[enencephoth]

Copying your post into the Rebirth Thread, Thomas - will respond there.

[hexniks]

It's correct, those who see dependent origination see the dhamma. But do you REALLY SEE it?

Sure we do.

This reminds is a bit of little children, who have just learned their ABC. You see, all the world's literature can be reproduced from just these 26 letters. But can the child claim that because it has mastered the alphabet, it has also mastered all of the world's literature?

This is just silly, Thomas. The Buddha did not say that one had to master every tiny nuance of every possibility that could occur withing the framework of PS. BUT once one understands PS, one can easily see how it works on ones own life, and in those of others. Your "learning the alphabet" is akin to gaining a basic understanding of PS -- "Ignorance leads to Suffering", say. But it is no big feat for one to see how PS works, and to see it working. You try to make it sound like it it this great impossible thing. It is not. It is a simple thing. Complex and profound, but simple.

The latter involves a lifetime, or more likely, multiple lifetimes of practice during which one's understanding of dependent origination is continuously deepened. In the course of this practice, it is quite likely that one makes discoveries about the mind, about existence, life, death, and rebirth, verifying one or another aspect of the dhamma.

The Buddha did not say that it would take multiple lifetimes to see this and to get it. He said it could be seen here and now by anyone. You are hyper-intellectualizing this to fit it into your worldview of eternalist superstition.

What is more, although "seeing" rebirth is strictly not necessary, rebirth itself is necessary for you or anyone to be able to walk the path to its end. If you are not reborn, then when you die, that's it. Game over. Mission failed.

That is just nonsense, Thomas, and it is not how the Buddha taught it. All religions, including Buddhism, begin, develop, and end with ethics. The Buddhas teachings are ultimately about living well. If one lives his life unethically, lying, stealing, killing, and treating others badly -- miserable, ignorant and greedy, then it is "mission failed". The Four Solaces clearly lay out terms that include the possibility of no karma-and-reincarnation:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

These are the words of the Buddha, Thomas. You can drone on all you want about fire and brimstone, but that's just TV preaching. The Buddha has spoken and your lengthy harangue about the necessity of "re-birth" simply does not comport with his teaching.

But once again, we find ourselves arguing about rebirth, whereas the thread is about something else. I am not really inclined to continue this argument, since it's been done to death.

Berzin's polemic certainly is about reincarnation/"re-birth". I can't help but notice that "its been done to death" seems to mean something akin to "I can't even bluster and bluff my way through this debate, much less argue my position on the merits".

Stuka, just in case you have misinterpreted my last post as personal attack, please let me mention that it wasn't geared to you. I

Oh, yeah. right.

In fact, I wish to avoid engaging you.

Of course not. You can't argue this on the merits; innuendo and personal attacks, declarations by fiat, references to irrelevant sources, and various fallacious arguments aren't cutting it, and you don't have E-Sangha moderators here to beat on me and threaten me or ban me. You have to argue this on a level playing field here, and here in the light of day your argument "you have to believe in reincarnation/'re-birth'" is dying the ignoble death it deserves.

What I had in mind with quack dhamma was more like certain tendencies in the new age movement that utilise Buddhist terminology and concepts.

I don't believe you.

I (deplorably) came to the conclusion that debating with you is not useful, and therefore I suggest we leave it at that.

Oh, that you can't convert me and can't convince me that the world is flat? And so you are just inviting me to STFU while you continue to carry on about the flatness of the earth? Not hardly, friend.

[xiaoselangone]

Aloka-D, if you find this pointless, then allow me to ask you one question: when Aloka-D dies, is Aloka-D's suffering extinguished?

This is a fallacy of Many Questions. You are assuming that "all life is suffering". For one who is familiar with the Buddha's liberative teachings, it is a silly and pointless question, something a TV preacher would ask to try and lure people into his superstitions by their ignorance.

[betraaaus]

The latter involves a lifetime, or more likely, multiple lifetimes of practice during which one's understanding of dependent origination is continuously deepened

Please back this up with a sutta reference. Thank you.

Or perhaps I'll just counter by saying, I have been studying it for an infinite number of lifetimes, then, and I am a D.O. master with an understanding as deep as it gets.

Although strictly speaking such discoveries aren't necessary, they are just likely to occur. Again, please start backing up your words. The sutta I cited would suggest that this is not so. And even if they were likely to occur, so what? Again, I ask, if I were to say right now "Ok, I do believe in rebirth," where does that get me in my practice?

What is more, although "seeing" rebirth is strictly not necessary, rebirth itself is necessary for you or anyone to be able to walk the path to its end. If you are not reborn, then when you die, that's it. Game over. Mission failed. And why must everyone attain Nibbana? Is this a law of the universe? Did God declare it?

You're suggesting that the "ultimate goal" is to end rebirth. In that case, if there is no rebirth, then by your logic, when you die, that's it; mission won! Woo! Would you commit suicide to end your suffering if you found out rebirth was false?

Do you see no other benefit in the Dhamma but ending rebirth? You think a world free of clinging to superstition as truth, a world full of compassion, a world in which people are free of mental suffering, is "tatters"? The benefit of the Dhamma is in life.

Also, that still doesn't answer how belief in rebirth is necessary to Buddhism. If rebirth is true, then it's true regardless of whether or not we believe in it. I'm sincerely interested in knowing how the belief is essential to practice.

[HRS1H7gO]

What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma*. *i.e. rebirth and kamma - so you suggest that belief in rebirth is part of the Dhamma.

"He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination." -MN 28
It's correct, those who see dependent origination see the dhamma. Glad we agree.

But do you REALLY SEE it? This reminds is a bit of little children, who have just learned their ABC. Have I seen its truth firsthand as per Buddhadasa's exegesis? Yes. Have you seen the "truth of rebirth" firsthand through direct experience as per Buddhaghosa's?

[SEEING] involves a lifetime, or more likely, multiple lifetimes of practice during which one's understanding of dependent origination is continuously deepened. Ok, so D.O. IS the Dhamma, and D.O. is about rebirth and one must see it firsthand through direct insight to see the Dhamma and attain Nibbana. But then:

Although strictly speaking such discoveries aren't necessary, they are just likely to occur. What is more, although "seeing" rebirth is strictly not necessary... Oh, but, the suttas state [SN 12.70], and now you seem to agree, that firsthand insight into the "truth of rebirth" isn't necessary to attaining Nibbana.

Sounds like you don't really have a clue what you're talking about and you're just making things up as you go along--and poorly I might add.

[TXmjLW9b]

First, there is nothing speculative about death. We all die with 100% certainty.

So? What is pointless is *speculating* about it. And, again, *believing* in any such speculation is *superstition*.

Second, speculation about suffering after is not pointless at all.

You are calling "suffering" something very different from what the Buddha did.

It is possible to reason about it as follows:

* First possibility: with the physical death of Aloka-D, Aloka-D's suffering is extinguished.
* Second possibility: with the physical death of Aloka-D, Aloka-D's suffering is not extinguished.

You are making the fallacious assumption "life is suffering". The Buddha did not teach that.

According to classical logic, and the law of the excluded middle, these are the two possibilities.

Fallacy of Excluded Middle, actually. There are many more possibilities.

The Buddha would look at things in terms of four possibilities: There is this, there is not this, there is both this and not-this, and there is neither this nor not-this.

If you accept or tend to believe the first possibility,

And then there is the possibility that no one here believes or accepts either of them. In fact, that is the case.

If you accept or tend to believe the first possibility, then the object of the dhamma, the cessation of dukkha, is somewhat pointless. Your suffering is automatically extinguished at death, so you don't need to worry. Ultimately, the problem of dukkha will solve itself. All you need to worry about is avoiding suffering as good as you can until you die.

That is simply the most preposterous argument. Would you tell a mother grieving for her child, "Oh, you don't have to worry, some day you will die and be done with all this"...? Why don't you try that sometime?

This can be achieved by a number of different methods, one of which is dharma lite.

How funny that you now refuse to defend that term, yet you continue to use it. Smacks of cowardice to me.

If you accept or tend to believe the second possibility, then the object of the dhamma, cessation of dukkha, becomes an existential necessity.

The quenching of suffering is a necessity in any case. Suffering sucks. All this intellectualization is just silly.

Even if you enjoy perfect health, wealth, family, friends and your life is one big party, you cannot escape dukkha.

That is the case no matter what. But that does not mean that all of life is suffering. There is plenty of beauty and joy in life. Given the choice of reincarnating infinitely into lives as they are, I would take it. You are equivocating the definition of "dukkha".

In this case, there is not only an urgent requirement to address the cause of suffering in the here and now

-- one that is not there in the first scenario, or in the reality in which neither scenario is relevant?

but it there is also an urgent requirement to cultivate and develop the precepts and the eightfold path in order to prevent future unfortunate rebirth. Now which version did the Buddha teach?

The Buddha did not teach that the 4NT and 8FP were to prevent "{future unfortunate rebirth". He taught that they are for the quenching of suffering here and now.

The sutta support for the idea of continuously cultivating the path over several lifetimes flows naturally from the idea of stream-entry, once-returner, none-returner. So you can draw on any of the suttas where these appear, inlcuding MN 117.

The Buddha doesn't say anything about the idea of stream-entry, once-returner, none-returner in MN 117.

In addition, in the Buddha's Noble, liberative teachings, these terms are used metaphorically, as Valtiel has pointed out elsewhere. The Buddha is talking about future "birth" of self-view, and uses the term "birth", rather than reincarnation. Again, the Buddha never spoke of this "re-birth" you postulate.

As to the other points: nirvana/nibbana is not guaranteed, as Buddhanature exists, but is not necessarily actualised. N

This statement is nonsense. The Buddha did not teach "Buddhanature". I thought you had declared yourself a Theravadan. "Buddhanature" is a mahayana concept. But really, you argue here like an adherent of the tibetan religion.

Yes, the ultimate goal is the end of rebirth which coincides with nirvana.

the Buddha did not teach that. He taught that the ultimate goal was the extinguishment of suffering. Nibbana is that extinguishment. The Buddha lived for 45 years after attaining Nibbana. You might as well put a red dot on your forehead and declare the Hinduism you profess.

A world full of compassion would certainly be nice, but the Buddha never declares such a goal.

He talks about a person who follows his teachings as pervading compassion in the six directions, and that compassion spreading. A world of compassion follows naturally in an world that follows the Dhamma.

He does not talk about changing the world, but he talks a lot about liberation from the world.

Liberation from "the world" of attachment to sense pleasures. he certainly did, however, change the world so far, and it can go a great deal further.

Finally, how rebirth is relevant to practice is explained in the paragraph above addressed to Aloka-D.

you have failed to show any relevance at all.

[ArrichMer]

If you say that the benefit of dhamma is in life, you must explain what exactly that means to you.

Are you *kidding*? It means that I have tools at my disposal that help me to live well and to cope with circumstances in life that had previously caused me a great deal of misery. It means that I can look at things that happen in this life in an enlightened way, so that I am not compelled though ignorance to become angry, upset, miserable, or anything else over them. It means that I do not have to be dragged through life by the nose, attached to emotion and craving for this-or-that thing or experience or illusion of status or ownership. It means that I can live life intelligently, and not be sucked in by shiny mental objects, that I can go against the stream and not be enslaved by the cult of television or political bullshit and all the other garbage that goes on there. It means that I can deal with what goes on in my life without my judgment being clouded by inappropriate emotions like anger and greed. It means that I do not have to rely on superstition and fear to correct unskillful impulses that may arise, that I have an unshakable ethics of reciprocity to refer to and guide me that is not based in superstition and nonsense. And that's just the *start* of it. The Buddha's own liberative doctrine teaches all of that and so much more, and all of these are benefits that one can enjoy here and now.


I can't believe you even ask the question, and that you cannot see any benefit of the Dhamma in this life, I find that to be shockingly absurd.

[theatadug]

It means that I have tools at my disposal that help me to live well and to cope with circumstances in life that had previously caused me a great deal of misery. It means that I can look at things that happen in this life in an enlightened way, so that I am not compelled though ignorance to become angry, upset, miserable, or anything else over them. It means that I do not have to be dragged through life by the nose, attached to emotion and craving for this-or-that thing or experience or illusion of status or ownership. It means that I can live life intelligently, and not be sucked in by shiny mental objects, that I can go against the stream and not be enslaved by the cult of television or political bullshit and all the other garbage that goes on there. It means that I can deal with what goes on in my life without my judgment being clouded by inappropriate emotions like anger and greed. It means that I do not have to rely on superstition and fear to correct unskillful impulses that may arise, that I have an unshakable ethics of reciprocity to refer to and guide me that is not based in superstition and nonsense. And that's just the *start* of it. The Buddha's own liberative doctrine teaches all of that and so much more, and all of these are benefits that one can enjoy here and now.

This is a *really* great post. It goes a long way toward being a manifesto for those who cannot bring themselves to believe in rebirth and kamma, and want to know what the Dhamma can mean to them sans these doctrines.

[carinsurancess]

I will say that I'm finding stuka's points really compelling. If the whole point of letting go is to even let go of things like a notion of one's self (the idea that there is no "essential me" that ought to be the center of my universe), then I find the idea of rebirth and karma really confusing. If there's no essential me, then what is karma sticking to? If there's no essential me, then what passes on into another body to experience the consequences of my actions now?

stuka would probably say, "No, of course that makes no sense, because those things are contradicting doctrines. They can't both be so," and right now that's my initial feeling as well. However, for the people on the board who see no contradiction, can you explain it to me?

There is no contradiction if one views that there is no essential karma either. In Mahayana philosophy the concept of selflessness is applied to both persons and phenomena. Briefly, this view describes two levels of truth. On the conventional level, I experience myself as though I really exist, I experience suffering, happiness, and a whole bunch of other things. With detailed and thorough examination the sense of "I" as experienced is revealed to be delusional. We can see through logic that the self cannot exist independently of mind and body, nor as the sum of the various parts of mind and body. This is the selflessness of persons, if one applies the same logic to phenomena (for example a table) then the table is shown to be selfless (or tableless). This is the level of ultimate reality.

Both rebirth and karma are dependent upon notions of a self as you pointed out. On the ultimate level there is no self, table, rebirth or karma. However, until this truth really penetrates and transforms us we really only experience the conventional level of reality. It is in regards to conventional truth that karma and rebirth can be said to exist and effect us.

For me this distinction between two levels of truth is what really drew me to the Mahayana. This distinction is what has facilitated my understanding of the majority of Buddhist teachings. Because of my initial limited perceptions I could not understand a lot of what Buddhism teaches on the conventional level and had to put it on the back shelf (trying not to reject or accept too quickly, this was so hard for me!). After about 5 or 6 years of putting karma & rebirth aside, the empirical evidence supporting them began to outweigh my doubts. Once I began to let go of the worldview that was preventing me from being open to the possibility of rebirth & karma, things changed really quickly for me and I realized that I had been really closed minded! Prior to this I was having a really hard time with these aspects of BuddhaDharma and really did not believe that I would ever be able to relate to them. The teachings on emptiness and repeated reflection of the relative nature of conventional truth have expanded my worldview immensely, without me needing to sacrifice logic or reasoning in any way. Frickin' awesome!

[Sheelldaw]

There is no contradiction if one views that there is no essential karma either.

A nonsensical contradiction in itself.

In Mahayana philosophy the concept of selflessness is applied to both persons and phenomena.

And done so as a metaphysics, which is vastly different from the anatta the Buddha taught.

Briefly, this view describes two levels of truth.

Which the Buddha did not teach, either.

On the conventional level, I experience myself as though I really exist, I experience suffering, happiness, and a whole bunch of other things.

And we are here, and we do experience suffering, happiness, etc. This is not a "conventional truth", this is a very real truth of our experience.

With detailed and thorough examination the sense of "I" as experienced is revealed to be delusional.

Our self-views are illusory. That is something quite different from the metaphysical speculation you declare here, based upon blind faith.

We can see through logic that the self cannot exist independently of mind and body, nor as the sum of the various parts of mind and body.

And now we are straying into a metaphysical doctrine of self, rather than the Buddha's indictment of self-view.

This is the selflessness of persons, if one applies the same logic to phenomena (for example a table) then the table is shown to be selfless (or tableless). This is the level of ultimate reality.

Wandering off into the darkness. The table is simply not mine, and nothing to proliferate illusions of status over.

Both rebirth and karma are dependent upon notions of a self as you pointed out

*Speculations* there "there is 're-birth' (reincarnation) and/or karma" are dependent upon notions of a self, yes.

On the ultimate level there is no self, table, rebirth or karma.

On the level of the Buddhadhamma, self-view is irrelevant and superstitions of karma and reincarnation are irrelevant. The mahayana has dumbed this down into a metaphysical speculation requiring blind faith.

However, until this truth really penetrates and transforms us we really only experience the conventional level of reality.

That does not follow. Once one penetrates the truths the Buddha teaches, once continues to breathe, eat, and experience. One still continues to live, and one dies.

It is in regards to conventional truth that karma and rebirth can be said to exist and effect us.

And again, the Buddha didn't teach anything like this. Mere poetry. Summoner has been replaced by pegs.

For me this distinction between two levels of truth is what really drew me to the Mahayana.

And away from the Buddha's teachings.

This distinction is what has facilitated my understanding of the majority of Buddhist teachings.

....though not of the teachings of the Buddha.

Because of my initial limited perceptions I could not understand a lot of what Buddhism teaches on the conventional level and had to put it on the back shelf (trying not to reject or accept too quickly, this was so hard for me!).

Ah,. here we go -- non-belief in superstition cast as closed-minded "limited perception" -- the "Xenophilius Lovegood" argument. I don't believe in Crumple-Horned Snorkacks simply because I am afflicted with "limited perception" and have a closed mind. Got it.

After about 5 or 6 years of putting karma & rebirth aside, the empirical evidence supporting them began to outweigh my doubts.

What empirical evidence? You haven't offered a shred yet!

Once I began to let go of the worldview that was preventing me from being open to the possibility of rebirth & karma, things changed really quickly for me and I realized that I had been really closed minded! Prior to this I was having a really hard time with these aspects of BuddhaDharma and really did not believe that I would ever be able to relate to them.

Sure, Xenophilius....

The teachings on emptiness and repeated reflection of the relative nature of conventional truth have expanded my worldview immensely, without me needing to sacrifice logic or reasoning in any way.

Or rather, without having to come to grips in any way with having sacrificed reasoning.

[Nmoitmzr]

Once I began to let go of the worldview that was preventing me from being open to the possibility of rebirth & karma

Might that also include a view that discourages speculation about that which cannot be verified ? Sounds like a sensible one to me ! Please check #18 for a quote of what the Buddha said in MN2.

I'm also reminded of something Ajahn Sumedho said recently (see talks in Theravada forum)

" What happens after death? We all have our opinions, all the religions, but the fact is
we really don't know."

So why send the mind spinning and speculating over these things, KoolAid, -wake up to the freshness of the here and now !

[Gabbavnf]

So why send the mind spinning and speculating over these things, KoolAid, -wake up to the freshness of the here and now !