the great rebirth debate

[nathan]

Hi Nathan

As disciples of the Buddha, these kinds of efforts to refute His Noble gifts to all beings is the highest form of disrespect a self declared follower could possibly demonstrate. I am going to continue to say so and maybe it is time to start kicking butt and taking names as well. Such people should not be recognized as followers of the BuddhaDhamma, whoever they may be in this world.

I dont think this is darkdreams intent, one is allowed to question and discuss the buddhadhamma, the buddha said dont believe it until you know it to be true via investigation as well as other means, otherwise its just blind belief that doesnt get you anywhere

I also dont think that a disbelief in rebirth, if one has a correct understanding of the 4 noble truths and dependent origination, can count as slandering or refuting the Dhamma, it could just mean they dont find it important and are just focusing on nibbana here and now (which is kinda the point)

What is internal remains internal what is said and done externally does not. Intentions formed in ignorance and delusion often have little to do with the effects and results. Promotion of ignorance and delusion is just that, in any form.

[Ceisiwr]

I agree with Nathan. If people want to reject rebirth that's OK. Just don't claim that it represents the Buddha's Dhamma.

If you reject dependent origination and so rebirth in this life,
four noble truths,
anicca, anatta and dukkha

Or if you claim to be a follower of the Buddha but indulge in drink and drugs, tell lies, steal then this is slandering the buddha in my opinion not questioning a doctrine that is about physical death

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Nathan,

A thread with this title should not even exist here. Mods, change the title, remove the thread or remove Dhamma from the name and call these forums Wheel from now on.

A topic like this would not be permitted anywhere on the forum other than in this Dhammic Free-For-All, which has specific guidelines.

Appropriate conduct within the Dhammic free-for-all
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[nathan]

Greetings Nathan,

A thread with this title should not even exist here. Mods, change the title, remove the thread or remove Dhamma from the name and call these forums Wheel from now on.

A topic like this would not be permitted anywhere on the forum other than in this Dhammic Free-For-All, which has specific guidelines.

Appropriate conduct within the Dhammic free-for-all
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=175" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

That's fine Retro. I was simply making a point. I suggest another forum area called 'the wheel' where ignorant and useless, circular and baseless argumentation can persist in it's all it's inexhaustible diversity and predictable forms. An area clearly separate from those areas where people who acknowledge their own persisting forms of ignorance and confusion, who do not wish to waste their time with futile endeavors, can focus on what is important in developing real understanding. Then those who wish to waste their own time and that of any others and who can see nothing better to do can do can play out their internal fantasies all they like.

[Prasadachitta]

Although I think it is clear that the OP has not refuted rebirth, I have no problem with his posting this thread here. If it makes people upset then they might want to think about why. When a post like this is calmly and kindly refuted then all those who might have had similar thoughts benefit from reading it. No one benefits from an antagonistic response to ignorance.

Metta

Gabriel

[Ceisiwr]

That's fine Retro. I was simply making a point. I suggest another forum area called 'the wheel' where ignorant and useless, circular and baseless argumentation can persist in it's all it's inexhaustible diversity and predictable forms. An area clearly separate from those areas where people who acknowledge their own persisting forms of ignorance and confusion, who do not wish to waste their time with futile endeavors, can focus on what is important in developing real understanding. Then those who wish to waste their own time and that of any others who have nothing better can do can play out their internal fantasies all they like.

For some people questioning rebirth isnt useless, perhaps they just want to understand more? If we dont allow for its occasional discussion with those who need to discuss it then whats the alternative, simply stating "thats how it is and you must accept it"? I dont think anyone here would agree thats the correct behaviour the Buddha would expect from us.

I also feel this area of this site is sufficient for those who wish to discuss such things, other people dont have to get involved in a particular thread if they feel the topic is a waste of time

[tiltbillings]

Craig:

For some people questioning rebirth isnt useless, perhaps they just want to understand more?

And for some people who want to look at paticcasamuppada in terms of three lives is not useless, perhaps they want to understand more?

[tiltbillings]

Also, as far as this thread is concerned, do not feed the bears.

[cooran]

And, besides which, if you look at the Board Stats, it's clearly where most people come when on Dhamma Wheel.

The Dhammic Free-for-all and associated sub-forums beats all the other forums and sub-forums here hands down in numbers of Topics and Posts. Can't see the Views - but I'm assuming it wins the Logie in that area as well.

Good thing? Not a good thing?

metta
Chris

[Ceisiwr]

And for some people who want to look at paticcasamuppada in terms of three lives is not useless, perhaps they want to understand more?

lol very good point tilt, well placed comment

Sadhu

[tiltbillings]

And, besides which, if you look at the Board Stats, it's clearly where most people come when on Dhamma Wheel.

The Dhammic Free-for-all and associated sub-forums beats all the other forums and sub-forums here hands down in numbers of Topics and Posts. Can't see the Views - but I'm assuming it wins the Logie in that area as well.

Good thing? Not a good thing?

metta
Chris

On the Grey Forum (that most of us know very well), for example, it is almost always the contentious threads that get the high count. Just the nature of the beast. As a hard as it is to sometimes not to respond, it might be best not to feed the bear, but we on Dhamma Wheel are not going to enforce orthodoxy as some other have tried to.

The best thing to do, if one must respond to such arguments presented here, is to present a clear, reasoned and textually supported argument. There is value in that no matter else goes on in a thread such as this.

[Ben]

Yes, you are right Tilt.
If we are all involved in useless and speculative discussion, there may be merit in Nathan's call to place it in a Dhamma-free forum. But as it is, non-normative views of the Dhamma are regularly challenged and refuted by our members. While the original poster may not be convinced or freed from the error of view, the discussion will no doubt assist those new to the Dhamma as to what is representative of theravada point of view and what is not.

I think it is far healthier to discuss rebirth, kamma or any other aspect of the teachings rather than to quarantine some subjects from discussion. And this is the right sub-forum to do it.
Kind regards

Ben

[Individual]

As I stated in my introduction, I am quite critical about the literal notion of rebirth.

I have written three posts in my blog that I believe provide convincing arguments which show the improbability of the mechanism of literal rebirth:

They can be found here (in three parts):

http://dreamwhitehorses.blogspot.com/20 ... art-1.html
http://dreamwhitehorses.blogspot.com/20 ... art-2.html
http://dreamwhitehorses.blogspot.com/20 ... t-iii.html

The main arguments (summarized) I make against the belief is the following:

1) Consciousness can not exist without a body.
2) Instaneous transfer of karmic energies cannot be guarantee a suitable being-to-be.
3) Difficulty in explaining population explosions.
4) Problem with infinite regress with the gandhabba.
5) Dubious scientific evidence.
6) Questionable value for salvation.

Any constructive comments would be appreciated.

--DarkDream

1) Rebirth is the re-arising of a conditioned consciousness, not the continuation of consciousness without a body.
2) Such instantaneous transfer is visible here and now.
3) The growth of the number of beings doesn't imply their non-rebirth. There is continuation of causality, but not identity, so in the future "this" will be reborn, but there aren't fixed quantities of eternal beings that are reborn. You can't take bacteria in a petri dish, it multiplies... You can take worms, cut them in half... You can take a human brain, too, and divide it, even combine it with the right technology, but all of this are merely different mechanisms by which rebirth occurs.
4) A problem of language, I think. All statements in language are ultimately an infinite regression of definitions.
5) Those who appeal to scientific evidence are generally eternalists, subtly arguing for reincarnation. Rebirth is an obvious fact of reality, while the notion that individual thoughts, memories, consciousness, etc., is preserved between lives is a myth, and such studies which try to demonstrate this (i.e. Ian Stevenson) is indeed scientific.
6) Refuting suicidal or homicidal thoughts from annihilationistic wrong view, as well as supporting faith and quelling doubts about death.

This is rebirth, but with regard to beings:


If there was no arising to begin with, then how did you get here to begin with? Do you believe this current arising was spontaneous, a single event which will never happen again?

[nathan]

What propels these threads forward is the failure to distinguish between valid questions and invalid declarations. Frequently these are incoherently presented in the form of ignorant declarations which may contain acceptable questions. The distinction between a question and a declaration should be clear to the OP and those who post, ongoing. Points of disagreement should be approached one at a time. The morass of misperceptions and misconceptions as a whole that are always presented as some counterfeit of Right View are not something we can dispense with for someone else. Point by point these contentions can be clearly and expediently dispensed with. I am entirely sympathetic to individual difficulties and entirely unsympathetic to widespread and persistent systemic confusion.

[nathan]

Although I think it is clear that the OP has not refuted rebirth, Then the thread title should conclude with a question mark. Buddhist Rebirth Refuted? I have no problem with his posting this thread here. If it makes people upset then they might want to think about why. When a post like this is calmly and kindly refuted then, "Buddhist Rebirth Refuted Refuted" or "Buddhist Rebirth Refuted, refuted in a kind and gentle way"then all those who might have had similar thoughts benefit from reading it. No one benefits from an antagonistic response to ignorance.

Metta

Gabriel

Doesn't it so often seem this way to the child when they are firmly admonished and corrected? My father is angry, my mother is angry. My parents no longer love me. There is no need to be angry or agitated by ignorance and confusion or because of having it pointed out for what it is. It is entirely tolerable for it to arise so long as it is not given as or taken to be anything other than ignorance and confusion, particularly by those who know better. This is why we have so many adults in the world who in many ways remain ignorant children. These then in turn bring up more children who are even more ignorant and foolish.

I AM entirely antagonistic about stirring together worldly ignorance and confusion with the true Dhamma and presenting these as 'indistinguishably the same', as is all too frequently the case and epidemic on the internet. This is entirely different from asking questions in ignorance and confusion. If you are going to be critical you can't also be ignorant. It is as simple as that. These things must be 'clearly distinguished' immediately by those who do have the correct understandings of the doctrines and have established genuine understanding of what is Dhamma and what is not. Otherwise ignorance persists and spreads. That should not ever be our practice or be permitted to persist as a part of our practice as followers of the Buddha in any part of life or in any setting.

In places like this ignorance and truth can continually be stirred together into one indistinguishable stew of complete ignorance. The truth is then LOST. It is no different as it is in the texts and as it is in this life. How is it ever appropriate for those who are sincerely seeking simply the truth, unvarnished, and we take that to be all of us here, to present an abundance of ignorance as if it is also the same truth? How does this serve anyone, particularly those who have little or no truth of their own?

Those who do not wish to be followers, can take another path or can make their own path if they like. We have very little to offer them in Theravada and that is for good reasons. We are here to follow the Buddha in the spirit and in the letter of his teachings. He is not here to learn anything at all from us.

In Theravada we HAVE standards and we have good cause and good reasons for these standards. Even if the laity of today wishes to step more fully into the role of teaching Dhamma they had best abide by the standards for teaching Dhamma and there is no room for either knowingly or unknowingly promoting ignorance in that kind of a role. The Buddha's truth, the Dhamma, is firmly and fully established, it requires no additions, removals, revisions, or amendments in order to be entirely accurate and efficacious for it's purposes. That work takes place in us. We are in need of additions, removals, revisions and amendments these are our own purposes.

When someone who has no knowledge of the Dhamma comes to a place like this and they note that these followers of dhamma CAN NOT MAKE CLEAR the teachings of the Buddha or that this is not the Dhamma, they believe in many different things, they all go different ways, they do not all follow the same path; then they are right to conclude that these followers of any old dhamma are altogether no less ignorant and confused than they are.

When someone who has no knowledge of the Dhamma comes to a place like this and they note that these followers of Dhamma CAN ALWAYS MAKE CLEAR the teachings of the Buddha or that this is not the Dhamma, they believe in the same things, they all go the same way, they all follow the same path; then they are right to conclude that these followers of the BuddhaDhamma are altogether not as ignorant and and confused as they are.

Quite different things, quite distinctly so and it is quite important.