Rain due to Gods ?

[un8-]

[

"Fake sutta" seems like a convenient excuse that people here resort to defend their lazy thinking.

Well the other option is that the Buddha really did think that rain was caused by gods. I'm not adverse to this interpretation, but I lean more towards it being the product of monks and nuns appealing to the laity. The same as we see with the 32 marks of a great man.

Like I said, "fake sutta" is a convenient cop-out, which can be used to defend any weak argument, just like doodoot uses it to defend his weak argument that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth. So you'll have to try better if you want to defend your beliefs.

You have faith in the Buddha, and so accept nibbāna as being a truth that the Buddha knew. If you don't have that, i struggle to see what you are practicing for. The Buddha referred to nibbāna countless times, just as he did rebirth. Kamma and rebirth form part of the 2nd Noble Truth, and is a teaching found across all known canons and early schools. That we are born, die and are born again in a cycle of unending misery is what he taught. If you reject rebirth, it's because you do not have sufficient faith in the Buddha. It's as simple as that really, and if you do not have that then your practice won't come to much. Usually in modern times this lack of faith in the Buddha is due to some crass scientism, usually found amongst those who have little understanding of science nor epistemology in general. For myself, since I have faith in the Buddha and his awakening it follows that I have faith in the reality of both rebirth and it's escape via nibbāna. That doesn't then mean I have to accept every single thing that we see in the suttas or āgamas. There is no logical necessity that would drive me to do that and as I say, it is perfectly possible for the Buddha to have taught rebirth and for the texts to have undergone editing in order to better appeal to new converts (competing with other religions, as they were).

Again, deflecting to whataboutism doesn't solve your hypocritic stance. You still reject one thing the Buddha taught as true over another thing.

[un8-]

"Fake sutta" seems like a convenient excuse that people here resort to defend their lazy thinking.

It's more congruent for someone to believe what they know over picking and choosing to believe from topics they don't actually know.

Fyi, I never said I believe Nibbana is true, I said Nibbana is likely to be more true because it pertains to feelings, not rebirth and not devas. But again, that's besides the point, you're trying to deflect back to the old topic in order to cover up your hypocrisy. Even if we assume that rebirth belief is required for Nibbana, you're still being a hypocrite for having faith in one subject you don't actually know over another subject you don't actually know.

1. There's independent evidences for rebirth, google reincarnation evidences. There's plenty of books written on it.

2. Since we dunno what devas are according to science yet, it's possible to interpret rain gods in many ways, or maybe not at all, since most likely most interpretations would be wrong and thus a waste of time. As far as science of metrology is concerned, the weather is still unpredictable, so we cannot rule out rain gods as causation sometimes for rains.

3. Nibbana is not feelings, there's cessation of feelings in parinibbana, after the death of arahant.

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, which is about congruencey among beliefs vs hypocrisy such as rejecting one thing the buddha taught over another, not about rebirth actually being true

2. Not relevant, see number 1. If you think the pali is wrongly translated, then please offer a more accurate translation.

3. I didn't say "Nibbana is feelings", I said it pertains, as in, it is related in subject and context.

[Ceisiwr]

"Fake sutta" seems like a convenient excuse that people here resort to defend their lazy thinking.

Do you think that the texts never underwent an editing process? Seems rather credulous if so.

Like I said, "fake sutta" is a convenient cop-out, which can be used to defend any weak argument, just like doodoot uses it to defend his weak argument that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth. So you'll have to try better if you want to defend your beliefs.

If I said the Buddha really thought it then I'm not saying it was a fake sutta. This is a dumb comment.

Again, deflecting to whataboutism doesn't solve your hypocritic stance. You still reject one thing the Buddha taught as true over another thing.

Not really. If it comes from monks and nuns, then he didn't teach it. If he did teach it, it just shows part of his worldview. Either way, I struggle to see how believing in rain gods is necessary? Could you explain to us how it is necessary to believe in rain gods in order to awaken?

[un8-]

"Fake sutta" seems like a convenient excuse that people here resort to defend their lazy thinking.

Do you think that the texts never underwent an editing process? Seems rather credulous if so.

I never said your defense argument is wrong or false, I said it's weak, like a low hanging fruit anyone can use to defend lazy thinking. It's not really persuasive, and if that's enough for you to satisify your standard of beliefs, then it just shows the quality of understanding in which you strive for. To me, it's just evidence of someone trying to defend dogmatic superstitious beliefs and not really caring to raise their standards.

If I said the Buddha really thought it then I'm not saying it was a fake sutta. This is a dumb comment.

What? I asked you why you believe one thing over the other that the Buddha said is true, both of which you don't actually know since I'm assuming you don't have supernormal powers, and your response was that the sutta could have been edited, which I repeat, is a convenient excuse to defend lazy thinking.

[DiamondNgXZ]

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, which is about congruencey among beliefs vs hypocrisy such as rejecting one thing the buddha taught over another, not about rebirth actually being true

2. Not relevant, see number 1. If you think the pali is wrongly translated, then please offer a more accurate translation.

3. I didn't say "Nibbana is feelings", I said it pertains, as in, it is related in subject and context.

Belief in Buddhism is not blind faith, but faith backed up by evidences, reasons. Thus evidences is important for basis of faith. Especially when talking about things not commonly accepted by the current public.

If anyone should be called a hypocrite for believing in one thing and not another in the suttas, it's the secular Buddhists who cut out rebirth from their worldview of Buddhism.

Nibbana pertains to feelings only in that there's no feelings. Same thing as form, perception, volitional formations and consciousness, none of them. Nibbana is unconditioned, and all the 5 aggregates are conditioned. You don't feel Nibbana, cessation of feeling is Nibbana. Same thing with all the 5 aggregates.

[un8-]

1. Irrelevant to the discussion, which is about congruencey among beliefs vs hypocrisy such as rejecting one thing the buddha taught over another, not about rebirth actually being true

2. Not relevant, see number 1. If you think the pali is wrongly translated, then please offer a more accurate translation.

3. I didn't say "Nibbana is feelings", I said it pertains, as in, it is related in subject and context.

Belief in Buddhism is not blind faith, but faith backed up by evidences, reasons. Thus evidences is important for basis of faith. Especially when talking about things not commonly accepted by the current public.

Belief in Buddhism is not blind faith because it is verifiable "here and now" based on conditionality which is timeless and visible (sanditthika and akālika ) here and now, which has nothing to do with "evidence and reasons", which are external to knowledge since evidence is an object, so it's second hand not first hand.. Same with reasoning.

If anyone should be called a hypocrite for believing in one thing and not another in the suttas, it's the secular Buddhists who cut out rebirth from their worldview of Buddhism.

Mundane Right View is not a factor of the path. Furthermore, in several suttas the Buddha shows that it isn't necessary, like when he tells the Kalamas and also other Suttas where he says "let the past stay in the past, the future has not yet come, I will teach you the dhamma visible here and now" and then proceeds to explain dependent origination, which is knowable here and now. Rebirth is not knowable here-and-now.

Nibbana pertains to feelings only in that there's no feelings. Same thing as form, perception, volitional formations and consciousness, none of them. Nibbana is unconditioned, and all the 5 aggregates are conditioned. You don't feel Nibbana, cessation of feeling is Nibbana. Same thing with all the 5 aggregates.

Then I recommend you study the Titthāyatanasuttaṁ (Aṅg. 3.62) and the Sallatha sutta as well.

Nibbana is the cessation of suffering, and suffering is a feeling, specifically the mental kind

saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso,
because of the six sense spheres: contact,

phassapaccayā vedanā,
because of contact: feeling,

vediyamānassa kho panāhaṁ bhikkhave ‘idaṁ Dukkhan’-ti paññāpemi,
now to one who has feeling, monks, I declare ‘this is Suffering’,

‘ayaṁ dukkhasamudayo’ ti paññāpemi,
I declare ‘this is the arising of suffering’,

‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodho’ ti paññāpemi,
I declare ‘this is the cessation of suffering’,

‘ayaṁ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ ti paññāpemi.
I declare ‘this is the path leading to the cessation of suffering’.

The Blessed One said, "When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.

..

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.

Emphasis on feelings

[asahi]

Do you call a person "believing" in 1 life is
not a kind of "belief" ? Why would a person believing in only living once wants to invest his whole life in practicing dhamma ?

What's the point in this games ?

Why do such a person wants to convince himself that the dhamma is verifiable in
the here and now ?
No need to . After this very body break-ups , finish , end of story . No need any debating . Get on with your life , carry on . No worries . At the end of the day nothing is leftover .

[TRobinson465]

It should be pointed out he says this about multiple things.

At Sāvatthī.

Seated to one side, that mendicant said to the Buddha:

“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why sometimes it becomes cool?”

“Mendicant, there are what are called gods of the cool clouds. Sometimes they think: ‘Why don’t we revel in our own kind of enjoyment?’ Then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes cool. This is the cause, this is the reason why sometimes it becomes cool.”

At Sāvatthī.

Seated to one side, that mendicant said to the Buddha:

“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why sometimes it becomes warm?”

“Mendicant, there are what are called gods of the warm clouds. Sometimes they think: ‘Why don’t we revel in our own kind of enjoyment?’ Then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes warm. This is the cause, this is the reason why sometimes it becomes warm.”

At Sāvatthī.

Seated to one side, that mendicant said to the Buddha:

“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why sometimes it becomes stormy?”

“Mendicant, there are what are called gods of the storm clouds. Sometimes they think: ‘Why don’t we revel in our own kind of enjoyment?’ Then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes stormy. This is the cause, this is the reason why sometimes it becomes stormy.”

“Sir, what is the cause, what is the reason why sometimes it becomes windy?”

“Mendicant, there are what are called gods of the windy clouds. Sometimes they think: ‘Why don’t we revel in our own kind of enjoyment?’ Then, in accordance with their wish, it becomes windy. This is the cause, this is the reason why sometimes it becomes windy.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn32.56/en/sujato

While there are some fake suttas out there, i don't think this is that far fetched. Some devas being able to control the weather seems in line with Buddhist cosmology to me.

[Ceisiwr]

I never said your defense argument is wrong or false, I said it's weak, like a low hanging fruit anyone can use to defend lazy thinking.

Why is it weak or "lazy thinking" to conclude that either this sutta was constructed later or the Buddha really taught it, but either way it doesn't matter? Earlier you called me a hypocrite. It would only be hypocritical if I believed that the suttas all came from the Buddha, and that everything in them is essential for awakening. Since I don't hold either of those positions, I am not being hypocritical.

What? I asked you why you believe one thing over the other that the Buddha said is true, both of which you don't actually know since I'm assuming you don't have supernormal powers, and your response was that the sutta could have been edited, which I repeat, is a convenient excuse to defend lazy thinking.

You said: "Fake sutta" seems like a convenient excuse that people here resort to defend their lazy thinking."

I said: "Well the other option is that the Buddha really did think that rain was caused by gods. I'm not adverse to this interpretation, but I lean more towards it being the product of monks and nuns appealing to the laity. The same as we see with the 32 marks of a great man."

You replied: "Like I said, "fake sutta" is a convenient cop-out, which can be used to defend any weak argument, just like doodoot uses it to defend his weak argument that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth. So you'll have to try better if you want to defend your beliefs."

Part of my reply was that this can be authentic, and so "fake sutta" wouldn't apply. You have asked why I accept some things and not others, and I replied that the suttas contain both the teachings of the Buddha and what we could call proto-commentary. Ven. Anālayo has provided good evidence of this in his comparative studies. What I am looking at here then with these suttas is either a proto-commentary of sorts, or the actual words of the Buddhas. I tend towards the former, but the latter is also possible. Either way it doesn't matter. It has no bearing at all on the Dhamma if there are rain gods or not. The same can't be said with kamma and rebirth. Anything that is essential or relevant to awakening, I accept.

[un8-]

I never said your defense argument is wrong or false, I said it's weak, like a low hanging fruit anyone can use to defend lazy thinking.

Why is it weak or "lazy thinking" to conclude that either this sutta was constructed later or the Buddha really thought it, but either way it doesn't matter? Earlier you called me a hypocrite. It would only be hypocritical if I believed that the suttas all came from the Buddha, and that everything in them is essential for awakening. Since I don't hold either of those positions, I am not being hypocritical.

I said believing rebirth and not rain gods is hypocritical, since both are unknowable to you. Furthermore you harp on people for not believing in rebirth, yet for you it is acceptable to not believe in rain gods, this is hypocritical. So you keep deflecting with whataboutism, and now strawmen..

Own up to it.

[Ceisiwr]

I said believing rebirth and not rain gods is hypocritical, since both are unknowable to you. Furthermore you harp on people for not believing in rebirth, yet for you it is acceptable to not believe in rain gods, this is hypocritical. So you keep deflecting with whataboutism, and now strawmen..

Own up to it.

How is it hypocritical to believe in rebirth but not believe that rain is caused by gods? Those are two different propositions. I also have not used a straw man. It would help if people actually understood logical fallacies before accusing others of them.

[un8-]

I said believing rebirth and not rain gods is hypocritical, since both are unknowable to you. Furthermore you harp on people for not believing in rebirth, yet for you it is acceptable to not believe in rain gods, this is hypocritical. So you keep deflecting with whataboutism, and now strawmen..

Own up to it.

How is it hypocritical to believe in rebirth but not believe that rain is caused by gods? Those are two different propositions. I also have not used a straw man. It would help if people actually understood logical fallacies before accusing others of them.

Yes you did make a strawman, you said

It would only be hypocritical if I believed that the suttas all came from the Buddha, and that everything in them is essential for awakening. Since I don't hold either of those positions, I am not being hypocritical

I never called you hypocritical because of that, so you're building a strawman to defend against, you're arguing something irrelevant. Yes, you should know when you are building a strawman.

Also, they're not two different propositions, the premise is that both are unknowable to you, yet you're certain one is true and the other isn't, that's by definition dogmatic hypocrisy.

Seems like you can't explain yourself, so I'll leave it at that, but next time you harp on people for not believing something they can't confirm, you should realize you're doing the same thing.

[Ceisiwr]

Belief in Buddhism is not blind faith because it is verifiable "here and now" based on conditionality which is timeless and visible (sanditthika and akālika ) here and now, which has nothing to do with "evidence and reasons", which are external to knowledge since evidence is an object, so it's second hand not first hand.. Same with reasoning.

Saddhā is faith in the Buddha and his awakening. It means to accept what he is teaching and that by practicing what he taught there can be an end to suffering. This means accepting certain things that you currently have no experience of and which cannot be intuited, yet you will come to directly know in the future. Not so much applicable in ancient times, but in modern times Jhāna is a good example. The vast majority of people have no experience or knowledge of such a thing. Faith in the Buddha then is also faith that he experienced Jhāna, that he knows the way to Jhāna and that he understood Jhāna. It is to accept then that such an experience is possible, before actually experiencing it. Right now I doubt you know Jhāna. I also highly doubt you truly know and understand dependent origination much less nibbāna, yet I also assume that you accept these things are being true.

Mundane Right View is not a factor of the path. Furthermore, in several suttas the Buddha shows that it isn't necessary, like when he tells the Kalamas and also other Suttas where he says "let the past stay in the past, the future has not yet come, I will teach you the dhamma visible here and now" and then proceeds to explain dependent origination, which is knowable here and now. Rebirth is not knowable here-and-now.

The Kālāma Sutta is aimed at non-Buddhists. It's aimed at those who are seeking a teacher. It's not for those who have already come to the Dhamma, and so who already have faith in the Buddha. At the end of the sutta the Kālāma's accept the Buddha and go for refuge in him. They place their trust in him. Regarding rebirth, it is knowable "here and now" if said person has the necessary control over the mind. The same with understanding Jhāna "here and now" or dependent origination "here and now". It takes years of practice, self restraint and meditation to have even the most basic insight for most of us. That insight happens "here and now" but until people get to that place faith will be sustaining them, and even when someone does still know they still have faith.

Nibbana is the cessation of suffering, and suffering is a feeling, specifically the mental kind

Wrong. Pain is also dukkha. Dukkha is not just mental pain.

Yes you did make a strawman, you said

That isn't a straw man. A straw man is where I attack an argument you never made. Since I never said you said those things, but rather was offering a defence as to why I am not a hypocrite, I did not construct a straw man.

Also, they're not two different propositions, the premise is that both are unknowable to you,

Seems like you can't explain yourself, so I'll leave it at that, but next time you harp on people for not believing something they can't confirm, you should realize you're doing the same thing.

Both are unknowable to me, but them having the nature of being unknowable does not mean they are the same propositions. Rebirth is a different idea to rain gods. I am being asked to believe in two different things. They are two different propositions.

yet you're certain one is true and the other isn't, that's by definition dogmatic hypocrisy.

Now that is a

Seems like you can't explain yourself, so I'll leave it at that, but next time you harp on people for not believing something they can't confirm, you should realize you're doing the same thing.

Previously I was "harping on" about your poor reasoning, namely rejecting rebirth because you have never experienced it whilst simultaneously accepting something you have never experienced (nibbāna).

[un8-]

...

We've been over some of these points in the previous topic so no point rehashing it as that would serve your deflection.

But you're exactly the reason why so many people despise religion. Most people like yourself, are cafeteria buddhists/jews/Christians/Muslims/etc.. they pick and choose what they want to believe for whatever bullshit excuse like "fake sutta" and then with great zealotry they resort to gatekeeping the entire religion when they criticize others who are also cafeteria buddhists, "you're not buddhist because you don't believe my interpretation based on my criteria". Hypocrisy at it's finest.

It's really just a huge waste of time, and whatever true dhamma the Buddha did actually discover, I highly doubt you figured it out.

[Ceisiwr]

...

We've been over some of these points in the previous topic so no point rehashing it as that would serve your deflection.

But you're exactly the reason why so many people despise religion. Most people like yourself, are cafeteria buddhists/jews/Christians/Muslims/etc.. they pick and choose what they want to believe for whatever bullshit excuse like "fake sutta" and then with great zealotry they resort to gatekeeping the entire religion when they criticize others who are also cafeteria buddhists, "you're not buddhist because you don't believe my interpretation based on my criteria". Hypocrisy at it's finest.

It's really just a huge waste of time, and whatever true dhamma the Buddha did actually discover, I highly doubt you figured it out.

Not even in ancient times did Christians believe that everything within the Bible was literal. I believe it's quite a modern phenomenon (by that I mean reformation), typical of Protestants. Taking a critical view of the texts isn't unknown to Buddhism. Ven. Dharmakīrti for example took a critical view of scripture. Personally I think it is sensible to conclude that not everything in the texts comes from the Buddha, nor have any connection with the practice itself. If we accept that basic proposition, then of course there will be things in the suttas which are late and are superfluous. I tend to think that these suttas are late and superfluous, but I have also stated that it is perfectly possible that the Buddha thought this. I would like to amend that however, in that I would prefer to say it is perfectly possible that he taught them. The larger point however is that I see no relevance to these suttas. I see no benefit or loss if they are accepted or not (which is partly why I think they are late). Rebirth however is entirely different, since we can be fairly certain that he did teach such a concept (as far as certainty goes when looking at history) and that based on the texts we have it is an essential component of what he was teaching. Therefore, if someone is going to have faith in the Buddha and dedicate their life to what he taught then they should logically accept rebirth. By definition a Buddhist is someone who accepts and practices what the Buddha taught. Rebirth is part of that.