The Danger of Rebirth

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

I don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this
It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevant


Something exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.
If there is rebirth is it the same rupa? is it the same perception through moments? is it the same conscious awareness through moments? no, when they arise its brand new and when they cease they cease forever, the cognition of forms through eye is new when arising, when the form goes that consciousness dependent on the eye-form ceases forever, if a form comes into view again its a new conscious awareness


When a feeling arisies its new, when its supporting conditions go that feeling ceases forever, any feeling that arises again is brand new, unless you hold one of the aggregates or more is permanent and eternal?

To say that these aggregates cease forever is correct, since anything that arises in the future will be brand new, there is no permanency in conditionality


As the old saying goes

"you cant step into the same river twice"
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Heavenstorm said
Nevertheless if the OP is willing to argue less and listen more, perhaps he won't continue to be so "puzzled" or even surprised at the seeming endless number of posters opposing him.
Im discussing relevant points, would you prefer it if i just accepted something blindly without investigating so i can know for myself? and just because a lot of people oppose a view or understanding doesnt make it wrong
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by kc2dpt »

clw_uk wrote:
I don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this
It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevant
This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Gabriel

Just wanted to state that when i say ours or i its for convenience. Also im answering your questions in reguards to Dhamma language
Where did my love of red cars come from? Why do I really enjoy life? Do you think the tendencies of beings are purely a function of the experience which happens from conception to this moment?
I used red cars and life enjoyment just as a way of showing how experience can vary, its not to say that you do like red cars and i hate life

The tendencies of beings come from different factors, such as kamma and level of wisdom, which will effect how they react to certain situations or experiences



What about experience is experienced by aggregates? In what way do the aggregates experience?
In what way do the aggregates experience? Perception percieves, consciousness cognizes and so is aware, feeling feels, as buddha said, when there is painful feeling, its just painful feeling

How are you defining "self
Self is an error, an illusion, in reality there is no such thing as I or mine and so no craig. Self comes to be through craving and clinging "This is mine" so through clinging there has been birth of self and self grasping in a moment. This is why there is birth and death constantly and not when refering to the end of the body
If there is an experience of perception which is totally unique to the aggregates which result in my loving red cars
"You" dont love red cars, the ignorant craving has lead to a birth of "I" or "me" who loves red cars through craving/clinging to the pleasure that red cars bring to the senses because of ignorance


So I hear you saying that at different times different conditions act on "us". Well I may begin to dislike red cars but there will still be residual influence from craving red cars which will effect the experience of red cars. There appears this succession of apparent events none of which are completely without influence.
The "us" bit was for convention. To dislike red cars is still craving and your right there is succession of events, this is conditionality


How is coming forth different from ending?
What is it that birth comes forth to and death is the end of?
If they are interconnected as you say, at what point do they connect?
If there is a point at which death becomes birth is there a transition from death to birth or does death instantaneously become birth
Coming forth is different from ending because it is the birth of something new, ending is the expiring

Birth is the begining of whatever you like, you can say a new perception has been "born" or "I" have been born etc so birth is the coming forth of any new feeling, perception, idea etc which can in turn be a bases for something else, death can refer to the end of that which is generated

They are connected or i should say, related via there dependencies, death depends on birth for exsistence, birth depends on death because without death there can be no birth, also but they arent the cause of each other directly, i.e. birth doesnt cause one to die, its just a condition for it so when there is birth, there will be death because of that condition that has been set forward. When something is born it must die, when it has died, if conditionality continues there will be a birth of something new. There cant be birth if there is no death and there cant be death if there is no birth


Death does not become birth, its just that death allows for something new to rise if conditionlity continues, if there was no death there could be no more birth of "I" or "me" so there would be a permanent sense of self. This is illogical since all things that are conditioned are impermanent and subject to rise and fall.


If death didnt lead to birth then there would have been nibbana years ago

How many years ago? How are you defining nibbana here?
Nibbana is the end of all I-making and so the end of sense of self. If after the first time my sense of self or view of "I" died and that was the end of conditionality then there would be no more I-making and so it would be nibbana, the first time in this exisistence when my sense of self died for the first time was obviously as a child or younger. However because of dependent origination which is occuring in moments the death of "I" is not the end, since dependent origination has not been stopped a sense of self or "I" will be born again, therefore there can be birth after a death


:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.

You speak with wisdom

For me dependent origination works best when looking at moments because its very practical but i can see how in some way others may need the three lives in some way, just i hope they dont forget that its happening right now. To me i still dont see that the buddha did teach it as three lives since its more practical in the here and now where it has more meaning, thats not to say though three lives is completely impossible.

I did mean well with all of the posts in this thread but i can see how i have forgotten how the buddha taught different ways to different people. If he had taught me himself he would have hardly ever used rebirth because that wouldnt benefit my practice, but i can see how he would have taught it to others because it would benefit them. I wasnt really ranting but i feel my zeal for wanting to help others, mixed with my forgetfulness about how there are different way to approach the dhamma, have made it seem this way.


Besides, its been an interesting and healthy debate dont you think?

:namaste:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Heavenstorm
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:37 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Heavenstorm »

clw_uk wrote:Im discussing relevant points, would you prefer it if i just accepted something blindly without investigating so i can know for myself? and just because a lot of people oppose a view or understanding doesnt make it wrong
Relevant to you perhaps, our responses are just enough to let you know that your novel interpretations of the rebirth had been rejected by the Buddhists in this forum and I can't think of one in the outside Buddhist communities that actually agree with you. Sorry pal, but thats the real and current situation, you are on your own. :hello:
Heavenstorm
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:37 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Heavenstorm »

clw_uk wrote:Heavenstorm, you seem to be developing aversion towards me, i would advise against this for your own benefit
No, not at all. As with rebirth, you like to interpret stuffs too much and wrongly.
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by kc2dpt »

clw_uk wrote:...just i hope they dont forget that its happening right now. To me i still dont see that the buddha did teach it as three lives since its more practical in the here and now where it has more meaning, thats not to say though three lives is completely impossible.
I will say it again: The three lives teaching teaches its happening right now. It also teaches that it happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But there is nothing about this teaching which moves one's practice out of the here and now. That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.

Ignorance and formations have arisen in the past... and they also arise in the present and will arise in the future.
Feelings and clinging arise in the present... and they also have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.

In fact, these two lines are really just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Why did I only focus on those bits? Because those bits represent causes. They are the bits where our practice must focus. We can't do anything about results (other than understand how they came to arise) but we can do something about causes. Seeing feelings as just feelings, seeing all phenomena as annica/dukkha/anatta, leads to the eradication of ignorance. With no ignorance there can be no craving. With no craving there can be no karmic formations.
I did mean well with all of the posts in this thread but i can see how i have forgotten how the buddha taught different ways to different people. If he had taught me himself he would have hardly ever used rebirth because that wouldnt benefit my practice, but i can see how he would have taught it to others because it would benefit them. I wasnt really ranting but i feel my zeal for wanting to help others, mixed with my forgetfulness about how there are different way to approach the dhamma, have made it seem this way.
I'm glad you understand.
Besides, its been an interesting and healthy debate dont you think?
No, I do not think so. When one damages something and others have to step in to make repairs... it is good that the repairs were done but it would have been better still if the damage was not done in the first place. When one slanders the Dhamma in a public forum it does much harm to many people. Saying "Buddhists for centuries have gotten the teachings wrong and only I have got it right" is no where near as healthy as saying "I do not understand this teaching which has endured for centuries. Can someone explain it to me?" That is a healthy way to inquire.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

Im glad your not :smile: wasnt trying to offend it just seemed that way, thats one of the problems of internet chat, sometimes hard to see ones meaning or context


:namaste:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by kc2dpt »

To illustrate my point...

Once I came across a teaching about rain gods. I was totally baffled as to what this teaching had to do with the suffering and the ending of suffering. But instead of saying "This obviously can't be a teaching of the Buddha; it must have been added later" or saying "The Buddha taught this but only to stupid people" I asked a knowledgeable teacher "I do not see how this teaching fits in with the rest of the teachings; can you explain it to me?" And guess what? He explained it to me and now I understand. And I did it without slandering the Buddha (calling him a liar or a trickster), the Dhamma (by saying some bits were worthless) or the Sangha (by saying unscrupulous monks changed the teachings). I did it without causing anyone to doubt or lose faith. I did it without causing arguments or insults or divisions.

I think questions are wonderful, but I think there are better and worse ways to ask questions.
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

I will say it again: The three lives teaching teaches its happening right now. It also teaches that it happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But there is nothing about this teaching which moves one's practice out of the here and now. That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.

Ignorance and formations have arisen in the past... and they also arise in the present and will arise in the future.
Feelings and clinging arise in the present... and they also have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.

In fact, these two lines are really just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Why did I only focus on those bits? Because those bits represent causes. They are the bits where our practice must focus. We can't do anything about results (other than understand how they came to arise) but we can do something about causes. Seeing feelings as just feelings, seeing all phenomena as annica/dukkha/anatta, leads to the eradication of ignorance. With no ignorance there can be no craving. With no craving there can be no karmic formations.
Then is seems we disagree on dependent origination perhaps its just best to leave it, both sides have been put forward any more discussion would be circular


No, I do not think so. When one damages something and others have to step in to make repairs... it is good that the repairs were done but it would have been better still if the damage was not done in the first place. When one slanders the Dhamma in a public forum it does much harm to many people. Saying "Buddhists for centuries have gotten the teachings wrong and only I have got it right" is no where near as healthy as saying "I do not understand this teaching which has endured for centuries. Can someone explain it to me?" That is a healthy way to inquire.
You are right, to state "I understand it and you dont" is arogant and i did come accross that way although that wasnt my intention, i probably should have started questions better

Saying there is no rebirth i feel is not slandering the dhamma, this is the basic point that i was trying to express

the buddha stated his dhamma would only last 500 years did he not?

I feel it was good debate since very relevant points were raised on both sides
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:21 am, edited 3 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

To illustrate my point...

Once I came across a teaching about rain gods. I was totally baffled as to what this teaching had to do with the suffering and the ending of suffering. But instead of saying "This obviously can't be a teaching of the Buddha; it must have been added later" or saying "The Buddha taught this but only to stupid people" I asked a knowledgeable teacher "I do not see how this teaching fits in with the rest of the teachings; can you explain it to me?" And guess what? He explained it to me and now I understand. And I did it without slandering the Buddha (calling him a liar or a trickster), the Dhamma (by saying some bits were worthless) or the Sangha (by saying unscrupulous monks changed the teachings). I did it without causing anyone to doubt or lose faith. I did it without causing arguments or insults or divisions.

I think questions are wonderful, but I think there are better and worse ways to ask questions.

Without challenges to ones view and understanding how does one grow in understanding? To have someone raise a point that is contary to your own and to engage in debate is a good way to test ones understanding of things, how else do you know if they are true or not without testing them? debate is one of these ways

I have no teacher so i can only do it through these means

I never said the buddha was a liar, trickster or anything of the kind, those are your misunderstandings of what i was/am trying to say, maybe from my mistake in how i was putting it forward

Did you just accept what he said because he said it or did you take what he said and challenge it and so investigated it?

Your right, questions are wonderful, which is why i dont blindly accept rebirth i only have confidence with some skepticism. The buddha taught that blind belief wont get you anywhere at all, i feel this also applies to rebirth

I dont see how i have caused anyone to loss faith at all, since both sides have been voiced with evidence on both sides, this allows people to look at different angles and so test their faith/understanding which leads only to a strengthening of that faith and understanding. The main point about this has been interpretations, not the teachings themselves
:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17169
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by DNS »

clw_uk wrote:
TD = If there is no rebirth, what happens after death for the un-enlightened?
There are two posibilities, either dukkha will be allowed to rise again or its nibbana
This discussion appears to be winding down, but before it closes, I just realized my question wasn't answered.

Where / when / how is dukkha allowed to rise again? (assuming there is no rebirth)
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

This discussion appears to be winding down, but before it closes, I just realized my question wasn't answered.

Where / when / how is dukkha allowed to rise again? (assuming there is no rebirth

Well if there is no rebirth at all, no arising of new aggregates then it doesnt rise again and rupa death would be the end of all dukkha forever and so nibbana and the buddha teachings were just concerned with just this life and how to help beings in this existence.

This of course is the main thorn in the side of anyone who argues for complete non-existence of rebirth (something which im not doing) because if this is true then why didnt the buddha

A) Teach suicide since death would be nibbana and so would be freedom from all dukkha forever
B) Just teach basic morality and coping techniques (things that dont require so much time and effort) so something in line with what a Pratyekabuddha might teach others (since if they teach its only morality and not for nibbana)
C) Why did he Teach Rebirth at all

Of course A could be answered by saying that the buddha wasnt concerned with notions of after life and he was just teaching so people end dukkha in this exsistence reguardless of what happens after ***

However as we know the buddha set forth a training based on his insights that was time consuming, most cases needing a dedication of entire life , he didnt teach people that rupa death was nibbana, he said the ending of all craving was the only thing that could stop all dukkha and I-making

As for C one cant say its a cultural addition from the brahmins since there is evidence the brahmin religion wasnt established in kapilvastu during buddhas time and there are enough suttas throughout the cannon to be pretty sure that he did teach it. This then leads one onto the conclusion that the buddha was lying or just pandering to peoples beliefs to get them to believe his own teachings, this i feel falls down since the buddha stressed the need to tell truth at all times and the evil of deceiving people. Also there were already followers of other sects that didnt include rebirth (i.e. the annihilationists etc) so if rebirth wasnt part of his teaching then he wouldnt have needed to teach it since others at the time were already following teachings that didnt have rebirth

(*** i added this just as a note that of course the buddhas teachings are always concerned with the here and now with or withour rebirth because there is dukkha here and now)

Just to state once again since there seems to be a tendency for be to be taken as a rebirth denier, i am not i have confidence but some skepticism which is in line with the buddhas teachings

Does that answer your question?

Metta
:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:21 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

clw_uk wrote: experience? Perception percieves, consciousness cognizes and so is aware, feeling feels, as buddha said, when there is painful feeling, its just painful feeling
Is there an experience of perception perceiving, or consciousness cognizing, or sensation sensing?
clw_uk wrote:This is why there is birth and death constantly and not when refering to the end of the body.....

To dislike red cars is still craving and your right there is succession of events, this is conditionality.....
If birth and death is constant how is there a succession of events?
Coming forth is different from ending because it is the birth of something new, ending is the expiring
It sounds to me like birth and death as you describe them are the same thing. Isnt every instance of coming forth also simultaneous expiring.

If death didnt lead to birth then there would have been nibbana years ago



Nibbana is the end of all I-making and so the end of sense of self. If after the first time my sense of self or view of "I" died and that was the end of conditionality then there would be no more I-making and so it would be nibbana, the first time in this exisistence when my sense of self died for the first time was obviously as a child or younger. However because of dependent origination which is occuring in moments the death of "I" is not the end, since dependent origination has not been stopped a sense of self or "I" will be born again, therefore there can be birth after a death
So if death didnt lead to birth there would be no death?

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
Post Reply