Rebirth, rebirth, rebirth

Its only colonialism if a colonial power is doing it. Accusing someone of ‘colonialism’ or ‘neocolonialism’ is a slippery slope, similar to accusing someone of racism. The people who hold the cards in society for deciding what “oppression/racism/colonialism” is, I do think, here in Canada & America at least, would raise their eyebrows considerably at the notion that a non-white non-European ideology is engaging in “colonialism”. For right or wrong.

Either way, the point you made above, would be dismissed at, for instance, the university I used to attend (York University in Toronto), on the grounds that Buddhists cannot colonize because they lack the “power” to be oppressors. Just as black people cannot be racist, on similar reasonings, be those reasonings sound or unsound.

Buddhists have been perennialists for far longer than the Christians have. I would not myself suggest that perennialism was an invention of a colonizing West.

Some Buddhist perennialism:

“But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

“Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): ‘Oh, that other beings might come to this place!’ Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

“Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: “Oh, that other beings might come to this place!” And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.’

“And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: ‘This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.’

It ignores how the actual holders of those religions & spiritualities view/ed themselves, by arguing to come from a superior perspective, that can see more into “their” beliefs than they can.

2 Likes

This is what I mean by the term ‘colonialism’. You demonstrated my point with that citation.

Maybe call it “arrogant & condescending one-up-manship” if you like, or “self-entitled appropriation”.

Single humans have this power, to say nothing of groups of humans (e.g. Buddhists). Same with racism: it’s an individual behavior first & foremost.

And, I never said the West invented it. You’re arguing against your own ideas there, not mine.

“Who really knows what happened? Who can describe it? How were things produced? Where was creation born? When the universe was created, the one became many. Who knows how this occurred?
Did creation happen at God’s command, or did it happen without his command? He looks down upon creation from the highest heaven. Only he knows the answer - or perhaps he does not know.” - Rig Veda 10:129.7

Perhaps he does not know?

The teaching you have posted provides answers to questions posed in the Rig Veda. The Buddha was not remedying the assumption of an all-powerful omniscient creator - as in the old-testament. That deity is not part of the early Aryan pantheon in what we now call: India.

I have been lead to believe that the early Jewish teachings mention the existence of other gods - other than their tribal god. At some point, their god was elevated above the others. Their god seems quite jealous of rival deities. Perhaps he is not a god/deva - he could be a jealous-god?

Yes. I think you may have been reading more into my post than was intended.

I thought you implied the Buddha was demoting the so-called creator-god by suggesting he had amnesia - that might have been David’s contention. It appears that the Buddha’s story about Brahma does not contradict an idea that was already there in the ‘te-vijja’ earlier on. Of course, when we speak about gods and jealous gods we are talking about things that most of us don’t have direct knowledge of but it is fun all the same. It looks like a drift is taking place away from the theme of the thread so I think I will do my disappearing trick. I hope I don’t reappear in another universe ‘all alone’ and imagine I am the all in the all - vamoose!

That really depends on if Brahmā is a creator god or not, IMO. Ex nihilo creation by a single creator-God is a late development in the Jewish Torah, let alone if it appears in other cultures.

The text speaks for itself IMO. Members of a religious group have X belief concerning Brahmā based on the personal experience of their mystics. Buddhist scripture, for right or wrong, ignores how the Brahmā-worshippers consider the “ultimate reality” of their Brahmā, and claims to come from a superior perspective, that can see more into “their” beliefs than they can, and can thus contextualize and see beyond Brahmā to reveal that he is not the be-all and end-all.

Fair enough, it seems like the Rig Veda leaves it as an open question - the status of the big-guy in the highest heaven. Right at the beginning of the earliest Vedic collection we have ‘scepticism’. Because it does not tell us much about the abilities of the maha-deva all subsequent developments in the orthodox and heterodox traditions unfold. The journey takes a decisive turn with the liberating insights of the Buddha.

I tried to make this sound humble, but I think it may have come off as presumptuous anyways. It is, after all, quite likely a pretty idiosyncratic reading, as I’ve certainly never had it explained that way to me, so to speak. Sometimes a simple “IMO” isn’t enough to communicate that don’t mean to ‘law down the law’ in any sort of way, or even would presume that I would be qualified to do so, particularly here. That being said, if I can clarify:

Perhaps this is an overly crude and simplistic reading, but if I imagine the characters in the except as “regular fellows,” so to speak, who happen to be in certain times, and certain places, it seems that it is a story about a religion whose founder didn’t quite make it, though likely of considerable wisdom in his way, however politely that can be expressed. “Brahmā”, self-named, is, after all, in his way, established in his beliefs by his own experiences, however he may have interpreted them.

Perhaps that is overly imaginative. My apologies for the tangent.

What is a pretty idiosyncratic reading? I appreciate your comments they are thought-provoking. Anyway, I think the teaching from the Buddha on Brahma’s poor memory is not a good example of colonialism or (colonisation). There is another term: being ‘coopted’. The highest-deva’s memory of how the universe had come to be had already been questioned in the Rig Veda.

An impossibility!

Made Up Buddhist Forum Rule 4B

When a rebirth thread dies, eventually a new rebirth thread will be reborn to take its place.

:wink:

15 Likes

Well played, my friend, well played!
:rofl::joy:

:anjal:

4 Likes

Ah yes, that brings me back to a few years ago when I sat down and read the entire Dhammawheel “Great rebirth” thread (it was still over 100 pages back then IIRC).

It was then and there that I decided I would just put this question aside and not waste any more time on it and just focus on my practice.

12 Likes

Fair enough - getting clarity about such issues is an ongoing and gradual process. But please don’t forget that outlook is very much part of the path. That’s why the suttas often recommend reflecting on the Dhamma. It’s not just about rebirth, of course, but about all aspects that have to do with how we relate to the world, especially the three characteristics.

6 Likes

Hi Ven. @Brahmali I would be interested in how you reflect on rebirth. And if this reflection has led to an understanding that goes beyond faith and theory.
:anjal:

3 Likes

Thanks for asking this. To me this where we come to the crux of the matter. We need to make the path practical. The question of why outlook matters, on the personal level, is what right view is all about.

So far as rebirth is concerned, these are some of the ways I make it matter in my own life.

Rebirth reminds me that most things in this life are like borrowed goods, to use the Buddha’s simile at MN 54. It all has to go – at the latest when we die, but often much earlier. This includes our material possessions, our friends and family, our physical body, but also all aspects of our personality that are tied up with this world, such as our social status, our education, our sense of achievement, and any other aspect of our sense of identity that relates to this life. There is not much left! The one thing that remains as you move on to another life is the quality of mind that you have developed in this life. Create a beautiful mind in this life, and that’s what you take with you. The idea of taking a bright, joyful, and wise mind into the future is extremely appealing to me, and no doubt to many others. (And, as an aside, to me this is really the essence of what kamma is all about.)

I have often seen the counter-argument that cultivating our minds is the right thing to do regardless of whether there is rebirth. I can only agree with this. The point, rather, is that adding rebirth to the equation dramatically alters the balance of our focus. If this life is all there is, then it is reasonable to emphasise achievements that belong to this life. In other words, enjoyment of the immediate pleasures of this life carry a lot of weight, especially since most of us do not know the extent to which mental development is possible. If we doubt our own ability to change our mental world for the better - and most people would have some degree of doubt about this - then focusing on the more tangible pleasures of this world makes eminent sense. With rebirth the emphasis changes from what we achieve in this life to how we achieve it. It is the how that determines our mental development, whereas the what is the borrowed goods.

This does not mean that we don’t care about this life. On the contrary, it means that we deepen the care considerably. If the how of life is what matter, then our every act becomes important. Circumspection and mindfulness in all our activities, including our thinking, becomes what our lives are all about. It draws us into the present moment and actually makes us more alive. In the end it increases our quality of life far more than living according to YOLO. The problem is that it is very difficult to see that a strong emphasis on mental culture is the best way of living. Rebirth helps us reorient in this direction, often powerfully so, as can be seen from the sutta similes given in the OP.

For many the above is probably enough for rebirth to play an important role in their lives. But there is another aspect to rebirth that is more profound and more difficult to see. This is that rebirth is inherently suffering. At AN 10.65 Ven. Sāriputta defines suffering as rebirth. Part of this is that saṃsāra has no purpose. Our present lives tend to feel purposeful, but from a saṃsāric bird’s-eye view this is an illusion. We are not actually going anywhere; as I have mentioned above, it’s all just a bad version of Groundhog Day. So there is a discrepancy between how we feel about our lives and the overall reality. Having the right outlook is about reducing the distance between how we look at the world and how the world actually works. Seeing things rightly, or as rightly as possible, is a prerequisite for making wise decisions. When we see things rightly, life regains its purpose, but it is a radically different one from what it used to be. Making an end of rebirth becomes the purpose of existence.

28 Likes

Thanks for this, Ven.

There are so many interpretations and readings that are being pushed now, that the straightforward message from the suttas has been somewhat relegated to the sidelines.

  • The Buddha’s teaching of rebirth is a superstitious artifact from the culture of his times, which he adopted.
  • It was used by him as a teaching device to give a sense of urgency to people.
  • It was just a manner of description, since words can describe only so much. It should be understood in a metaphysical/momentary way.
  • He was just hallucinating when he described his recollection of past lives on the night of his Awakening.
  • Despite the Buddha’s rejection of the idea of a Creator God, kamma and rebirth is the same as in Christianity, so there.
  • The teaching is twofold - so for mundane people, the mundane teaching of rebirth was taught.

And so on. The simple reading of the suttas which shows someone who meditated, recollected his past lives, found a way to end the cycle of birth and death and then taught the way to others doesn’t seem to be very appealing these days.

3 Likes

Hi Ven. @Brahmali
Thank you for your reply.

The one thing that remains as you move on to another life is the quality of mind that you have developed in this life.

If you don’t mind me asking why do you believe this? Or is it something that you know and others should strive to know? Is an actual knowledge (beyond faith and theory) of rebirth important? How would you go about acquiring this knowledge?

Thanks again

:anjal:

Please refer back to the OP.

Because it’s impact is so great, it’s something everyone should strive to know. Unfortunately I will probably never state publicly what I know or don’t know in this area.

The actual knowledge is far more more powerful than any faith or confidence. Again, see the similes in the OP that describe the Buddha’s realisation of rebirth.

The noble eightfold path. When your samādhi is really strong, turn your mind to your earliest memory and keep going backwards.

16 Likes