7 lives after stream entry

[DooDoot]

You guys are really helping me understand your superior views.

Just views. I wouldn't claim them to be superior. However, this scrabble game is getting exciting.

[Manopubbangama]

Anybody who is not too busy playing scrabble have a moment for a dumb person to answer these two questions here:

So you would say that 99.9% of Theravadins are wrong in their interpretation of rebirth?

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off...

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Will I ever get an explanation for this sutta quoted in this thread?

You guys are really helping me understand your superior views.

Just views. I wouldn't claim them to be superior. However, this scrabble game is getting exciting.

I know you are too busy with scrabble to respond to my query.

Can anyone else who believes your minority viewpoint help us dumb people understand my questions?

If 99.9% of Theravadins are wrong, shouldn't you be compassionate enough to put down scrabble and edify us, even if we may be too dumb to understand?

Where is the metta?

Paul, will you help us understand your views you expressed in this thread?

[DooDoot]

Where is the metta?

The link doesn't work but i guess i'll find the sutta in SN 15. Patience. Its Saturday. The Sabbath. Day of Relaxation.

[budo]

While I'm glad that both you and doodoot agree ideologically, I think "us" means basically all Theravadins except for a small minority

I do recall the suttas refer to it being a "very rare thing" to be a person that understands the Dhamma. While I am not claiming to be the rare person that understands, I am just saying the Dhamma doesn't seem to support your "wisdom of the masses" point of view.

174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Dhammapada

My impression is this is a Theravada discussion forum. For me, sticking to the sutta analysis is the ideal thing.

Thankfully we don't need insight first hand when we have the teachings of the Buddha, the question is do you follow the Buddha, or are you a cafeteria Buddhist who picks and chooses, denies and twists views to fit his wordling ignorance?

[DooDoot]

Thankfully we don't need insight first hand when we have the teachings of the Buddha

This seems like an Abrahamic faith ideal; like when the Bible says: "Happy are those who believe but do not see". I recall the Dhamma Refuge is the Dhamma is realised in the here & now. Have you actually taken refuge? Are you able to post the Dhamma Refuge here for us? Thanks

the question is do you follow the Buddha, or are you a cafeteria Buddhist who picks and chooses, denies and twists views to fit his wordling ignorance?

The suttas define what is "worldly" ("lokiya") and what is "lokuttara". I already quoted this from MN 117. Based on this, my opinion is my interpretation is "lokuttara" ("beyond the world") and your interpretation is what is called "the world". Twice above, I personally cannot agree with your litigious point of view. Personally, my view is your accusations actually fit your own views. But as I have posted, I think such posts are off-topic. Buddhism is not the same as Judaism; of ""Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". I already referred to MN 38, where the monks were exhorted to only speak what they have seen as real for themselves. I don't recall Buddhism stones people to death for heresy or apostasy.

[Manopubbangama]

Where is the metta?

The link doesn't work but i guess i'll find the sutta in SN 15. Patience. Its Saturday. The Sabbath. Day of Relaxation.

Thanks for telling us about scrabble and the Sabath.

I'd like Paul to tell us about his believes.

Will he have enough metta to respond to my two questions to him?

Paul?

Two simple questions about stream entry and rebirth related to your claims in this thread?

[DooDoot]

Will he have enough metta to respond to my two questions to him?

I read the sutta. I have already posted Chapter 15 of the SN doesn't make much sense to me because the sutta ends as follows:

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thirty mendicants from Pāvā were freed from defilements (āsavehi) by not grasping.

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.13/en/sujato

In other words, you appear to be grasping at the idea that: "I was once a water-buffalo".

Can you empathize with my confusion here? Can you offer me metta and explain your position? How does this sutta result in you (Manopubbangama) being released from the taints (āsavehi), which includes the taint of ego-becoming? Also, how does this sutta cut the self-view that must be cut for stream-entry? Thanks

[Manopubbangama]

Will he have enough metta to respond to my two questions to him?

I read the sutta. I have already posted Chapter 15 of the SN doesn't make much sense to me because the sutta ends as follows:

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thirty mendicants from Pāvā were freed from defilements (āsavehi) by not grasping.

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.13/en/sujato

In other words, you appear to be grasping at the idea that: "I was once a water-buffalo".

Can you empathize with my confusion here? Can you offer me metta and explain your position? How does this sutta result in you (Manopubbangama) being released from the taints (āsavehi), which includes the taint of ego-becoming? Also, how does this sutta cut the self-view that must be cut for stream-entry? Thanks

You are "answering" my question by asking me another question......

I want to know precisely why the Buddha said that we humans were once water buffaloes?

How are you answering my question?

Where is Paul?

He has so much metta, it is his homepage (the metta sutta) and yet he won't help me understand two simple questions?

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off...

Doodoot do you believe that the Buddha himself said this?

[Manopubbangama]

Here is a question for retrufuturist if he will not answer my two questions related to stream entry and rebirth:

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off...

Paul, do you believe that the BUDDHA said this himself?

Yes?

No?

I don't know how to ask a more simple question than this.

[DooDoot]

You are "answering" my question by asking me another question......

I want to know precisely why the Buddha said that we humans were once water buffaloes?

Firstly, there is zero evidence the Buddha ever spoke this sutta. Thus referring to the Buddha is not relevant.

Secondly, it is said the Buddha was the perfect teacher. This is the Dhamma Refuge. If this teaching in SN 15.13 does not bring the result found in the sutta then, to me, it is unlikely the Buddha ever spoke it.

Therefore, I am asking you how does the belief of "I was once a water buffalo" lead to the destruction of the taints of sensual desire, becoming & ignorance, as referred to in the sutta?

The Dhamma is said to be AKALIKO (immediately effective). So how does SN 15.13 immediately result in the destruction of the taints via non-attachment?

Thanks

[DooDoot]

For the record - Doodoot says there is zero evidence for suttas from the Samyutta nikaya that they come from the Buddha himself.

Actually, for the record, I recall possibly the suttas report the Buddha said not all teachings will be His teachings. Why don't you provide evidence SN 15.13 was spoken by the Buddha? Can you provide a video or sound recording? Thanks

[DooDoot]

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

He also taught of Birth after Death and the various types of Birth and acquisition of Kamma;

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, this body [kaya; collection of aggregates] is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.37/en/bodhi

Obviously, the above is not an ordinary mundane Hindu teaching about "old kamma" because it is said "it is not yours"; it is "anatta". So what does it mean?

Also, rightviewftw, are you inferring the Buddha is exhorting us to make "new kamma"?

[rightviewftw]

Firstly, there is zero evidence the Buddha ever spoke this sutta. Thus referring to the Buddha is not relevant.

Sutta are the evidence you silly man. It is you who has to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt for it not to be evidence. Until you do your claims are unworthy of consideration and should be considered trash posting.

[lostitude]

Now, that said, any subsequent references to rebirth that are independent of the OP's question may find themselves moved to The Great Rebirth Debate.

I hope it won't, the Great Rebirth Debate has become so long that it now looks more like a dumpster that anything, a Greek hell of online opinions. I personnally find it absolutely useless because there is no way anyone will read all 400 pages, let alone be able to find what they are looking for within this mess (no offense intended of course).

[DooDoot]

Sutta are the evidence you silly man.

Sorry but words in a book is not evidence. Are you saying the sutta revisionists, such as Analayo, Sujato, Brahmali, etc, who claim this sutta is authentic and that sutta is inauthentic, are "silly men"? When Bhikkhu Bodhi calls some suttas "mythology", is he a silly man? Do you believe the Bible is evidence that God exists and the words in the Bible are God's words? Are Bible-Thumpers not "silly men"?