[TeNuaTe]

Many Buddhists, especially in western countries are Philosophical materialists. They do not believe in anything other than the body as the conventional self. Things like the mind, that used to be seen as being different from the body are now seen as part of the body, located in the brain. Therefore, many of the Neo-Buddhists do not believe in rebirth other than in a materialistic way.

Here are two examples of how rebirth is seen. The first is a more traditional Buddhist approach, the latter the Neo-Buddhist trend.

1.A man dies, his physical body stops working. A subtle body (spirit, but a non-self spirit) continues on to the next rebirth. This subtle body carries the mans karma to whatever his new birth will be. The new being is both him and not him. When he reaches nirvana, because his being is not totally destroyed on death, he can truly stay in nirvana eternally, he doesnt have to be reborn into the world of suffering anymore.

Now lets remove the function of anything beyond the body from Buddhism as many now attempt to do and see what happens.

2. A man dies, his physical body stops working. He has no subtle body because it does not exist. There is no other bundle of energies that can keep his actions together to lead to a new birth. The closest thing to reincarnation that can happen is if his body is allowed to be turned to ash or eaten by animals, is that his body will become part of the earth or of an animal, some small component of the matter that made his body may eventually be turned into a sperm or egg cell by some creature, and if its lucky, become some new creature. What is thought of as his karma will never bear fruit this way because there will be no way for it to further express itself in anyway he can experience. If this man attains nirvana in life, when he dies, his nirvana will not be eternal because everything that made up his being ceases with the cessation of his brain and goes back to ignorance, and new beings arising from his old material will be ignorant once again and nirvana loses permanence. Or, we can say, that every person attains nirvana when they die, as they cease to be a being, but then nirvana is also not permanent, and any subsequent beings that may be made of that material will be back in ignorance as well.

If we accept this second view, then there is almost no point for Buddhist practice, and in fact, it could lead to nihilism. One could still meditate and try to pacify ones mind for relaxation and feelings of well being, but other than that, nothing. In fact, depending on ones mind set, even if one knows he has no STABLE self, the total taking away of even the ever evolving self created by the aggregates, may prove too much and lead to nihilism and just giving up on practice. Without a sense of self (permanent self or impermanent self), that will have to reincarnate in the future to experience reward or punishment for its action, or a set of purified skhandas that dwell in/with nirvana, there is no point for the spiritual or moral life other than to feel high and better by altering brain chemistry.

How in any way does this sound Buddhist? If we take away rebirth and permanent nirvana from the Buddhism, then the whole thing falls on its head and becomes a materialistic pantheism with rebirth and nirvana being a pale shadow of what they are traditionally thought to be.

Note: I have avoided the term atheist and replaced it with materialist in this article as in the ultimate sense all Buddhists are quasi-atheist, depending on how you define that term.

[gluckmeea]

First of all I don't think you have a very good understanding of the "traditional" Buddhist view of rebirth. Though I don't fully understand it myself. I've never heard of a "subtle body." The Buddha taught that consciousness was dependent on physical conditions. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the Buddha taught that when you attain enlightenment the cycle of samsara stopped. No more rebirth. You would not be reborn into anything.

I don't believe in an afterlife. Though I'm not completely adverse to the idea either. The purpose of practice for me is to become the best person I can and to help others do the same. I think that is an extremely meaningful purpose and doesn't depend on an afterlife. If when I die my consciousness is gone completely then that's not bad at all. No more suffering. No more pleasure and happiness but no more pain or suffering. It will simply be like before I was born. Complete nothingness.

[Onervemurce]

"A subtle body (spirit, but a non-self spirit)" ?

''Eternal nirvana''?


I highly recommend that you read "Anatta and Rebirth" by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa.

http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pag...nd_Rebirth.pdf

With kind wishes,

Aloka

[sonsayx]

Kaarine dies, and that is all. No need to have a point.

[QWNPdpr5]

I don't think that deliverance from all kind of craving is nihilism. But I maybe I am wrong.

[Jwskwhdo]

"A subtle body (spirit, but a non-self spirit)" ?

''Eternal nirvana''?


I highly recommend that you read "Anatta and Rebirth" by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa.

http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pag...nd_Rebirth.pdf

With kind wishes,

Aloka

Subtle body being the citta (in theravada) or store consciousness (in yogacara/mahayana). subtle body is more in the mahayana and vajrayana.

Eternal nirvana, yes, nirvana is eternal as are the skhandas of samsara. Liberation is no longer being ignorant about samsara, but samsara still cycles on. One in nirvana still has skhandas, but they are purified. Even though there is no self ultimately, arhats and buddhas have highly developed and purified conventional selves. Just because something is constantly changing, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. All of the matter and energy of our universe has a continuity, its always changing form (impermanence), but it is the same "Stuff" that its always been.

[cemDrymnVem]

I don't think that deliverance from all kind of craving is nihilism. But I maybe I am wrong.

Your not wrong. But enlightenment is ultimately futile if it doesnt last. Your actions will not effect your conventional self, if at death, your conventional self (cheifly your mind) fades away, never to arise in any way similar to you. What could be called your rebirth would in fact be an entirely different being made up of only your previous physical constituents and have no effect whatsoever on the "you" of this life. Once your dead, your dead. Also eliminated, would be the concept that you are a product of any life previous to your current one. Karma, would have no basis other than for the short period of this one life. And if you had been born messed up or poor, vs rich and healthy, you just had bad luck, poor fate, not bad or good karma.

[steansathtpos]

Just 2 Zen'ts:

No Water, No Moon

"When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail,
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about to break,
Until at last the bottom fell out.

No more water in the pail!

No more moon in the water!


Zen Stories
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones

[Saduyre9de]

Karma, would have no basis other than for the short period of this one life. And if you had been born messed up or poor, vs rich and healthy, you just had bad luck, poor fate, not bad or good karma.

Well, I know this is an unusual way of looking at things but, in fact, there is randomness in life. Poor or rich, messed up or healthy are, indeed, good and bad luck. Happenings of life... where mind should be dispassionate. I can't go further as just the here and now.

The issue is the development and cultivation of a clear and still mind as a result of quenching craving.

[Nifoziyfar]

Oh, and Aloka, thanks for the link, I will read it.

Heres a couple I found on wikipedia by Bhikkhu Bodhi.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...-essay_06.html


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...-essay_46.html

[Doctorpills]

Heres a couple I found on wikipedia by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Thanks, I'm already aware of Bhikkhu Bodhi's position.

This previous thread discussing the subject of rebirth in our Beyond Belief forum might be of interest:

"The Questions of King Milinda and Rebirth"

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...=reincarnation

[Mr Andrews]

If we accept this second view, then there is almost no point for Buddhist practice, and in fact, it could lead to nihilism. One could still meditate and try to pacify ones mind for relaxation and feelings of well being, but other than that, nothing.

the Buddha taught to pacify the mind is the entire purpose of the path yet it seems to have been dismissed as something trivial

this seems to indicate two things: (1) non-experience of true peace of mind; and (2) buddhism as a frivolity

similar accusations of nihilism were made against the Buddha himself during his life by those who did not know freedom

Nibbana is the supreme peace (relaxation)

all the best

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Dhammapada Brahmin, this holy is led not for, gain honour and fame, not for endowment of virtues, not for endowment of concentration, and not for the endowment of knowledges and vision. Brahmin, it is for the unshakeable release of mind. This is the essence of the holy life, it is the heartwood and the end of the holy life.

MN 30 So teaching, so proclaiming, O monks, I have been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

As I am not as I do not teach, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely and wrongly accused by some ascetics and brahmans thus: 'A nihilist is the ascetic Gotama; He teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the non-being of an existing individual.'

What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering.

MN 22

[Stoottnoiciek]

Heres a couple I found on wikipedia by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

there is a tradition in Buddhism of scholars not interested in Nibbana

the foremost scholar of Bhikkhu Bodhi's tradition is Archariya Buddhaghosa who compiled his Vissiddhumagga for rebirth in a Hindu heaven

google 'Vissuddhimagga PDF' and read Buddhaghosa's dedication at the end

regards

[viiagrag]

If there is no afterlife, there is almost no point.
I would suggest that if there is no after-life then there is no point. It is the sense of favorable rebirth/sin that creates a sense of morality. So behaving well can depend on hope or fear depending on ones tradition

[ViagraPriceBuying]

Thanks, I'm already aware of Bhikkhu Bodhi's position.

This previous thread discussing the subject of rebirth in our Beyond Belief forum might be of interest:

"The Questions of King Milinda and Rebirth"

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...=reincarnation

Hi Aloka,



As to the original talk you linked me to by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu, I agree with him completely up until page five when this is said,

"If each of those parts, khandhas, and elements are not self, then their combination is also not-self."

I disagree based on the difference between philosophical reductionism (which he adheres to here) and philosophical holism (which I adhere to in regards to a being).

The skhandas in unison do constitute a person/being, a self, although it is an entity in a constant state of change, it is not a static, unchanging, independent thing. This is the self Buddhism refutes. Not the conventional self/being.

I just noticed I'm getting into semantics again...*Sigh*...Im beginning to see why there are so many questions Buddha remained silent on, I could really burn my brain out trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory concepts that there is no one right answer to. Blind men trying to describe an elephant

[neerewed]

I also just noticed the post has gotten off topic...

[rammossyAcron]

If there is no afterlife, there is almost no point.
I would suggest that if there is no after-life then there is no point. It is the sense of favorable rebirth/sin that creates a sense of morality. So behaving well can depend on hope or fear depending on ones tradition

Yes, rebirth is certainly a morality teaching - but friends of mine who are not Buddhists but who are atheists and don't accept any kind of religious beliefs are extremely moral, so I don't see your point.

[Diandaplaipsy]

If there is no afterlife, there is almost no point.
I would suggest that if there is no after-life then there is no point. It is the sense of favorable rebirth/sin that creates a sense of morality. So behaving well can depend on hope or fear depending on ones tradition

Hi frank .... for some this does appear to be so.

My own experience is that practice improves my quality of life on a moment to moment basis and no thought needs to be given to after death.

[FourEsters]

If there is no afterlife, there is almost no point.

hi Frank

if we are to most accurately represent Buddhism, in my opinion, it is most accurate to say the point of Buddhism is reaching the perfect & highest peace of Nibbana

following traditional understanding, if Nibbana is not reached in the present life then there will be rebirth in another life

so, imo, to infer rebirth is the point of Buddhism is not really Buddhism

the point of Buddhism is Nibbana, the complete cessation of & freedom from suffering

but if this is not reached, then rebirth comes into play

i think this is the most accurate way to explain traditional understanding of Buddhism

with metta

[hasasnn2345tv]

I disagree based on the difference between philosophical reductionism (which he adheres to here) and philosophical holism (which I adhere to in regards to a being).

The skhandas in unison do constitute a person/being, a self, although it is an entity in a constant state of change, it is not a static, unchanging, independent thing. This is the self Buddhism refutes. Not the conventional self/being.

hi RLP

the skhandas in unison do not constitute a "self", according to Buddhism

according to Buddhism, "self-view" can arise in relation to any number of skhandas, including merely one skhanda

according to Buddhism, the "conventional self" is a mental fabrication (communicated by one of the skhandas; mere words)

regards



'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form (the body), Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

Any desire, passion, delight or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles: as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them.

Satta Sutta
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

Vajira Sutta
[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved,
Free from taints, in final body clad,
That monk still might use such words as "I."
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Would such a monk be prone to vain conceits?

[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits,
All delusion's chains are cast aside:
Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts.
That monk still might use such words as "I,"
Still perchance might say: "They call this mine."
Well aware of common worldly speech [conventions],
He would speak conforming to such use.

Araham Sutta: The Arahant