Don't you mean that Pascal's Wager was just a Christian form of the Buddha's teaching?seanpdx wrote: Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
Metta
Mike
Don't you mean that Pascal's Wager was just a Christian form of the Buddha's teaching?seanpdx wrote: Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
*grin* You know, I've always wondered if Pascal had read this sutta! =Dmikenz66 wrote:Don't you mean that Pascal's Wager was just a Christian form of the Buddha's teaching?seanpdx wrote: Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.
Metta
Mike
May I try then to answer your "How do you propose to do that?" question.mikenz66 to seanpdx wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, it does sound rather glib. I salute your abilities...
I disagree on one specific point, which is actually more of semantic matter in what you wrote. I disagree that "belief in an atman" necessarily underpins each view. I agree, however, that it's transcended if one "does not possess a soul view". Belief in an atman, and belief in a lack of atman, are both soul views. One, the view that a soul exists (leading to either eternalism or annihilationism). The other, the view that a soul does not exist (which obviously cannot lead to eternalism in any seemingly rational way, but could lead to materialism/nihilism/annihilationism).retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Mike,
May I try then to answer your "How do you propose to do that?" question.mikenz66 to seanpdx wrote:Yes, I'm sorry, it does sound rather glib. I salute your abilities...
What underpins annihilationism or eternalism is belief in an atman (soul)... either one than transmigrates (eternalism) or one that is destroyed at death (annihilationism). The dichotomy of annihilationism vs eternalism is elegantly transcended if one does not possess a soul view, such as thus espoused in the Brahamajala Sutta.
An extremely hypothetical question if you ask me, since all of us on this thread presumably have such wrong views...retrofuturist wrote: Therefore, to repose Sean's question against that setting, "Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief if you hold no wrong views with respect to atman?"
Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?mikenz66 wrote:An extremely hypothetical question if you ask me, since all of us on this thread presumably have such wrong views...
Of course, I'm just not sure which one...retrofuturist wrote: Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?
Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.mikenz66 wrote:Of course, I'm just not sure which one...retrofuturist wrote: Are you saying you're an eternalist or an annhiliationist?
So is everyone here, or we'd already be awakened and not discussing such things...
Mike
I'm not talking about expressed views and beliefs, I'm talking about awakening, or lack thereof.seanpdx wrote: Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.
Well, Mike and Retro are quite correct to say so. This is because a non-ariyan mind, left to it's own devices (which is most of the time) necessarily inclines itself to one of these two views, or a combination thereof, just as a river inclines itself towards the sea.seanpdx wrote: Please do not speak for me, what I believe, or the views which I may or may not possess. Thank you.
HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.mikenz66 wrote:Hi NoWheat,Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).nowheat wrote: My concern is that if this is true, rebirth accepters spread a meme that seriously slows ability to gain liberation.
Hi Sean & All,seanpdx wrote:according to the third noble truth, it is the extinction of tanha which results in the cessation of dukkha and, subsequently, liberation. Not the extinction of eternalist or annihilationist views.
I propose to do it by following the Buddha's example of agnosticism. In fact, for myself, I'm past proposing; it happened to me without my ever really intending that it should. When I started reading the suttas and came to understand that the Buddha was not saying there is another life beyond this, nor was he saying that there wasn't, that he was saying that we must base our choices on what we can know directly ourselves; when I realized that I do not know whether this is my only life or one of many, my stomach did that rollercoaster-drop thing on and off for quite a while, because I was deeply, deeply disturbed by the concept. Which was pretty funny because I *thought* I'd been an agnostic for many years; I hadn't realized until I accepted his wisdom that I have to base my life on what I can know, and not simply on what others tell me (in other words; read, study, listen, choose wise teachers, but test and see for yourself) I discovered that I had a whole bunch of unexamined assumptions and letting go of them was deeply uncomfortable. I expect I still have a few more to let go of, but hopefully not too many left in this particular category; I've gotten fairly good at noticing them when they (rarely) show their heads.mikenz66 wrote:How do you propose to do that?seanpdx wrote: What if we simply drop any and all notions of annihilationism and eternalism? Does belief in rebirth then remain a necessary belief?
Hmm, I guess you mean:nowheat wrote:HI Mike! I believe it because the Buddha said it. Please see the top post on page 35 of "the great rebirth debate" thread where I quote Bhikkhu Bodhi explaining it.mikenz66 wrote: Please explain why you think that rebirth in the sense explained by the Buddha supports a sense of self. It seems to me that that would be a misreading of the Suttas (and, of course, the Abhidhamma).
I can see your point, but I don't necessarily accept the sort of "cause and effect" you attribute to it.nowheat wrote:Bhikkhu Bodhi says that the Buddha said in this sutta that right view ripens (in other words "matures into" or "gives us fruit which is") the acquisition of "the five aggregates that constitute personal existence.' In other words, following this view causes us to continue to generate the five aggregates. Note that when it comes to the aggregates, it doesn't use a word that implies "will continue as before" but one that implies that the process of believing mundane right view *generates* the taint: *ripening* in the acquisitions.
Except that it's not, not entirely a Pascal's Wager. The part about "will get a good rebirth after the breakup of the body" is Pascal's Wager, but the parts about "will lead a good life, praised by your peers" is not.seanpdx wrote:Just an FYI, but that's simply a buddhist form of Pascal's Wager.Ben wrote: As you know, when the Buddha was questioned by the householders of sala who were sceptical of rebirth, in the Apannaka Sutta (MN 60), he didn't try to convince them that they were wrong but used logical inference to direct them to the conclusion that living one's life as though one believed in rebirth will lead to their welfare. And I think that remains a potent message for all of us.
kind regards