It gives me enough reasons to put another hypothesis: if by following this teaching I got here, and I can see the fruits, then it is possible that if I follow the path further, I will get more of what is advertised in the suttas. My experience makes it worthwhile to invest more energy into the same strategy that worked before (if at the end I get to the vision of past lives - that’s great, I will be able to investigate if it’s for real, or if these are illusions and imaginings).
When Buddha saw that ascetic practices don’t bring the results he wanted, he dropped them and tried something different - it’s experimentation right there. He also taught that Dhamma is to be experienced, not theorized about.
I’m not saying the suttas are wrong (I’m actually honest about the fact, that I don’t understand what they mean by rebirth), I don’t know that (yet, at least). There are other possibilities - maybe the suttas are interpreted incorrectly, it’s been 2500 years since Buddha, the meanings of words change over time. Maybe parts about rebirth were later additions (probably not likely, but just for arguments sake). Finally, maybe I just didn’t find anyone, who really understands it and can explain it without logical contradictions? Until one of two things happen:
I understand how this is supposed to work
I get a proof of it’s existence
the concept is useless to me, it doesn’t improve my practice in any way. Actually it might be hindering my practice - why invest so much time in meditation now, if I can just live a good life now, and meditate in my next life… aren’t there people that use this excuse?
Only because his description of the process is the most logical I’ve seen so far. I would love to understand what suttas mean by rebirth, so I’m looking into different interpretations, hoping to find one that makes sense.
I heard that one of the tests to identify the new Dalai Lama is placing various objects (some belonging to the last Dalai Lama) in front of the candidate and seeing if they choose the right ones.
Since I believe ‘mind reading’ is possible, there is the possibility, especially with younger people who are so easily influenced, that because there are people present at the test who know which are the belongings of the previous DL, they could influence the choice of the candidate. Thus the test would be unintentionally rigged.
that’s all nice, but the Buddha has already done a chunk of work for us by discovering the Path and handing it over to us on a silver platter, why not just take it and use to our benefit or are you trying to emulate the Buddha and become one? the approach you describe resembles reinvention of the wheel
[quote=“tuvok, post:84, topic:5041”]
I’m actually honest about the fact, that I don’t understand what they mean by rebirth), I don’t know that (yet, at least)[/quote]
granted that some suttas are vague indeed, there’re enough suttas which are quite straightforward about rebirth, it just seems that this concept is so at odds with your preconceptions that you don’t allow yourself to take it at face value, they’re not harder to understand than my posts which you don’t have problem understanding
with such a skeptikal attitude what are we doing here? if we can’t commit to anything there’s not much sense in continuation as everything may just be fabrication, the original teaching might never be recovered and we’ll be led astray wasting our time
i don’t think over-skepticism is a way to approach the Dhamma
[quote=“tuvok, post:84, topic:5041”]
the concept is useless to me, it doesn’t improve my practice in any way. Actually it might be hindering my practice - why invest so much time in meditation now[/quote]
i guess because this is what the Buddha enjoined us to do, not specifically meditate, but put effort into breaking free from samsara (which incidentally brings us back to rebirth), however with so little unconditional faith in the Buddha and his Teaching that indeed could prove difficult
this concept is a part of the parcel which consists of both practice and theory, the latter gives practice meaning and explains how suffering works, The Noble Eightfold Path is only one out of 4 Noble Truths
[quote=“tuvok, post:84, topic:5041”]
Only because his description of the process is the most logical I’ve seen so far. I would love to understand what suttas mean by rebirth, so I’m looking into different interpretations, hoping to find one that makes sense.[/quote]
the idea of awakening doesn’t sound very logical and sensible to me if i were to approach it with a scientese mindset, does it appear more logical to you than the concept of rebirth?
[quote=“tuvok, post:84, topic:5041”]
Because that’s not my goal. I aim for lowering the level of suffering I get in my life. If that is the goal, it’s obvious, that death is not the solution[/quote]
alright, so it’s kind of half-baked Buddhism, if at all, not significantly different from psychotherapeutic techniques, slimmed down to a bare minimum of what seems reasonable to a mind immersed in delusion (not specifically yours, but of any worldling), where rebirth has no use, whereas the Dhamma was proclaimed by the Buddha for ending of suffering through ending of (re)birth
What other way would you like to experience what he experienced? Yes, he described a way how to get there, that is why I don’t need to pull my hair out or starve myself to (almost) death. Without the teaching I would never come up with the idea that meditation is the way to go. But he didn’t draw a detailed map and didn’t attach a GPS navigation system with it, because it is not possible to do that. To experience what he had experienced and achieve freedom from suffering you have to walk that way yourself, discovering details of the way for yourself.
Sati / mindfulness is a skill like any other, and you learn it the same way you learn for example to play billiards: by practising and experimenting with different approaches, seeing what enables you to make progress.
I reap the benefits of the practice that proved to be working for me. Both mindfulness and the Buddhist attitude to life changed my life in a big way. I’m much more happy and calm than I was 10 years ago, for me it’s a big success.
That’s again argument through authority - not for me.
Yes it does. Suffering and discontent is purely mental thing. I think it is quite possible that through some kind of change of perspective and attitude to life you can destroy it. You can definitely make it less of a problem - this seems obvious, even psychologists can help to some extent with that.
I’m not sure if you agree with this, but it seems to me that the main difference we have here is that you treat Buddhism as a religion while I treat it as a tool.
Past lives are neither mine nor someone else’s, nor both, nor neither. Dependent origination explains past lives and it requires no conception of self to work. It’s a very deep teaching and I don’t claim to understand it fully. But what I do understand is that attempting to use our putthujana conceptions of self as the basis for explaining past lives will always lead one astray. IMO, the reason many people have problems with accepting rebirth as the Buddha’s teaching is their current inability to reflect upon past lives without dragging those conceptions in with them. When one reflects upon the Dhamma without them even for a short time, not only does rebirth make sense, but it’s the only explanation that makes sense.
[quote]Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrel Sanctuary. Then, in the morning, the Blessed One dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Rajagaha for alms. The naked ascetic Kassapa saw the Blessed One coming in the distance. Having seen him, he approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he stood to one side and said to him: “We would like to ask Master Gotama about a certain point, if he would grant us the favour of answering our question.”
“This is not the right time for a question, Kassapa. We have entered among the houses.”
A second time and a third time the naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Blessed One: “We would like to ask Master Gotama about a certain point, if he would grant us the favour of answering our question.”
“This is not the right time for a question, Kassapa. We have entered among the houses.”
Then the naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Blessed One: “We do not wish to ask Master Gotama much.”
“Then ask what you want, Kassapa.”
“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.”
“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” “Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
When this was said, the naked ascetic Kassapa said to the Blessed One: “Magnificent, venerable sir! Magnificent, venerable sir! The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by the Blessed One, as though he were turning upright what had been turned upside down, revealing what was hidden, showing the way to one who was lost, or holding up a lamp in the dark for those with eyesight to see forms. I go for refuge to the Blessed One, and to the Dhamma, and to the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. May I receive the going forth under the Blessed One, may I receive the higher ordination?”
“Kassapa, one formerly belonging to another sect who desires the going forth and the higher ordination in this Dhamma and Discipline lives on probation for four months. At the end of the four months, if the bhikkhus are satisfied with him, they may if they wish give him the going forth and the higher ordination to the state of a bhikkhu. But individual differences are recognized by me.”
“If, venerable sir, one formerly belonging to another sect who desires the going forth and the higher ordination in this Dhamma and Discipline lives on probation for four months, and if at the end of the four months the bhikkhus, being satisfied with him, may if they wish give him the going forth and the higher ordination to the state of a bhikkhu, then I will live on probation for four years. At the end of the four years, if the bhikkhus are satisfied with me, let them if they wish give me the going forth and the higher ordination to the state of a bhikkhu.”
Then the naked ascetic Kassapa received the going forth under the Blessed One, and he received the higher ordination. And soon, not long after his higher ordination, dwelling alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and resolute, the Venerable Kassapa, by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, in this very life entered and dwelt in that unsurpassed goal of the holy life for the sake of which clansmen rightly go forth from the household life into homelessness. He directly knew: “Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.” And the Venerable Kassapa became one of the arahants.
Mkoll, I humbly request you to explain ‘in your own writing’ how there is no-self when you have many ‘personal past lives’ ‘personal karma demerits and merits’ and how there is a ‘14th’ Dalai Lama.
I must respectfully decline your request. The teachings in the first 4 Nikayas are more than enough to reflect upon and what I say can’t do them justice anyway.
And I don’t know enough about the Tibetan view of rebirth to comment on it. I try not to give opinions on things when I don’t have strong enough knowledge to give sound ones.
To prevent dogma crushing down on the questions like that, the old orthodoxies introduced the two truths teaching! Relative and Absolute Truth. All these things happen to us in the relative truth world, but if you meditate long enough, perhaps for 500 years, only then will you reach the absolute truth world, where all your questions will be answered. Honest
I’m sure you can find evidence for the traditional view in the first Four Nikayas and it seems you have done that.
I don’t think discussing another view would bring much benefit unless one were dissatisfied with the view one held. Then, I think one would be in a position to investigate.
For me there are later ideas in this sutta, at least the idea of taking a Triple Refuge. If one feels happy to accept that idea, when the Buddha said quite clearly, take only Dhamma as the refuge , as he reportedly said he did, then the type of discussion I would like to have, would probably not happen.
Yes, the evidence is blatantly obvious and incontrovertible in my reading and that of the majority of Buddhist thinkers throughout history as well as modern text-critical scholars.
I agree with that.
The Buddha said both of those statements quite clearly. To take one as earlier and another as later is, to me, is not merited. Neither is basing one’s view of Dhamma off the aggregate understanding of similar one-off interpretations. But just for the sake of argument, let’s say that what you’re saying is true: the Triple Refuge is a later and invalid Dhamma teaching but taking refuge only in the Dhamma is not. How do you figure out what ‘refuge only in Dhamma’ means? How does one parse through the rest of the teachings to find that—would one use the same approach of dividing into early and late and completely discarding the latter? What would the final product look like? I think it would be so very different for each person that the type of discussion you envision would simply be impossible.
Apologies if this has been already mentioned, but here is another confusing quote that I’m sure many will have no problem to interpret away:
Bhikkhus, dwell with the atta as an island, with the atta as a refuge, with no other refuge; with dhamma as an island, with dhamma as a refuge, with no other refuge.
(SN 22.43, SN 47.9, SN 47.13, SN 47.14, DN 16, DN 26 (also attadīpā in Snp 507)
As you can see there is no syntactic difference between atta and dhamma in the sentence, so at least it is legitimate to see atta here as a noun in a compound, just like dhamma. The cost would of course be high, for it threatens our nice and simple idea of an “anatta-doctrine”.
For me personally the idea of No-self but the fact that there are ‘personal past lives’ is a great hole and contradiction in the base theory of Buddhism. I see that quite a few bhikkhus have also noticed this issue and have interesting ideas to deal with the problem.
The common mainstream answers are, one needs to have faith, you don’t understand yet, it’s just a process, all theory is in the sutras, just trust it etc. But If one can’t give a reasonable answer within a one paragraph answer (which some have; the answers are never mainstream though) it shows a major issue within the theory. As Einstein said, we live in a simple universe with simple answers; look at wireless, appears complex but in actual fact, it is so simple. If the answer is not simple, clear aa reasonable, then it is not an appropriate answer.
I bring this issue up again and again, not for any reason except to find clear and acceptable answers.
I really don’t think there is a contradiction. We have a “personal” history in this life, and this is pretty much the same as the “personal” history that goes across lifetimes. The “you” of today is not the same as the “you” of last year, let alone the “you” of ten years ago. And yet there is a connection. That connection is your habits and the sense of continuity that results from these. There is change and continuity working together, but there is no ever-present essential core.
It is exactly the same across lives, except that there is “jump” in your experiences as you cross from one life to the next. If you could recall your past lives, it would feel like you were there in the past lives, just as it feels that you were there ten years ago in this life. I cannot see any big problem with this.
Did you read SN 12.17 that I copied above? The Buddha is clearly saying that there is no such thing as ‘personal past lives.’ They’re simply not part of the “base theory” of Buddhism. Calling certain past lives ‘mine’ or other past lives ‘yours’ is a matter of convention. They really aren’t mine nor yours because there is no eternal me or you or anyone else that owns them.
That’s simply not true. The deeper you get into any branch of scientific knowledge, the more complex it becomes. Pry open any scientific journal and read a primary research article: it will mostly sound like gobbledygook unless you have a solid background knowledge of the field. And even then it takes a lot of effort and exertive thought to understand. There’s a reason PhDs take 5+ years to complete.
I don’t doubt your intentions are pure. But I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for in what random people say. Listen to what the Buddha had to say.
[quote=“Mkoll, post:100, topic:5041”]
Did you read SN 12.17 that I copied above? The Buddha is clearly saying that there is no such thing as ‘personal past lives.’[/quote]
Where are “past lives” mentioned in SN 12.17? SN 12.17 appears to be about suffering. Thanks.
Possibly SN 22.79 is a more appropriate sutta.
[quote=“Mkoll, post:100, topic:5041”]
Calling certain past lives ‘mine’ or other past lives ‘yours’ is a matter of convention. They really aren’t mine nor yours because there is no eternal me or you or anyone else that owns them.[/quote]
If past & therefore future lives are not ‘yours’, what is the point of doing good karma? For whose or what benefit? Where or what is the incentive? Thanks
Its quite easy but the last time I offered you an explanation you seemed to ignore it. Start with SN 23.2, then SN 5.10, then MN 98, then SN 12.2. it ain’t too difficult to make a case if the mind is objective.
Why is this being quoted? How is your view of past lives connected with emptiness? Thanks
MN 38 & MN 2 state:
“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you run back to the past thus: ‘Were we in the past? Were we not in the past? What were we in the past? How were we in the past? Having been what, what did we become in the past?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you run forward to the future thus: ‘Shall we be in the future? Shall we not be in the future? What shall we be in the future? How shall we be in the future? Having been what, what shall we become in the future?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you now be inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
58“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates, and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the holy life?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?” —“Yes, venerable sir.”
“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’
MN 38
By attending to things unfit for attention and by not attending to things fit for attention, both unarisen taints arise in him and arisen taints increase. This is how he attends unwisely: ‘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 did I become 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 become in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the present thus: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where will it go?’ MN 2
Then why was it claimed they were when the Lord Buddha said his teaching was ‘explicit’?
Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open, evident, and free of patchwork
MN 22
What is dukkha? Thanks
Irrelevant & illogical to me since Ajahn Buddhadasa obviously came to his view before reading Ajahn Buddhadasa.
Also, Ajahn Buddhadasa never explained his view by making reference to the suttas. Therefore, your point is again irrelevant & illogical to me.
Based in the suttas, Buddhadasa’s explanation is wrong because ‘birth’ can be interpreted to be much more than creating internal views of ‘self’, as Buddhadasa taught. It can be interpreted as producing both internal & external views about “beings” ("satta’). Ajahn Buddhadasa never taught this. Your proposition appears to be non-sequitur.
There are no words of the Buddha. There are only translations of words in books. Or, similar to Ajahn Mun, has the Buddha been talking to you? [quote=“Mkoll, post:102, topic:5041”]
(I have a feeling i’m going to regret getting into another conversation with you )
[/quote]
Conversations are two-way affairs. I comprehend what you say but I am not sure the opposite is occurring.
The suttas state the Dhamma is visible here & now and in this Buddhadasa at least seemed to differ from your non-explicit speculations (papanca) about non-visible speculations.
"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata. AN 2.25
About Dependent Origination, the Buddha said this:
“Bhikkhus, knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Teacher is respected by us. We speak as we do out of respect for the Teacher’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you speak thus: ‘The Recluse says this, and we speak thus at the bidding of the Recluse’?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you acknowledge another teacher?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Knowing and seeing in this way, would you return to the observances, tumultuous debates, and auspicious signs of ordinary recluses and brahmins, taking them as the core of the holy life?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves?” —“Yes, venerable sir.”
59“Good, bhikkhus. So you have been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be experienced by the wise for themselves.’
MN 38
And this:
“One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination.” And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.’ At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.”
MN 28
Nothing anywhere I can read about ‘inference’. Only ‘seeing’ (passati) is referred to.
Its quite easy but the last time I offered you an explanation you seemed to ignore it. Start with SN 23.2, then SN 5.10, then MN 98, then SN 12.2. it ain’t too difficult to make a case if the mind is objective.
)
)
