcome he was suggesting".
Where our opinions on his intention comes into it is in the relationship of each individual's actual practice and understanding, to the theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended...
The "theoretical ideal that the Buddha intended" is something that we can never know. You can talk about Rahula's conjecture of the theoretical ideal, or Bodhi's, or Thanissaro's, but you *cannot* talk about the Buddha's theoretical ideal, because it is hidden from us forever, behind a veil of silence, because he didn't write anything down!
- Mal
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mal4mac »

Alex123 wrote:
mal4mac wrote: I'm not sure if life is only dukkha
Death comes soon enough, anyway. I'm sure of that..
Then why not pursue sukkha as much as possible while you still can?
Because I'm finding that a simple life of philosophy, virtue, and meditation leads to deeper happiness. I'm not going to pursue worldly pleasures because Buddha (and the Greek philosophers...) have shown me better, more fruitful, happier things to do... Read Epicurus to see a "one life" appreciation of these matters
- Mal
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote:There is a difference between holding a view and not. What is wrong in having a reasoned opinion?

Issue of rebirth is crucial.

If life is ultimately only dukkha, and escape from it is not to be reborn, then why not suicide? Instant parinibbana!

If there is rebirth, then suicide of course is NOT the answer.

Unless we see it as not being born into ideas ...
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be. All stemming from contact between mind and thoughts (in this case about death) and the resultant feeling born from that contact


All of which is happening in the present moment, as is the escape from it :)
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

The Buddha saw that whatever the mind gives rise to are just transitory, conditioned phenomena, which are really empty. When this dawned on him, he let go, gave up, and found an end to suffering. You too must understand these matters according to the truth. When you know things as they are, you will see that these elements of mind are a deception, in keeping with. the Buddha's teaching that this mind has nothing, does not arise, is not born, and does not die with anyone. It is free, shining, resplendent, with nothing to occupy it. The mind becomes occupied only because it misunderstands and is deluded by these conditioned phenomena, this false sense of self.

Therefore, the Buddha had us look at our minds. What exists in the beginning? Truly, not anything. This emptiness does not arise and die with phenomena. When it contacts something good, it does not become good; when it contacts something bad, it does not become bad. The pure mind knows these objects clearly, knows that they are not substantial.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Ajahn ... 0Teachings



If you consciously notice this awareness, and appreciate it, you move more towards being nobody, towards not knowing anything at all, rather than being someone who knows everything about everything, and having all the answers to all the questions, and knowing the solutions to every problem. To be nobody knowing nothing is scary, isn't it? But this attitude helps to direct us, because there is a strong desire in us to become, to attain and achieve. Even with the best of intentions, if that kind of desire is not recognised, it will always control you, whether it is the desire to become something, the desire to control things, or the desire to get rid of annoying things or bad thoughts or irritations around you. So trust in this awareness, this openness, this receptivity, attention, listening. And question the personality. For instance, I bring up my own personality, 'I'm Ajahn Sumedho. These are my robes, and these are my spectacles.


...

No matter how intimidated you are by your thinking, trust in the awareness of it and not in the judging of it. You don't need to get rid of it, but recognise: thinking is like this, views, opinions, attachment to views and opinions are like this. Then you'll begin to see what attachment is as a reality, as a habit that we've developed. And you'll see personality, when it arises and when it ceases, when there's attachment to it and when there's non-attachment.

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn ... nality.htm


We can see this in our thoughts and views, they change all the time. They can't be sustained and so they are anicca, dukkha and anatta

So we should just observe them as they rise and fall, but let them go

You yourself have demonstrated how views change (and so should be let go of) with your initial view of radical faith and acceptance of rebirth, to scepticism

Just like I have :)
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Aug 10, 2013 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

clw_uk wrote:Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be.
if there is only one life, Who cares if suicide is immoral, craving, etc, if it leads to parinibbana?

Dying with craving matters only if there is going to be rebirth after death.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Alex123 wrote:
clw_uk wrote:Also killing your self for oblivion would be craving not to be, as well as craving to be.
if there is only one life, Who cares if suicide is immoral, craving, etc, if it leads to parinibbana?

Dying with craving matters only if there is going to be rebirth after death.

Which is a view/opinion/thought that arises and creases in the present moment :)


That thought is not you
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply