[Gasfghj]

Originally Posted by stuka on his YouTube video on the subject

Could someone please tell me how his example of the mangos is a convincing explanation of the rebirth process? It's not convincing in the least bit. And, as Brahmavamso admitted, it was the best he had to offer.

There is a traceable, discernable, falsifiable physical causality and link between the first mango to the second one: the seed that grows into the tree that produces the second mango.

I would imagine that what Brahmavamso is doing is what Robert Pirsig called "singing the Bull to sleep".

[grudabor]

Just enough to believe so there is such a thing

Even that is not necessary.

[T1ivuQGS]

what is taking rebirth is not a soul, not the unreal ego,

Sandell

The Buddha did not teach not-self to all people.

In fact, during the Buddha's time, the teaching of not-self was primarily taught to monks & rarely taught to laypeople.

Your questions merely belong to the sphere of Western intellectualism.

In many Asian countries and in many Buddhist traditions, the teaching of not-self is not widely taught.

In short, your Chairman does not understand the teaching of not-self. If they did, they would not bother with rebirth.

Kind regards



It's just that for a long time I have attended to the Teacher and to the monks who inspire my heart, but never before have I heard a talk on the Dhamma like this.

This sort of talk on the Dhamma, householder, is not given to lay people clad in white. This sort of talk on the Dhamma is given to those gone forth.

In that case, Ven. Sariputta, please let this sort of talk on the Dhamma be given to lay people clad in white. There are clansmen with little dust in their eyes who are wasting away through not hearing [this] Dhamma. There will be those who will understand it.

Anathapindikovada Sutta

[Arbinknit]

..what is taking rebirth is not a soul, not the unreal ego, but neither "only" a impersonal sum of actions...

Sandell

The Buddha did not teach it was the duty of a monk to teach not-self to lay devotees.

The duty of a monk was to teach lay devotees the way to heaven (rather than to Nibbana).

The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.

Sigalovada Sutta

[oemcheapdownload]

...what is taking rebirth is not a soul, not the unreal ego, but neither "only" a impersonal sum of actions....

Sandell

Objectively, following ultimate truth, all karma is impersonal, all karma is emptiness. It is merely the manifestation of natural mental elements. The Buddha taught all things without exception are not-self.

But subjectively, most karma is personal because, generally, human beings are doing karma out of self-view, self-interest & self-cherishing.

For example, when a person or mind gets angry, it is the "me" or "I" in the mind that expresses or acts upon that anger.

This expressing or acting upon anger is a new becoming and a new birth.

The Buddha taught craving leads to 'new becoming' (ponobhavika) or becoming again (punabhava) because the sense of "I am", of "me" and "mine", is born again in the mind.

What is born again is an underlying tendency (anusaya).

"'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The craving that makes for new becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

Culavedalla Sutta "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain.

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes it or remains fastened to it, then one's underlying tendency to lust gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves & laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's underlying tendency to aversion gets obsessed.

If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, or escape from that feeling, then one's underlying tendency to ignorance gets obsessed.

That a person — without abandoning the underlying tendency to lust with regard to a feeling of pleasure, without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion with regard to a feeling of pain, without uprooting the underlying tendency to ignorance with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, without abandoning ignorance and giving rise to true knowledge — would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing isn't possible.

Chachakka Sutta

[TheDoctor]

In short, your Chairman does not understand the teaching of not-self. If they did, they would not bother with rebirth.

There is the case where an uninstructed person — who is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form...feeling...perception...mental formations...consciousness to be 'self'.

That assumption is a fabrication.

Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of 'self'] is born of that.

And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

That craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

Parileyyaka Sutta "When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they have come to be."

Paccaya Sutta "Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

Phagguna Sutta

[rassedgesse]

It is no ipso facto escape from credulity to believe in one's own scepticism

This point is well taken: we need to be as careful in detecting the influence on our Dhamma study of our own flaws as we are in assessing the doctrines of Buddhism.

[khjhkfggt]

Originally Posted by ulman Just enough to believe so there is such a thing

Even that is not necessary. Faith in law of action is part of right view and it cannot be separated from rebirth. So why not to believe in it?
Its very sportive in practice. How to develop faith and about dangers of being without faith: http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitak...kaya/mn-60.htm

[gueremaisse]

Originally Posted by ulman Just enough to believe so there is such a thing

You mean it is fine to believe it although you cannot explain it? But do you really have a choice ?

Regarding the matter of faith, it is commonly felt and often stated that faith is a weakness, a mere substitute for knowledge, a “blind belief in dogma” and “unnecessary.” But the point overlooked is that there is an element of faith in every conscious act. It is another of the false aspects inherent in all consciousness: the presenting of objects in such that the perception of them necessitates inference about what is hidden. This is in fact an aspect of faith. Without this faith nothing can be done at all, viz. faith that things will repeat themselves and happen as one expects. But the case is most clearly seen in the case of death. Death is an obvious fact. Described in terms of life, it is meaningless (like a blank featureless wall, or a black chasm to vision), but nevertheless by its very existence, by its basis in experience, necessitates inference about it. The three main inferences are that life of some sort continues after death, that it does not, or plain agnosticism. Whichever I adopt is a matter of pure faith (I leave out “evidence” for and against other alternatives here). But I cannot avoid adopting one of the three. On the other hand, faith about, say, “phoenixes rising from their own ashes” is simply this same universal attribute of consciousness applied to a fantasy, an assumption (the phoenix) that has no basis in experience. What is unnecessary here is not the faith but the assumption. Now many faiths place faith in baseless assumptions. And when people discover this, they not only reject the assumption (rightly), but, because they fail to discriminate, they deceive themselves into thinking that they can do without the faith too. All that has happened to them, though, is that they have transferred their faculty of faith to the basis of experience and have simultaneously forgotten that they are using it. Now to forget that one has a sharp knife in one’s hand is dangerous. from: http://nyanamoli.blogspot.com/

When due to ignorance there is no direct knowledge we have to use our saddha which guides our actions.

[Diwokfkq]

...Stuka´s scornful mentioning of Tibetan Buddhism....

...scornful?

[!!!maryann!!!]

Originally Posted by stuka Originally Posted by ulman Just enough to believe so there is such a thing

Even that is not necessary. Faith in law of action is part of right view and it cannot be separated from rebirth. So why not to believe in it?
Its very sportive in practice. How to develop faith and about dangers of being without faith: http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitak...kaya/mn-60.htm The Buddha called that "right view with defilements", i.e., a view that leads one toward moral behavior, but based in greed, fear, and ignorance. He described it as inferior to his own superstition-free, liberative Noble Right View of discernment.

The Buddha did not deal in "faith", he dealt in "saddha", which means "confirmed confidence", not blind faith.

MN 60 treats a gaggle of competing superstitions with discernment. Ultimately, all of these superstitions are discarded in favor of the Buddha's own teachings of disenchantment with forms, and with cessation of becoming. These are the practices that the hypothetical "wise person" the Buddha postulates chooses and embraces.The various superstitions are rightly discarded.

[NEWyear]

But do you really have a choice ?

Of course!

You might want to know that the Buddha soundly refuted determinism.

Whichever I adopt is a matter of pure faith (I leave out “evidence” for and against other alternatives here).

What Nyanamoli fails to grasp is that the Buddha took a fourth choice of acknowledging that speculative views about death are irrelevant to that problem of suffering. This choice is based in discernment, rather than the blind faith Nyanamoli advocates.

Nyanamoli discards the use of evidence, and in doing so he discards the Buddha's own liberative teachings, which are based entirely in discernment and examination of evidence.

[HomePageOEMfreeSOFTWARE]

Perhaps you are right, and Nanavira wrong, perhaps Nanavira is right and you are wrong. I prefer his position:

awkward fact of rebirth is eliminated with the statement that the Buddha discouraged speculation on such questions (whereas, in fact, the Buddha said quite bluntly throughout the Suttas that there is rebirth: the speculation that the Buddha discouraged was whether the Tathāgata [or arahat] exists after death, which is quite another question). (Quotation about Huxley)

[inchaaruutaa]

"Right" and "wrong" are subjective, speculative, and irrelevant. Nyanamoli's view does not comport with the Buddha's teachings. That is relevant.


The question of whether there is life after death was one of a series of questions that were used to nail a philosopher down on his position. The addition of "tathagata" merely denotes that the question was tailored specifically to the Buddha in this case. The question of "rebirth" superstitions is irrelevant to the Buddha's liberative teachings.


Your preference for Nanavira's choice of superstition over the Buddha's own liberative teachings is of course your prerogative. Kind of silly to try to dictate that choice for others.

[DiBellaBam]

I regret even touching on the negative energy-draining field of faith/skepticism

I would suggest that it is precisely at this point that one should persist in one's arguments, until everything useful that the debate can produce has been produced. I recommend against turning away from the debate at this point, but instead rising above one's personal feelings about it, for the benefit of the readers. Of course, for all parties to behave in a civilised manner will help.