DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**KneefeZes** · 06-30-2010, 02:27 AM

However some make a mistake here and jump straight into another speculative view - "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals" etc

This is a wrong view as it leads to unwholesome states and is also bound with dukkha

And of course many believers, stuck in a thicket of views, tend to mistake (and often misrepresent) the Buddha's Right View of No Speculative Views as "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals", and point the finger of Nihilism and Annihilationism at those who understand and take the Buddha's view. Eternalists tried to hang that on the Buddha back in his time, too.

One can correct an eternalist on that point only so many times. Often, once the difference is shown, it turns into an accusation of "Eel-Wriggling", which is another epithet eternalists threw at the Buddha. But past a certain point, the persistence of the accusation can be shown to be the product of the eternalist's refusal to put reason over clinging to superstition. Then it is time to walk away -- there is no reasoning in a person who sees only what he or she wants to see, and believes what he or she wanna-believes.

Such a person only sees and believes what consists with his or her own prejudices and illusions. Such a person is incapable of reasoning or being reasoned with.

To me it seems that wanting to know what happens after death is craving for being

-- which is why the Buddha calls such beliefs "asava: -- defiled: They are based in craving for being and becoming (illusions of status and ownership), in ignorance (superstition), speculative view (now, through clinging, craving, and lack of discernment, turned into superstitious beliefs), and craving for sensuality (delighting in the idea of wanting to be reborn into, say, a deva realm, like Buddhaghosa did, and fear of being reborn as an intestinal parasite). The problem with basing an ethics on such beliefs -- like primitive religions do -- is that if one finally come to ones senses and realizes that such beliefs are unfounded in reality, ones ethics comes into danger as well. The Buddha's teachings and those of other modern religions do not base their ethics in such houses of cards, they tend to use an ethics of reciprocity: the "Golden Rule", which is based entirely in rationality and discernment. Much stronger foundation.

06-30-2010, 02:27 AM	#11
KneefeZes Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 436 Senior Member	However some make a mistake here and jump straight into another speculative view - "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals" etc This is a wrong view as it leads to unwholesome states and is also bound with dukkha And of course many believers, stuck in a thicket of views, tend to mistake (and often misrepresent) the Buddha's Right View of No Speculative Views as "There is no rebirth, all is meaningless, there are no morals", and point the finger of Nihilism and Annihilationism at those who understand and take the Buddha's view. Eternalists tried to hang that on the Buddha back in his time, too. One can correct an eternalist on that point only so many times. Often, once the difference is shown, it turns into an accusation of "Eel-Wriggling", which is another epithet eternalists threw at the Buddha. But past a certain point, the persistence of the accusation can be shown to be the product of the eternalist's refusal to put reason over clinging to superstition. Then it is time to walk away -- there is no reasoning in a person who sees only what he or she wants to see, and believes what he or she wanna-believes. Such a person only sees and believes what consists with his or her own prejudices and illusions. Such a person is incapable of reasoning or being reasoned with. To me it seems that wanting to know what happens after death is craving for being -- which is why the Buddha calls such beliefs "asava: -- defiled: They are based in craving for being and becoming (illusions of status and ownership), in ignorance (superstition), speculative view (now, through clinging, craving, and lack of discernment, turned into superstitious beliefs), and craving for sensuality (delighting in the idea of wanting to be reborn into, say, a deva realm, like Buddhaghosa did, and fear of being reborn as an intestinal parasite). The problem with basing an ethics on such beliefs -- like primitive religions do -- is that if one finally come to ones senses and realizes that such beliefs are unfounded in reality, ones ethics comes into danger as well. The Buddha's teachings and those of other modern religions do not base their ethics in such houses of cards, they tend to use an ethics of reciprocity: the "Golden Rule", which is based entirely in rationality and discernment. Much stronger foundation.
	Quote