the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

nowheat wrote:
chownah wrote: Wouldn't an animal need to be REBORN as a human to be liberated?.........oooooops........there is that rebirth thing again.

Given that all the beings in the world as taken from the buddha's perspective would be all the beings you experience which in turn would be all the external selves you mentally construct then it seems to liberate all of them they would have to undergo no further births.......for me this means stop fabricating selves for them.........(just one way to look at it)

Or, What better way to do the most toward universal liberation than to liberate one's self? Even though I am not liberated I do firmly believe that my attempts at working toward that goal are what has contributed the most toward development of compassion for all life.
chownah
Certainly each individual's efforts add to the whole, but as long as one's effort is being directed toward *one's own future happiness* as more significant than the effect they have on others, how far will they progress? Do you not see that? If you see it some other way will you explain it to me?

When you say "what better way to do the most towards universal liberation" and describe working for just one's own liberation, are you suggesting that to just go off by oneself and meditate in the woods is the most one can do? If the Buddha had done that, would we have as many people practicing for liberation? I'm really not understanding your point of view on this, and would love clarification.

:namaste:
I have a lot of agreement for what you are saying......but.....to understand my posts you should understand that my belief system is very different from most posters here. For me having no doctrine of self is probably the key concept. In working toward no doctrine of self I start from the opposite side from most. My default belief is that there is no self in me or in the world anywhere....and of course this view is in fact a doctrine of self. But I can not just snap my fingers and change my views so I continue to firmly be of the view that ther is no self anywhere. I believe strongly in The All and The World as the Buddha defined them in the suttas.......but unlike most people I fully believe that understanding experience as being just that is a major key in moving toward the goal....this means that I tend to deny the existence of the "external world" as most people view it.....if I must give an opinion about the external world I would say that it's existence is just conjecture.

Do understand that I do typically walk around feeling like a self and seeing others as being selves but I see this as just my state of delusion and I often touch base on having no doctrine of self....especially when experience turns negative. And I walk around as if there was an external world and I can function quite well in it thank you so I'm not a slack jawed drooler.

All of this about me is to show you how hard it is for me to reply to what you are saying. You talk about whether a self should work towards it's future happiness and my most honest answer to this is that all a self ever does is to work towards it's future happiness and this is a strong indication of why we should have no doctrine of self. You talk about saving the world and I think you mean the external world and my view is that it's existence is just a conjecture and it is better to see the world in more definite terms I.e. as the sum total of our life's experience and nothing more.....on other words it is a product of the self. I think that most people think that my thinking is so whacked out that it is first very difficult to convey exactly what I am talking about and second they usually just reject it anyway which is fineas I have become used to being not understood.

So, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I have to decode it into my belief structure, formulate an answer, code it back onto your belief structure, and then express it in writing......and on top of this I have only got a touch pad for typing and an automatic spell corrector which mostly just changes sutta into sutra and basically seems to be working against me.

I hope this is not too much of a rant but I thought it might help you to understand my replies.
chownah
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

nowheat wrote:You actually answer my questions when I ask them of you directly, Aloka, so let me give you a brief answer. Though I haven't got a sutta to hand*, if I recall correctly, the Buddha is seen in the suttas to consider just going off by himself now that he has had his awakening -- but he chooses not to. This is what I mean when I say that "he set out to cure the suffering for the world, not for one individual."

Do you disagree with that?
Hello again nowheat,

After his awakening the Buddha decided to teach others because he realised that beings were in different stages of development and that some of them would benefit greatly from his teachings. (SN 6.1)

He then went on to teach the people who were interested in what he had to say, in an area of India.

To me this doesn't indicate that his personal intention was to cure the suffering of everyone on the planet.

No offence meant - but In general, I'm not particularly interested in continually speculating about what the Buddha might, or might not have intended. I guess its probably because I'm a schoolteacher by profession and I like to see supporting evidence from source material - but anyway, that's all from me. Have fun !


:)
Last edited by Aloka on Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Aloka wrote:
nowheat wrote:You actually answer my questions when I ask them of you directly, Aloka, so let me give you a brief answer. Though I haven't got a sutta to hand*, if I recall correctly, the Buddha is seen in the suttas to consider just going off by himself now that he has had his awakening -- but he chooses not to. This is what I mean when I say that "he set out to cure the suffering for the world, not for one individual."

Do you disagree with that?
Hello again nowheat,

After his awakening the Buddha decided to teach others because he realised that beings were in different stages of development and that some of them would benefit greatly from his teachings. (SN 6.1)

He then went on to teach the people who were interested in what he had to say, in an area of India.

To me this doesn't indicate that his personal intention was to cure the suffering of everyone on the planet.

.
And the Buddha also emphasized the importance of individual practice and the need for the individual to get her act together before trying help others.
>> 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
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: However it can also seem like some people need rebirth to be true
Yes, the idea of rebirth could be quite comforting because it represents a continuation of sorts, and could be a way of coping with death anxiety. So there can be both clinging and aversion to the idea of rebirth.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

In the suttas I have seen how sometimes a simile is useful in conveying information. Here's my attempt at using that method to make clear what I see happening here.

Scientist: There are other planets in solar systems other than our own. I have seen them.
Skeptic: If you have seen them, take me to them and show me.
Scientist: I didn't see them by going to them. I saw them indirectly by drawing conclusions from observations, and from the way math works, from physics.
Skeptic: But you have stated that you have seen them. I will believe you when you support what you have said by showing them to me. So take me to one.
Scientist: You aren't understanding the way I use words, nor are you understanding the way I have come to the conclusions I have. When I said "I have seen them" you took it literally. I was meaning something different. I meant I had good evidence of their existence through other methods rather than by having visited one. Let me try showing you one method. Let's talk about gravity. Gravity is important evidence for what I am saying. Let's start with something you can see for yourself -- or rather feel. Have you experienced gravity?
Skeptic: I see no reason to talk to you about gravity when you are completely unable to support your first statement that you have seen other planets. Until you can support that statement by bringing me to an extra-solar planet so that I, too, can see it with my eyes, I will not confirm or deny anything about gravity.
Scientist: You are not understanding the language I was using.
Skeptic: I understand the language you were using perfectly. I have not asked for anything unreasonable. You said you have seen other planets. I will believe that when you take me to one so that I, too, can see other planets.
Scientist: I never said I had been to another planet. I never said I could take you to one. I have explained what I meant, and set out on an attempt to demonstrate to you some of the methods I do use. You have misunderstood what I am saying, and you refuse to engage in a demonstration of the methods I do use. I am wanting to show you one component -- and if you find that component to fail in some way, you can show me your proofs and I can learn something new, maybe I'll find out there aren't extrasolar planets after all as a result -- but you refuse.
Skeptic: Given what you said -- and it was perfectly clear; just look at the words you used! see here how you stated "I have seen them"? -- asking for you to bring me to a planet where I can see one too is not out of line. These dodges of yours are just you being defensive because you can't back up what you said.
Scientist: You say you understand the way I speak, but it's clear that you don't. I have tried to explain this to you, and while you say you understand, I don't see that you do. I don't think I can get through to you because there's some interference between us hindering understanding.
Skeptic: Good, you admit that you are bad at communicating.
Scientist: Can we talk about gravity?
Skeptic: Not until you can prove to me you saw a planet by taking me there.
Scientist: I give up.
Skeptic: More proof that you're incompetent. When the pressure is on, you dodge responsibility...
Scientist: Whatever.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

nowheat wrote:In the suttas I have seen how sometimes a simile is useful in conveying information. Here's my attempt at using that method to make clear what I see happening here. . . ..
That's nice, and it is an interesting back-handed admission of your failure in this thread; however, the problem is that you have very directly stated that the Buddha said something without quoting a sutta, which opened your statement to a reasonable question of what did the Buddha/the suttas say in support of your opinion. Rather than this prolonged and tedious msg after msg attempt by you at deflecting the focus away from your "He [the Buddha] says," it would be better if you simply and concisely quoted the suttas to show what it is that the Buddha said that supports of your opinion.
>> 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
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

chownah wrote:I have a lot of agreement for what you are saying......
Yes, I think we do. We might use slightly different language to say it, and might even mean slightly different things by it, but there is a lot of overlap.
but.....to understand my posts you should understand that my belief system is very different from most posters here. For me having no doctrine of self is probably the key concept. In working toward no doctrine of self I start from the opposite side from most. My default belief is that there is no self in me or in the world anywhere....
I can understand seeing it that way, though when I find the Buddha talking about how the world is empty of self I have heard him defining "the world" in terms of the aggregates, or in terms of sense data -- so, once again, I think it's self he's talking about. That ends up a bit circular: the world is empty of self = self is empty of self, but it seems to me that is what he is saying.

This is not me arguing that the world outside of us *has* a self -- that's not what I'm saying. But I have, in the past, tended to interpret the Buddha as saying "nothing in the world has any inherent nature" (aka "nothing in the world has a self") and, on study, I don't actually find him overtly saying that, though I think it is still there as subtext, or at the very least that we can infer it through observation of how *we* have no inherent self and the same principal applies to everything we see around us (so he doesn't have to say it in the texts for it to be a Buddhist concept -- if it is drawn from the things he points out to us, and we can see it in the world around us, it's logically "Buddhist" as far as I can see).
SN 35.85 [pts S iii 54]
"It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, 'Empty is the world.' And what is empty of self and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ananda, is empty of self and of what belongs to self."
and of course this view is in fact a doctrine of self. But I can not just snap my fingers and change my views so I continue to firmly be of the view that ther is no self anywhere.
I agree, it is a doctrine of self. Isn't it easier to relax and understand that there is no inherent self, but that it is something we construct? It's a concept? I find this helps with the "walking around the world behaving like there is a self" problem. As long as we are mindful that it's something we're building...
I believe strongly in The All and The World as the Buddha defined them in the suttas.......but unlike most people I fully believe that understanding experience as being just that is a major key in moving toward the goal....this means that I tend to deny the existence of the "external world" as most people view it.....if I must give an opinion about the external world I would say that it's existence is just conjecture.
But wiser to just set its reality or lack thereof aside? What matters is what we can know, which is experience, including the experience of dukkha?
Do understand that I do typically walk around feeling like a self and seeing others as being selves but I see this as just my state of delusion... so I'm not a slack jawed drooler.
Glad to hear it! ; )
All of this about me is to show you how hard it is for me to reply to what you are saying. You talk about whether a self should work towards it's future happiness and my most honest answer to this is that all a self ever does is to work towards it's future happiness and this is a strong indication of why we should have no doctrine of self.
Yes! That seems to be its function in life, even if, in its ignorance, it isn't very good at it.
You talk about saving the world and I think you mean the external world and my view is that it's existence is just a conjecture and it is better to see the world in more definite terms I.e. as the sum total of our life's experience and nothing more.....on other words it is a product of the self.
This might be where I go wrong in my wording, because I tend to use "the world" in a multi-layered way, sort of the way I see the Buddha using it. If the external world gets saved (bees and oceans and plants and air) that's a good thing and a byproduct of saving people from their selves (world = self, in that case). Aloka inserted "the whole" into the phrasing I used at one point -- I said something about the Buddha being out to save the world and she repeated what I said back to me as "the whole world" which I think confused the point.
So, I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I have to decode it into my belief structure, formulate an answer, code it back onto your belief structure, and then express it in writing...
I am sorry it takes so much effort but I am glad you persist.

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

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Aloka wrote:Hello again nowheat,
Hello Aloka, and thanks for taking the time to answer.
After his awakening the Buddha decided to teach others because he realised that beings were in different stages of development and that some of them would benefit greatly from his teachings. (SN 6.1)

He then went on to teach the people who were interested in what he had to say, in an area of India.

To me this doesn't indicate that his personal intention was to cure the suffering of everyone on the planet.
Yes, I can appreciate this point of view. This seems especially clear in light of the way we see the Buddha as a desireless person -- he can't have, really, *wanted* to cure the world of suffering because that "wanting" would involve desire, wouldn't it.

But there is some very subtle understanding in here about this, about why he would give up the comforts of his own solitary practice in favor of the difficulty of teaching people. And the other really subtle aspect of this is the way we humans (you and I in this instance) tend to push what the other person is saying off its actual center a little in order to be able to disagree with it, to be able to say "My understanding is correct, and yours is incorrect" (or something more subtle than even that -- it is hard to express what I am saying here).

So, for example, as a next step in this conversation, it is tempting for me to suggest that what you seem to be saying here is that the Buddha had no desire to achieve anything in particular -- he is a desireless being. He did not, therefore, set out to save the world, because that would be an expression of desire. And then we could wander off into debate about why he would then overcome his reluctance ("If I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be wearisome for me, that would be troublesome..") to teach a dhamma that is, as the Buddha said in the sutta you cited "deep, hard to see, hard to understand"*. But quite probably you're not suggesting that the Buddha lived his life without any intention, nor that intention = desire, so the argument I would be making might well be subtly pulling us away from understanding, through the effect of distorting your point so we have further to go to get to the middle.

And this is the situation with the concept that I am saying the Buddha was Out To Save The Whole World with its implication that I am suggesting that he thought he could (and that this is refuted by pointing out that he couldn't Do The Numbers). It distorts what I was suggesting.

And simultaneously *completely* avoids talking about what was at the heart of the issue: about whether, for any of us as individuals -- never mind what the Buddha said, I'm asking how each of us sees the practice -- we perceive emphasis on our own future happiness to be a critical component of practice over letting go of concern with ourselves and our futures and perceiving the world in terms of the effect we have on others.

Funny how we never end up discussing that.
No offence meant - but In general, I'm not particularly interested in continually speculating about what the Buddha might, or might not have intended. I guess its probably because I'm a schoolteacher by profession and I like to see supporting evidence from source material - but anyway, that's all from me. Have fun !
Oh I take no offense, but haven't you said, "I'm done" in various ways before? Maybe I'm misreading and what you're saying is, "on this point, on this subject, that's all folks"?

:namaste:

* interesting that the Buddha did not describe it as "overt, obvious, all easily explained, so that he could confine himself to always speaking on a literal level"
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

tiltbillings wrote:
nowheat wrote:In the suttas I have seen how sometimes a simile is useful in conveying information. Here's my attempt at using that method to make clear what I see happening here. . . ..
That's nice, and it is an interesting back-handed admission of your failure in this thread; however, the problem is that you have very directly stated that the Buddha said something without quoting a sutta, which opened your statement to a reasonable question of what did the Buddha/the suttas say in support of your opinion. Rather than this prolonged and tedious msg after msg attempt by you at deflecting the focus away from your "He [the Buddha] says," it would be better if you simply and concisely quoted the suttas to show what it is that the Buddha said that supports of your opinion.
I wish I could see the above as intentional humor. It would be really awesome as humor.

:namaste:
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

nowheat wrote: Yes, I can appreciate this point of view. This seems especially clear in light of the way we see the Buddha as a desireless person -- he can't have, really, *wanted* to cure the world of suffering because that "wanting" would involve desire, wouldn't it.

But there is some very subtle understanding in here about this, about why he would give up the comforts of his own solitary practice in favor of the difficulty of teaching people. And the other really subtle aspect of this is the way we humans (you and I in this instance) tend to push what the other person is saying off its actual center a little in order to be able to disagree with it, to be able to say "My understanding is correct, and yours is incorrect" (or something more subtle than even that -- it is hard to express what I am saying here).

So, for example, as a next step in this conversation, it is tempting for me to suggest that what you seem to be saying here is that the Buddha had no desire to achieve anything in particular -- he is a desireless being. He did not, therefore, set out to save the world, because that would be an expression of desire. And then we could wander off into debate about why he would then overcome his reluctance ("If I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be wearisome for me, that would be troublesome..") to teach a dhamma that is, as the Buddha said in the sutta you cited "deep, hard to see, hard to understand"*. But quite probably you're not suggesting that the Buddha lived his life without any intention, nor that intention = desire, so the argument I would be making might well be subtly pulling us away from understanding, through the effect of distorting your point so we have further to go to get to the middle.
Hi nowheat,

Please don't think that I'm implying anything other than what I've already written. I'd also be grateful if you didn't start creating "tempting" next steps in an imaginary conversation with me.
Oh I take no offense, but haven't you said, "I'm done" in various ways before? Maybe I'm misreading and what you're saying is, "on this point, on this subject, that's all folks"?
I'm saying that I'm done with that particular subject area, thank you.

:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

nowheat wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
nowheat wrote:In the suttas I have seen how sometimes a simile is useful in conveying information. Here's my attempt at using that method to make clear what I see happening here. . . ..
That's nice, and it is an interesting back-handed admission of your failure in this thread; however, the problem is that you have very directly stated that the Buddha said something without quoting a sutta, which opened your statement to a reasonable question of what did the Buddha/the suttas say in support of your opinion. Rather than this prolonged and tedious msg after msg attempt by you at deflecting the focus away from your "He [the Buddha] says," it would be better if you simply and concisely quoted the suttas to show what it is that the Buddha said that supports of your opinion.
I wish I could see the above as intentional humor. It would be really awesome as humor.
Sorry for your deficiency. Being without humor in this world can be difficult.

To the point at hand, it would seem, however, that in a discussion of understanding of the Buddha's teachings that direct reference to -- that is, quoting the Buddha Word -- would be more than appropriate in illustrating one's point.
>> 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
User avatar
Kusala
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:02 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Kusala »

Why rebirth is important ----------> http://www.iisis.net/index.php?page=sem ... e&hl=en_US
"He, the Blessed One, is indeed the Noble Lord, the Perfectly Enlightened One;
He is impeccable in conduct and understanding, the Serene One, the Knower of the Worlds;
He trains perfectly those who wish to be trained; he is Teacher of gods and men; he is Awake and Holy. "

--------------------------------------------
"The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Apparent here and now, timeless, encouraging investigation,
Leading to liberation, to be experienced individually by the wise. "
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by cooran »

Hello Kusala,

This doesn't seem like a quality site. I would be careful using it as a support.

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

The PDF book draft by Bhikkhu Cintita that Bhante Gavesako linked to here has some interesting discussion relevant to this thread:
Growing the Dhamma: Buddhism's Religious Spadework.

Chapter 4: Transcendence.
...
We have three optional views that define the wiggle room to retains the functionality of rebirth:

1. Rebirth is literally true as described in early Buddhism. Probably this is the dominant view
historically.

2. Rebirth is an approximation for something more subtle, potentially verifiable, yet largely
equivalent with regards to the functionality that authenticity demands. This is a view seldom
considered.

3. Rebirth as literally understood is a beneficial working assumption even if it is a pretense. This is
the Buddha's own recommendation, as we will see, for the skeptical.

The view that the Buddha never taught rebirth at all requires great imagination, that a ring of monks
tainted with brahmanic views slipped heretical changes systematically into sutta after sutta shortly after
the time of the Buddha and then managed to popularize these changes to such a degree that no
contradictory suttas survived. It requires dismissing the drive for transcendent meaning in Buddhist
practice that I have argued here is essential for the Path of Awakening. Let's look at each of these three
optional takes on rebirth.
...
:anjali:
Mike
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

Nowheet,
I don't often recommend reading things but this is from the link that mikenz66 just provided:

..............
Transcendent meaning for the Buddhist is attained through “that panoramic perspective from which we can survey our lives in their broader context and total network of relationships” that comes from realizing that our lives and therefore our practices are woven inextricably into something far grander in scale, a rich and immense tapestry of human affairs. We realize that we are each engaged in an epic struggle with karmic forces from the ancient past and producing outcomes that will reach endlessly into the future. Our practice therefore has vastly more at stake than happiness and comfort in this present life. It has never been exclusively about this one present life. From this the urgency that impels us to deep practice develops that also opens up the prospect of Awakening.
.................

Is this at least just a tiny little bit like what you have been saying? :smile:
chownah
P.S. My automatic spell corrector changes your name into "nowhere" sometimes so if this shows up it is not some subtle anything.
chownah
Post Reply