[Scukonahuy]

The subject of Alexander Berzin's essay "Dharma Lite" has been raised again here recently, and since Berzin's polemic has become somewhat of a standard pejorative against the Buddha's liberative teachings, it bears examination so that this notion can die in the light of day, as it rightly deserves. We shall examine Berzin's polemic in its entirety; as it is a short essay, and dissect each argument and point as it is raised.


We begin with the title and the metaphor he chose for his polemic: "Dharma Lite' Versus 'The Real Thing' Dharma". One cannot help but see the irony in his choice of epithets, as they are derived from the promotional campaign of an American soft drink, essentially fizzy, flavored sugar-water with oodles of calories and little-to-no nutritional value. This, the promotions cry, is "The Real Thing", and this is what Berzin compares his tibetan religion to. Indeed. And this is what he holds as superior to the Buddha's liberative teachings.


Berzin starts his essay declaring The Importance of Rebirth:

"Tibetan Buddhism follows the Indian tradition and all Indian traditions take for granted belief in rebirth."

It is important to note that this is written from the standpoint and tenets of the tibetan state religion, whose adherents are taught that their religion is the pinnacle of "Buddhism", that all other versions of Buddhism are inferior. Berzin also fancies himself as speaking for all of Buddhism, no matter how little resemblance the tibetan state religion bears to the liberative teachings of the Buddha. Beyond that, Berzin opens up with a Fallacy Appeal to Tradition.


"Even if traditional Buddhist seekers do not have a deep understanding of what takes rebirth or how rebirth works, still they have grown up with the idea of rebirth as a cultural given. They need merely to have their understandings refined, but do not need to become convinced in the existence of rebirth."

Berzin generalizes about all Buddhists and the beliefs they grow up being fed, and assumes that all who grow up being taught superstitions will actually believe them without question or reservation. We shall also note here that the tibetan religion holds that a person reincarnates over and over again. There are Buddhist schools that distinguish between the notions they have developed of "re-birth" rather than "reincarnation", in order to shoehorn reincarnation past the Buddha's refutation of the Atta/Self, but the tibetan religions do not make this distinction, and declare ad nauseum that this person is the reincarnation of that person, and this one of that, etc. In common practice, however, it is all the same reincarnation belief once equivocal definitions are established.


"Therefore, texts on the graded stages of the path (lam-rim) do not even mention the topic of gaining conviction in the existence of rebirth."


Berzin speaks again from the perspective of the tibetan religions, citing the lam-rim, which is strictly a tibetan teaching, only relevant to adherents of the tibetan religion. Now he begins to circle round the arguments:


"Without rebirth, the discussion of mind having no beginning and no end becomes meaningless."

Not only is this argument circular, it references a concept (beginningless mind) that never crossed the Buddha's lips. "Beginingless Mind" is necessarily an entity that is permanent, which the Buddha declared was not to be found in his liberative teachings.


"Without beginningless and endless mind, the entire presentation of karma falls apart."

Quite a self-damaging concession and a disaster for tibetan dogma (as is the problem of "beginningless mind"), but insignificant to the Buddha's liberative teachings, which are not based in the speculative view of karma-and-reincarnation or "beginningless mind".


"This is because the karmic results of our actions most frequently do not ripen in the same lifetime in which we commit the actions."

Yes -- "multiple-life" karma-and-reincarnation necessitate the postulation of a same entity or agent that produces and receives karmic results, and cannot survive without such an entity or agent. The Buddha staunchly refuted the notion that he taught of an entity that reaped the rewards of actions from one life to the next. Had Berzin ever read the Nikayas, he might have known that.


"Without the presentation of karmic cause and effect over the span of many lifetimes, the discussion of the voidness of cause and effect and of dependent arising likewise falls apart."


The tibetan versions of "voidness" and of paticcasamuppada indeed fall apart, agreed. However, the Buddha taught sunnata ("all things are empty of self or anything pertaining to a self" -- an indictment of illusions of states of status and ownership) and paticcasamuppada (ignorance causes us to grasp to sense pleasures, causing suffering) quite differently from how the tibetans teach it, and the Buddha's sunnata and paticcasamuppada in the here-and-now remains alive and thriving without any reference at all to superstitions of "karmic cause and effect over many lifetimes". The Buddha declares as such (in the case of PS) in the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, MN 38:


"Bhikkhus, you who know thus and see thus, would your mind run to the past: 'Was I in the past or was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what did I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus, run to the future: 'Will I be in the future, or will I not be in the future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future? Having been what, what will I become?'" "No, venerable sir." "Bhikkhus, would you who know and see thus have doubts about the present: 'Am I, or am I not? What am I? How am I? Where did this being come from? Where will it go?'" "No, venerable sir."

Berzin continues:


"Moreover, in terms of the three scopes of lam-rim motivation, how can we sincerely aim for benefiting future lives without belief in the existence of future lives? How can we sincerely aim for gaining liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth (samsara) without belief in rebirth? How can we sincerely aim for enlightenment and the ability to help others gain liberation from rebirth without belief that rebirth is a fact? In terms of bodhichitta meditation, how can we sincerely recognize all beings as having been our mothers in previous lives without believing in previous lives? In terms of anuttarayoga tantra, how can we sincerely meditate in analogy with death, bardo, and rebirth to purify ourselves of uncontrollably experiencing them if we do not believe that bardo and rebirth occur?"

So all of the circular arguments here follow this form ad nauseum: "--But without karma, there could be no rebirth! --And without rebirth, there could be no karma! --And without karma, there could be no rebirth! --And..."

All of these problems are only problems for the tibetan religion which has built a house of cards on the foundation of these superstitions.


"Thus, it is clearly evident that rebirth is a cornerstone for a large and crucial portion of the Dharma teachings."


Of the tibetan teachings, yes. That hardly makes rebirth a cornerstone of the Buddha's liberative teachings, which the tibetan religion virtually ignores. Berzin continues:



"'Dharma-Lite' and 'The Real Thing' Dharma"


Sounds like a Budweiser commercial, doesn't it? --A lot more than Berzin realizes, no doubt.


"Most Westerners come to Dharma without prior belief in rebirth."


What an amazing statement, considering that most come from some form of Christian background, coming from (and rejecting) a belief in Christian rebirth!


"Many approach the study and practice of Dharma as a method for improving the quality of this lifetime, especially in terms of overcoming psychological and emotional problems."

Which is something the Buddha taught the Dhamma as, also: He said many times, "I teach about suffering and the extinguishment of suffering".


"This attitude reduces Dharma to an Asian form of psychotherapy."

Quite the Straw Man here. Berzin fails to notice that the Buddha's phenomenological psychology is also coupled with a strong ethics of reciprocity (a la "Golden Rule" as examplified in the Veludvareyya Sutta), which makes it a modern "super-religion" in comparison to primitive religions that base their ethical planks in flimsy superstitions that require massive suspension of disbelief in order for one to adhere to their tentets. Berzin would reduce the Buddha's magnificent, modern, superstition-free super-religion teachings to just another flimsy, primitive pack of superstitions.


"I have coined the term Dharma-Lite for this approach to Buddhist Dharma, analogous to "CocaCola-Lite." It is a weakened version, not as strong as "The Real Thing." The traditional approach to Dharma - which includes not only discussion of rebirth, but also the presentation of the hells and the rest of the six realms of existence - I have termed The Real Thing Dharma."


Again, Berzin calls the fizzy, nutrition-free, flavored water of superstition-based religion "The Real Thing". How fitting. And he disparages and villifies the Buddha's superstition-free, liberative teachings.

Now Berzin raises the preposterous notion that while one practices the Buddha's rock-solid, rosuperstition-free super-religion, one should nonetheless do so while bowing to the supremacy of his superstitions:


"There are two ways to practice Dharma-Lite. "1. We may practice it with acknowledgment of the importance of rebirth in Buddhism and the sincere intention to study the accurate teachings on it. Thus, we aim to improve this lifetime with the Dharma methods merely as a steppingstone on the way to working to improve our future rebirths and to gain liberation and enlightenment. Thus, Dharma-Lite becomes a preliminary step on the graded path to enlightenment, a step prior to the initial scope. Such an approach is completely fair to the Buddhist tradition. It does not call Dharma-Lite 'The Real Thing'."


This ridiculous approach is completely ignorant of the fact that the Buddha constantly declares that his teachings are for the elimination of suffering here-and-now, in this lifetime.


"2. We may practice it with the recognition that Dharma-Lite is not only the actual Dharma, but also the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism to take. Such an approach shortchanges and is grossly unfair to the Buddhist tradition. It easily leads to an attitude of cultural arrogance."


The Buddha's Noble Path is indeed the actual Buddhadhamma, and is the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism, and indeed all religions that call themselves "Buddhist" to take. We are, after all, Buddhists, and it is therefor most appropriate for us to follow and practice the teachings of the Buddha, rather than wallow in the superstitions that preceded him or the eisegeses that followed him.

It is more than fair to hold any religion that calls itself "Buddhist" to the liberative teachings of the Buddha. And the cultural arrogance lies on the part of a religion that ignores the Buddha's own liberaqtive teachings, buries them inder with superstition and state politics, and deigns to continue to call itself "Buddhist".


"Therefore, we need to proceed with great care if we find that, at our present level of spiritual development and understanding, Dharma-Lite is the drink for us."


One who would call him- or her-self "Buddhist" should indeed take care -- to be sure that they are learning and practicing the teachings of teh Buddha, adn being taught the Dhamma of the Buddha, instead of watered-down superstitious nonsense that bears only a superficial resemblance to "Buddhism", and has little-to-nothing to do with the Buddha's own, liberative teachings.



"Schematic Summary of Dharma-Lite: Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when

* the aim is to improve only in this life;
* the student has little or no understanding of the Buddhist teachings on rebirth;
* consequently, the student has neither belief nor interest in future lives;
* even if the student believes in rebirth, he or she does not accept the existence of the six realms of rebirth;
* the Dharma teacher avoids discussion of rebirth or, even if he or she discusses rebirth, avoids discussion of the hells. The teacher reduces the six realms to human psychological experiences."



* the Buddha taught his Dhamma for the ending of suffering here-and-now, and that here-and-now is necessarily in "this life". Berzin is calling the Buddha's liberative teachings "Dharma Lite"
* the Buddha taught the internal inconsistency and irrelevance of karma-and-reincarnation beliefs to his liberative teachings, for example in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta. This is a proper understanding of karma-and-rebirth according to the Buddha. Again, Berzin is calling the Buddha's teaching on karma-and-reincarnation "Dharma Lite".
* With respect to "interest in future lives", we already see above quote from the Maha Tanhasankhaya Sutta, in which the Buddha states that such interest is irrelevant. Berzin calls the Buddha's position "Dharma Lite".
* The Buddha taught the realms as metaphorsl: "I have seen a heaven called "Six Sense Bases". I have seen a hell called "Six Sense Bases." Berzin calls the Buddha's metaphorical approach to the realms "Dharma Lite".
* The Buddha does not discuss reincarnation/"re-birth" in the context of his own liberative teachings. Again, he teaches the hells as metaphor when he says he has "seen a hell called Six Sense bases". Berzin is calling the Buddha's libertive teachings "Dharma Lite".


"Schematic Summary of The Real Thing Dharma: The Real Thing Dharma is the authentic traditional practice of Buddhism, in which

* the student at least acknowledges the importance of rebirth on the spiritual path and has the sincere wish to gain a correct understanding of it;
* the student aims either for liberation from uncontrollably recurring rebirth or for enlightenment and the ability to help all others gain liberation;
* even if the student aims for improving future lives, this is merely as a provisional step on the path to gaining liberation or enlightenment;
* even if the student aims for improving this life, this is merely as a provisional step on the path to improving future lives and gaining liberation or enlightenment."


Berzin arrogantly proclaims that the dogmatic tenets of his religion are the "authentic traditional practice of Buddhism", claiming to speak for all religions that call themselves "Buddhism". This is a manifestation of the position of his religion that it is the Ultimate Buddhism, superior to all other forms of Buddhism.

The Buddha is clear about the irrelevance of reincarnation/"re-birth" beliefs to his teachings, and could not be more clearer than in his description of the "Four Solaces" in the Kalama Sutta, AN 3.65:

"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."



This, in which the Buddha demonstrates the irrelevance of karma-and-reincarnation/"re-birth" superstitions to his teachings, is what Berzin laughably calls "Dharma Lite".

[Evdokia]

A well-reasoned attack, Stuka, on Berzin's essay. I support your right to hold your opinion as you do, and to express it here in your own words.

I don't much like Berzin's choice of terms "Dharma Lite" and "The Real Thing", either, but these are his words and he may use them how he chooses.

I think you are harsh in claiming that he is addressing himself to the whole of Buddhism in his essay, though. His very first words are "Tibetan Buddhism", and he acknowledges the influence of Indian religion in its history.

Berzin starts his essay declaring The Importance of Rebirth:

"Tibetan Buddhism follows the Indian tradition and all Indian traditions take for granted belief in rebirth."

It is important to note that this is written from the standpoint and tenets of the tibetan state religion, whose adherents are taught that their religion is the pinnacle of "Buddhism", that all other versions of Buddhism are inferior. Berzin also fancies himself as speaking for all of Buddhism, no matter how little resemblance the tibetan state religion bears to the liberative teachings of the Buddha.

My point is this: Tibetan Buddhism without acceptance of rebirth is a poor thing. Any Westerner who takes on Tibetan Buddhism but is selective about what parts they will and will not accept is not a Tibetan Buddhist at all, but is a New Age pick-and-mixer.

So from the point of view of writing about Tibetan Buddhism, Berzin has got a point.

"Therefore, texts on the graded stages of the path (lam-rim) do not even mention the topic of gaining conviction in the existence of rebirth."

Berzin speaks again from the perspective of the tibetan religions, citing the lam-rim, which is strictly a tibetan teaching, only relevant to adherents of the tibetan religion.

Exactly so. He's talking about Tibetan Buddhism, so don't castigate him for bringing lam-rim into it. When he goes on to refer to "Buddhism", it's in the context of Tibetan Buddhism.

If he wanted to address all schools and all traditions of Buddhism, he would say so explicitly.

Berzin has studied Tibetan Buddhism for a long. long time and he's strayed into examining other traditions in order to compare and contrast, in order to examine the boundaries, no doubt. He's written a little about the other kinds of Buddhism, too, because that's what academics do.

I think Tibetan Buddhists will always recognise rebirth in the context of re-incarnation, that some consciousness moves from one body to another. And you will never accept such a view.

As for me, I'm sure I don't know.

[Plokiikmol]

Hi Woodscooter,

What you're not understanding here, friend, is that 'Dharma Lite' is an expression now used on the internet in general to describe anyone who doesn't want to focus on reincarnation/rebirth as part of their Buddhist practice.

It isn't just used by Tibetan Buddhist practitioners to describe other practitioners within that system. In fact we've had it mentioned at BWB out of the TB context in 2 different threads.

It's especially ridiculous when its used on the internet as a term to describe people of other traditions, since later on Berzin links it to TB Bodhisattva vows and the idea of all beings having been one's mother at some time or another. (a useful tool for generating compassion towards others)




This is a link to the section at the Berzin Archives

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en...arma_lite.html



.

[courlerwele]

I posted in the other topic, but I'm gonna move it in here now if I can. Editing this post in 5... 4.... 3... 2...

Edit: I'm still learning how I feel and what works for me in various Buddhist traditions, so watching the discussion on this in both threads has been really helpful. I've also picked up some new names to look into (Batchelor, for one, once I'm done with Shantideva), and I appreciate having these new directions pointed out to me. Thanks to everybody involved for giving me an idea of where to go and what to read next.

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?

[Zdmlscid]

I think you are harsh in claiming that he is addressing himself to the whole of Buddhism in his essay, though. His very first words are "Tibetan Buddhism", and he acknowledges the influence of Indian religion in its history.

Thank you, WS. With the most respect, I do not think I am being harsh on him at all, though, and we can see several instances in his essay above in which he speaks for "Buddhism", and says "Buddhism". I will only show a couple of them, as I know you will be able to see the point i am making here:


Thus, we aim to improve this lifetime with the Dharma methods merely as a steppingstone on the way to working to improve our future rebirths and to gain liberation and enlightenment. Thus, Dharma-Lite becomes a preliminary step on the graded path to enlightenment, a step prior to the initial scope. Such an approach is completely fair to the Buddhist tradition. It does not call Dharma-Lite 'The Real Thing'."

"2. We may practice it with the recognition that Dharma-Lite is not only the actual Dharma, but also the most appropriate and skillful form for Western Buddhism to take. Such an approach shortchanges and is grossly unfair to the Buddhist tradition. It easily leads to an attitude of cultural arrogance."


"Schematic Summary of Dharma-Lite: Buddhism becomes Dharma-Lite when...

Schematic Summary of The Real Thing Dharma: The Real Thing Dharma is the authentic traditional practice of Buddhism, in which...


...and so on.

You see, WS, the tibetan religion's dogma holds that there is "only one Buddhism", consisting of three parts in a hierarchy from inferior to superior: the (derisively named) Hinayana, the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana. The tibetan religion holds that this is all one "Buddhism". So of course Berzin claims to speak for all of "Buddhism" here, because he sees his religion as the pinnacle of "Buddhism", best able to speak for all of what he thinks is "Buddhism".


My point is this: Tibetan Buddhism without acceptance of rebirth is a poor thing. Any Westerner who takes on Tibetan Buddhism but is selective about what parts they will and will not accept is not a Tibetan Buddhist at all, but is a New Age pick-and-mixer.

So from the point of view of writing about Tibetan Buddhism, Berzin has got a point.


Oh, the tibetan religion's doctrine collapses completely, house of cards that it is, without reincarnation. And for the tibetan religion, it is reincarnation, and not this "re-birth" convolution, and they make no bones about that.
I agree that anyone who takes on the tibetan religion is bound to their tenets. I do not see the tibetan religion as "Buddhism" at all. It may have adopted some of the Buddha's teachings, but that is only because his teachings are universal and applicable to anyone. Beyond that, it is an entirely other religion, just as hinduism has adopted the Buddha as one of its gods, and is nonetheless a completely different religion, with different and incompatible doctrines.

A lot of New Age pick-and-mixers fall in love with the tibetan religion, BTW, I would guess because of its exotic air of mystery. That and the profusion of incense to cover the clouds of pot smoke.

Exactly so. He's talking about Tibetan Buddhism, so don't castigate him for bringing lam-rim into it.

Oh, I'm not, I'm just pointing out that lam-rim is strictly a contrivance of the tibetan religion.

When he goes on to refer to "Buddhism", it's in the context of Tibetan Buddhism.

If he wanted to address all schools and all traditions of Buddhism, he would say so explicitly.

But like I say, he doesn't have to announce when he thinks he is speaking for all of "Buddhism", because he thinks he already is.

Berzin has studied Tibetan Buddhism for a long. long time and he's strayed into examining other traditions in order to compare and contrast, in order to examine the boundaries, no doubt. He's written a little about the other kinds of Buddhism, too, because that's what academics do.

But I would have no interest in what he has to write, as he is an adherent of the tibetan religion and I am an adherent of the Buddha's teachings.

I think Tibetan Buddhists will always recognise rebirth in the context of re-incarnation, that some consciousness moves from one body to another. And you will never accept such a view.

Of course I will not, because this is one of the things that places the tibetan religion at odds with, and outside of the scope of, the Buddha's teachings, and therefore outside of Buddhism.

[Phywhewashect]

Frankly, I think Berzin's "dharma lite" is a humourous attempt at describing a certain approach to the dharma. Unfortunately, this humour is not seen by those who are obstinately attached to their views. What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma. It does not apply to students who actively skew, distort, and redefine the dharma to fit their own terms. The latter is not dharma lite anymore, but more in the way of quack dharma. There is a big difference between dharma lite and quack dharma. The first could be described as an eclectic/agnostic approach, an approach that can be considered stepping stones. The second approach, quack dharma, cannot be considered stepping stones, for obvious reasons. After all, dharma lite is fairly innocuous compared to quack dharma.

Cheers, Thomas

[Liaiskelile]

What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma. "He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination." -MN 28

What part of the Dhamma have we left out, precisely?

If the Buddha taught someone when to flip a pancake, would that make it part of Buddhadhamma?

You have stated that removing rebirth/kamma from Buddhism would reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Yet there is no mention of either in D.O. (i.e. the Dhamma). The Buddha stated: "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." [SN 55.40] Yet psychic powers of supposedly seeing past lives and "verifying" rebirth for one's own self is outright denied as being necessary to attaining Nibbana. [SN 12.70] So, could you please explain the supposed necessity of belief in rebirth to attaining Nibbana rather than just repeatedly claiming it while stomping your harder each time? Thanks.

[LindaSmithIV]

Frankly, I think Berzin's "dharma lite" is a humourous attempt at describing a certain approach to the dharma.

Derision of the Buddha's liberative teachings is far from humor in the eyes of a Buddhist.

Unfortunately, this humour is not seen by those who are obstinately attached to their views.

Yes, like the ones who parrot Berzin's nonsense "Dharma Lite" epithet derisively in Buddhist chat groups...

What is more, dharma lite applies to students who simply leave out certain aspects of the dharma.

Well, there's "The Dharma(TM)" and then there's the Buddhadhamma, which is a whole lot lighter indeed, as it is unencumbered by superstition and cultural baggage, and is the taste of freedom.

It does not apply to students who actively skew, distort, and redefine the dharma to fit their own terms.

Good thing we are concerned with investigating and following the Buddha's own liberative teachings, then, rather than a bunch of superstitious cultural baggage!

The latter is not dharma lite anymore, but more in the way of quack dharma.

Oh, sort of like the tpe of "dharma" that listens to witch doctors and worships deities or discards the Buddha's liberative teachings as secondary to superstition. I see.

There is a big difference between dharma lite and quack dharma.

I should say so. Even Berzin's version of "Dharma Lite" has a chance to direct itself toward the Buddha's liberative teachings. Superstitious quack-dharma has been stuck in superstition for some 2000 years. It is no wonder there are any arhants left. They are not to be found in a religion of superstition.

The first could be described as an eclectic/agnostic approach, an approach that can be considered stepping stones.

...and hopefully one in which one will discover the Buddha's liberative teachings and dispense with the fetters of superstition.

The second approach, quack dharma, cannot be considered stepping stones, for obvious reasons.

Yes, unfortunately it is too mired in the cesspool of superstition to extricate itself to the light of the Buddha's liberative teachings.

After all, dharma lite is fairly innocuous compared to quack dharma.

Yes. Too bad you cannot see what the quack dharma is, and what the Buddhadhamma is. And so, having no reasonable argument or evidence to debate or discuss this with, you resort to innuendo and personal attack.s You can have them all back, along with your silly insistence that the sows ear of superstition is the silk purse of the Buddhadhamma. The above analysis of Berzin's preposterous essay must really touch a nerve on you, for you to react in this furious way instead of debating point by point as I have. I realize that you really have no case to argue or ground to stand on, but it is much better form to concede the debate gracefully than to exit shamefully in a fusillade of ad hominem, innuendo and bluster. I am embarrassed for you.

[VIAGRA-VIAGRA]

.
. Did someone say "Quack " ??

[Pataacculakp]

.
. Did someone say "Quack " ??

Yeah, and someone is leaving duck shit all over the place too...

[nasdfrdg]

"He who sees Dependent Origination, sees the Dhamma; he who sees the Dhamma, sees Dependent Origination." -MN 28

What part of the Dhamma have we left out, precisely?

It's correct, those who see dependent origination see the dhamma. But do you REALLY SEE it? 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? Obviously this is not the case. One can read about dependent origination, and gain an intellectual understanding of it, but that's NOT really SEEING dependent origination. 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. Although strictly speaking such discoveries aren't necessary, they are just likely to occur. 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.

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.

Stuka, just in case you have misinterpreted my last post as personal attack, please let me mention that it wasn't geared to you. In fact, I wish to avoid engaging you. 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 (deplorably) came to the conclusion that debating with you is not useful, and therefore I suggest we leave it at that.

Cheers, Thomas

[L0KoxewQ]

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. Although strictly speaking such discoveries aren't necessary, they are just likely to occur. 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.

This is really just entering the realms of completely pointless speculation. However I don't think I want to start discussing it any further thanks, Thomas.

[RealCHEAPsoftDOWNLOAD]

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?

Cheers, Thomas

[RozzyLiu]

.

.

This is really just entering the realms of completely pointless speculation. However I don't think I want to start discussing it any further thanks, Thomas

[vigraxtru]

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.

Feel free to PM me your answers if you don't want to respond here.

[Singukil]

First, there is nothing speculative about death. We all die with 100% certainty. Second, speculation about suffering after is not pointless at all. 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.

According to classical logic, and the law of the excluded middle, these are the two possibilities. 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. This can be achieved by a number of different methods, one of which is dharma lite.

If you accept or tend to believe the second possibility, then the object of the dhamma, cessation of dukkha, becomes an existential necessity. Even if you enjoy perfect health, wealth, family, friends and your life is one big party, you cannot escape dukkha. In this case, there is not only an urgent requirement to address the cause of suffering in the here and now, 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?

@Valtiel,

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. But perhaps a better example would be AN 3.89:

"[Some,] with the destruction of the three fetters, are 'one-seed-ers' (ekabijin): after taking rebirth only one more time on the human plane, they will put an end to suffering & stress.

"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the destruction of the three fetters they are 'family-to-family-ers' (kolankola): after transmigrating & wandering on through two or three more families (according to the Commentary, this phrase should be interpreted as 'through two to six more states of becoming'), they will put an end to suffering & stress.

"Or, not breaking through to that, not penetrating that, with the destruction of the three fetters they are 'seven-times-at-most-ers' (sattakkhattuparama): after transmigrating & wandering on among devas & human beings, they will put an end to stress."

As to the other points: nirvana/nibbana is not guaranteed, as Buddhanature exists, but is not necessarily actualised. Not all eggs become chicks. Yes, the ultimate goal is the end of rebirth which coincides with nirvana. If you say that the benefit of dhamma is in life, you must explain what exactly that means to you. A world full of compassion would certainly be nice, but the Buddha never declares such a goal. He does not talk about changing the world, but he talks a lot about liberation from the world. These two should not be confused. Finally, how rebirth is relevant to practice is explained in the paragraph above addressed to Aloka-D.

Cheers, Thomas

[petrarkaponye]

Thomas,

My reposting of my first message to you was simply a quick way to repeat that I did not want to enter into further discussion with you.

I am quite busy at the moment.

Please respect my wishes and continue the discussion with others without refering to me in your posts, thanks.

[Sheefeadalfuh]

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?

Cheers, Thomas

Although addressed to Aloka-D I thought I would off a point

This is based around a "me" that suffers and a "me" that will stop suffering when "I" die

"I will be reborn" is a speculative view rooted in attachment, born of ignorance

"I wont be reborn" is a speculative view rooted in attachment, born of ignorance

"There is an afterlife" is a speculative view rooted in attachment, born of ignorance

"There is no afterlife" is a speculative view rooted in attachment, born of ignorance


As is the statement "I suffer" or "I am suffering"


metta

[cxddfrxc]

"This is how he attends inappropriately: '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? 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 else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....002.than.html




When this had been said, Anathapindika the householder said to the wanderers, "As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,' his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated. Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. This venerable one thus adheres to that very stress, submits himself to that very stress." (Similarly for the other positions.)

When this had been said, the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "We have each & every one expounded to you in line with our own positions. Now tell us what views you have."

"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."

"So, householder, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. You thus adhere to that very stress, submit yourself to that very stress."

"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it actually is present."

When this had been said, the wanderers fell silent, abashed, sitting with their shoulders drooping, their heads down, brooding, at a loss for words. Anathapindika the householder, perceiving that the wanderers were silent, abashed... at a loss for words, got up & went to where the Blessed One was staying. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was seated there, he told the Blessed One the entirety of his conversation with the wanderers.

[The Blessed One said:] "Well done, householder. Well done. That is how you should periodically refute those foolish men with the Dhamma." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....093.than.html

[QWNPdpr5]

"So you don't know entirely what views Gotama the contemplative has or even that the monks have. Then tell us what views you have."

"It wouldn't be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have. But please let the venerable ones expound each in line with his position, and then it won't be difficult for me to expound to you what views I have."

When this had been said, one of the wanderers said to Anathapindika the householder, "The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

Another wanderer said to Anathapindika, "The cosmos is not eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."

Another wanderer said, "The cosmos is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have."
notice that his view is


"Whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am, is not my self. This is the sort of view I have."
not "after death if im good I will be a deva and live in infinite light and pleasure"





Anyway back to Berzin