Buddhadasa Bhikkhu and Rebirth

[Puerh]

@Deeele

Thanks for that but I think the above is not saying what Bhikkhu Buddhadasa believed but rather is reflecting what others might believe. The whole quote is:

They are the four woeful states as understood in Dhamma language. They are rather different from the woeful states of everyday language. Now there is a point worth thinking about in connection with this. If we don’t fall into the woeful states of Dhamma language, then we are sure not to fall into the woeful states of everyday language . For instance, if we avoid making the mistakes that lead to affliction with anxiety, then we avoid falling into hell in this life. At the same time, we need have no fear of falling into hell in some later lifetime after death . Again, if we avoid being stupid like the beasts, ravenous like the hungry ghosts, and frightened like the asura, then we are free of the kinds of unskillful attitudes that might cause us to be reborn after death as beasts, hungry ghosts, or asura.

well, in this text there is no any denying of rebirth after death.

I believe the core problem is understanding his two-languages approach. The “everyday language” doesn’t mean these realities are an invention.

At the beginning of that page, he explain this issue with another example using the Buddha, perhaps clearer:

“The first example is the word “Buddha”. As you know, the word “Buddha” in everyday language refers to the historical Enlightened Being, Gotama Buddha. It refers to a physical man of flesh and bone who was born in India over two thousand years ago, died, and was cremated. This is the meaning of the word “Buddha” in everyday language. Considered in terms of Dhamma language, however, the word “Buddha” refers to the Truth which the historical Buddha realized and taught, namely the Dhamma itself.”

you can see, he is not denying the existence of Buddha the “physical man of flesh and bone who was born in India”, the everyday language notion of the phenomena.
The everyday language doesn’t mean the phenomena is non existent.

Dhamma language is addressed to understand the experience according anatta. This is not a negation of the phenomena. As he explain in that text:

“The physical language is the worldly, conventional language used under ordinary circumstances and based on physical things. The metaphysical language is based on mental things. It has to be learned, studied, and understood. It is based not on the physical world but on the mental. I hope you can now see the distinction between everyday language and Dhamma language.”

Bhikkhu Buddhadasa’s statement above is very common and typical of any moral atheist who says they do not need to believe in ‘God’ when they live a moral life (because if God does actually exist then they will not be punished by God).

not the same thing, because here there is only one language. No two languages. Maybe it could be closer if those atheist claim their own moral actions are the final nature of that god. Although in such case they couldn’t be atheist at all. I’m not expert in that god neither in his inherited atheist products. Although hope you can see the difference with this.

Regarding Buddhadasa teaching, to say the Rebirth doesn’t exist because there is the explanation with Dhamma language, it would be confusing Dhamma language with everyday language. Then somebody wrongly could say the Buddha never existed or rebirth never existed. This wouldn’t be right according his two-languages approach

Buddhadasa approach using these two-languages is different and it can be shocking at first. Although by reading carefully soon one can catch the point. It can be a powerful help in Dhamma.

Regards