if by “being” you mean the physical body, then I would say this agrees with the Buddha’s conception of rebirth.
1 Like
No, by ‘being’ I mean something more like a Dasein, the totality of my being here in this world, my life experiences, my temporal sense of self continuity, my craving for life, my loves and hates, and of course the physical continuity of this constantly ageing physical body. The five aggregates as a life continuum all fall apart and dissolve on death, there is no eternal self passing into rebirth linking consciousness, that’s how I understand the Buddha’s conception of rebirth.
No continuity of this present self, but not then an extinction of the phenomenal process that gave birth to it.
Its actually more complex than that, seeing as how there are various terms for “soul”, “animus” etc in both the Indic, Near eastern and Greco-Roman traditions (atman - prana - purusha, psyche - pneuma - logos, and so on).
One could say that prana has the airy quality associated with pneuma in the Greek tradition while psyche has more of the cognitive quality associated with atman etc.
I was thinking about this thread today and I was reflecting how hard it can be for us to understand the Dhamma through our cultural conditioning. While I may not be making any friends by saying this, some of the reason for "secular buddhism"s existence does stem from the very radical world view change involved in understanding rebirth. The west does not have much of a basis for this perspective on things, and letting to of our attachment to a “one lifetime” world view is daunting. It doesn’t happen overnight. It probably took me 10 years of practice to come to my current perspective on rebirth. Lots of practice and lots of consideration and reflection and experience.
It occurred to me that what Ajahn Mun used to advise really is helpful, placing ourselves in a new culture, the “culture of the noble ones” is important. Meaning, letting go/loosening up of our attachments to our “American”, “Thai”, “western” or whatever cultures. Because all standard cultures are worldly and flawed (usually deeply). The way of the world is the way of desire. So letting go of that and embracing the culture of the nobles ones, of dhamma, is a great view I think.
5 Likes
True, but the difficulty in that is differentiating the “culture of the noble ones” from the “culture of those who transferred the culture of the nobles ones” - ie Sri Lankan culture, Burmese culture, etc.
It not very easy to do the further back you go in the texts. That’s why comparative studies of the EBTs is such an awesome and necessary endeavor.
2 Likes
Among dualists in Hinduism there is the notion of an atomized spark of consciousness in the heart-centre. It is held in place by a pranic energy.
The prana teaching is more complex in the Hindu yoga-darshan than it is in early Buddhism. When you go to a yoga class and they give you some background theory they may talk about ‘pancha-prana’ (5 subtle energies) in the body that are said to regulate different parts of the body and its functions. The Buddha just mentioned subtle ‘winds’.
In the yoga-darshan the prana-system is not the soul or the metaphysical essence that lies at a deeper and subtler level of reality. The pranic energy is one-degree subtler than the four primary elements i.e. the gross physical body.
In theory, a yogi can be aware of and manipulate prana through various techniques - one being ‘pranayama’ (breath control) but have no soul-realisation i.e true Self or soul knowledge and vision. Prana is not-soul it is not-self (in the Vedic yoga-philosophy and its later developments).
Many - not all - orthodox practitioners (aligned with the Vedic tradition) would consider the EBT’s level of discourse ‘lacking’ in sufficient subtlety and sophistication to point to the true Self - the metaphysical Self - Atman.
Others - not all - claim that the Buddha’s not-self teachings and their Self-teachings are pointing in the same direction i.e a liberation that is ‘nirguna’ (without qualities). ‘Para-Brahman’ (penultimate truth) has no attributes and is completely empty of any contents. It is not consciousness it is not any-thing.
Some Buddhists may believe that the Brahman-teaching refers to formless absorptions. Perhaps, beyond the sphere of infinite consciousness? Perhaps, Brahman refers to a subtler sphere and attainment?
Brahman refers to an infinite sphere of consciousness - Para-Brahman does not. Brahman as an infinite sphere of consciousness is considered a lesser attainment on the way to Para-Brahman.
As far as I can tell, there are orthodox teachings i.e. not Buddhist, that include formless absorptions and they do not teach that these absorptions are Para-Brahman - the ‘Brahma-satya’ (highest truth). They teach that Para-Brahman is empty (shunya).
Some of these orthodox teachings proclaim: Atman and Brahman are identical. Para-Brahman is beyond the Atman/Brahman realisation.
What is referred to as the ‘individual-soul’ (Jiva) in non-dualistic teachings, is not a metaphysical entity. It is produced through ‘self-grasping’ - like the ego-concept.
Some may ask: then why use the term ‘Self’? Answer: its part of the Vedic tradition - it is a term within a different language-game.
These teachings are called: ‘advaita’ (non-dualism). There is more than one ‘Advaita’ tradition - they are not all on the same-page - there is some variation.
However, there are also dualist and (qualified) non-dualist teachings and lineages in the Vedic tradition. They are (personalists). They believe in a personal God - and demi-gods - and the individual (metaphysical) soul. Many Christians have a similar belief-system. Instead of demi-gods they have angels. Many - not all - Hindus believe that consciousness is the ultimate reality. Some are personalists and some are impersonalists.
One beautiful fact about the EBT’s and early Buddhism is it is not concerned with the speculative views of materialists, annihilationists etc. It is not overly concerned about the eternalists, the god-botherers etc. Regardless, of their claims of direct knowledge and vision! Instead, the Buddha taught dependent origination. He said, observe, pay attention and ‘see’ dependent origination and you will know what turned Gotama into a ‘Buddha’.
The emphasis on direct knowledge and vision is the ‘family resemblance’ we discern between empiricism and the middle-way. They bare a resemblance in another important way. Neither of them focuses on metaphysical or materialistic speculations.
They both provide sound and testable methods of inquiry and the practitioners in these different areas of inquiry release their findings in the public domain. I have seen slightly different approaches to inquiry that meet the same criteria.
All of the above, is why we need to understand the difference between truth, actuality and, personal reality? 
Oh absolutely. Great point. I know I have experienced people who seem to be adapting to asian culture rather than dhamma. Including clothes, decoration, customs, etc. I always find reading the biographies of monks or other advanced practitioners fascinating because they usually have much criticism of their own cultures and others as well even if they embrace parts of their own.
2 Likes
A most impportant essay, Bhante. Thank you
1 Like
Does it help to adapt some aspects of the culture to adopt the dhamma? It’s a bit like some people like to hear an entire story to illustrate the moral of the story… maybe, not sure 
.
With metta
3 Likes
Well, most Buddhists posting here would cite rebirth as one among them, although they’d claim that it wasn’t/isn’t part of Indian culture but is instead a Cosmic Truth.
Many would also claim that the specifically-12-step DO catechism was obviously requisite - but that specific version of DO lampoons Brahmin ideas. Would the Buddha need to go looking for Brahmins so he could set up this catechism properly?
Would he need the fourfold medical diagnostic pattern to preexist in the culture so the pattern of the Noble Truths could be based on it?
So how much Iron Age mind-cosplay is required for Dhamma practice? It’s certainly an interesting question; answering “not much at all” or “none” probably means you’re a Secular Buddhist.
Interesting points Dave -
It seems to me that thinking of rebirth as a particular part of “Indian” culture ignores the fact that belief in the continuation of life after death (whatever name you give to the process) is found all over the world. It was found in “iron age” cultures, and is still found today.
The Buddha also used language to convey his teachings - the specific language that he used evolved over time, and he didn’t create it, right? Language in general is something he needed to be in existence to convey his teachings. So is language required for Dhamma practice?
I think what you are talking about is similar to the notion of abandoning the raft after having crossed over, or not confusing the pointing finger with the moon. Plenty of traditional Buddhists would agree with you in that respect.
If somebody cannot differentiate between culture and what the Buddha said was true and essential, well might as well have to adopt the culture as well, no, if they are serious practitioners on the path?
The concept of verbally assaulting Noble ones (ariya upawada?) is common in Sri Lankan culture- the seriousness of it that is- but it is not particularly prominent in EBTs. Is it something to be ignored, then?
with metta
The compound ariya-upavāda is formed from the EBT’s ariyānaṃ upavādakā, which is actually quite common, albeit only ever occurring in one context — the stock description of the dibbacakkhu.
“I understood how beings pass on according to their actions thus: ‘These worthy beings who were ill conducted in body, speech, and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well conducted in body, speech, and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.'”
MN4
2 Likes
I do see your point. I see many aspects of asian Buddhist cultures which function better than western styles so if we have to take some of that in that is a good thing. That doesn’t mean they are better, but it works better. Some things include family structure and cohesiveness, generosity, filial piety, and division of labor in families and society. Some of that is probably based on dhamma influence.
That’s very different than the American vajrayana buddhists who dress like tibetans, eat tibetan food, attend elaborate ceremonies in the Tibetan language, decorate their house with furniture from Nepal, tibet, etc. So that’s more like fetishizing asian culture rather than taking the message of the dhamma.
2 Likes
I wondered if the western concept of the spiritual path is one where one finds a path appropriate for oneself? In EBTs the sammasambuddha has already found that path as it is too complex for a normal individual to find. All that is required is to sit back, relax and follow it.
With metta
1 Like
Thank you for pointing this out @Dhammanando. It seems the Buddha is pointing out this issue as he is one of the few people who can actually see it happening (and the danger it poses to those around the ariya sangha).
I think the only way to decide what is culture and what is dhamma, is to compare whatever practice against the EBT principles and see if it holds up. If you are agnostic about aspects like rebirth, devas etc, …you are agnostic to those elements in culture as well (inviting the devas before giving a sermon of dhamma). If you are against those elements in EBT then, they are ‘outside’ the dispensation (IMO), though maybe benefiting from it.
with metta
Of course. The point here is not the commonality of bare-bones rebirth ideations, but how among reincarnation ideas the highly specific nature of Indian cosmology developed over such a long span of time.
Buddhists take one thin slice out of this whole spectrum, Indian & worldwide, and hold it up as Truth. That’s what I was indicating.
Seems like it. It is for humans, by humans, after all…
so then, there are things cultural artifacts which pre-date the Buddha but were nonetheless necessary pre-requisites for him to teach the Dhamma. A Buddha arises, and his teachings occur, within an actual context and not otherwise, even though they do point to that which lies altogether beyond it.
Everyone says this about their religious stuffs. Similar sorts of evidence too. It’s all very explicable within the context of the human experience in general; it’s actually impossible to point to anything beyond that.
So, it’s quite possible that rebirth is simply within the ambit of basic psycho-social human variety when it comes to experiences & their interpretations.
There is a belief about rebirth in the dream-time animism of the indigenous people in Australia. That culture has a history in Australia circa 50,000 years. Maybe rebirth is not culture maybe its just the way it is? Maybe it is something to do with the forces of greed, hatred and, delusion as they play out in Modernism that makes rebirth appear like an alien-invader from a superseded world. If your mind-set is a product of that small-world - in terms of the whole human story - and you feel its the best thing since sliced-bread, then I guess anything old just does not cut-the-mustard?
Sometimes a modernist in Buddhism will say something like: I am being polite or, there are things that can be said in ‘polite’ company. This tells us something about the way modernists view the Buddha’s teachings.
There is an attitude which came into vogue in Europe with the rise of capitalism and colonialism. The European peoples were more civilised and all together superior in comparison to the other civilisations on Earth. They had a duty to conquer and exploit, disparage and denigrate the religions and forms of inquiry found in ancient India. They needed to bring the light of modern understanding to the poor ignorant masses - stuck in the dark-ages or the iron-age. In reality, its just a form of cultural bigotry that is no more admirable than other forms of mindless prejudice and discrimination. It may give someone a sense of superiority but it comes at a price. The price is being stuck in an intellectual flat-land - a myopic state where anything beyond the flat-land of modernism simply does not exist in any meaningful way.
The most pernicious thing about this ideological predicament is the victims are often unaware of the situation they find themselves in. Somehow, their selective blindness works both ways - with regard to the observer and the observed. Making it near impossible to see beyond the ideological fixation. Modernism is a form of ideology and some people have fallen for it hook, line and, sinker.
Some modernists believe the Buddha was a well-intentioned, clever but ignorant chap who believed in myths and fairy tales. When this view is adhered to - without due reflection - Buddhism is reduced to an ancient form of psychotherapy with a few good relaxation techniques. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!
We all know that the early Buddhist teachings contain myths and fables. This in know way undermines the Buddha’s profound insights into suffering and the hearts sure release. Modernists may insinuate that the Buddha’s profound understanding is called into question by the presence of myths and fables in the teachings. They may then argue or contend that various materialist speculations are true and the Buddha’s insights are false - or misleading.
If only the Buddha had lived in the modern world. The modernists could have helped him to see the world clearly - on the way to ecocide, largely of their making. The modernist clever-folk with their insights and improvements have brought us to the edge of extinction - and I don’t mean Nibbanic extinction.
There are solutions to this predicament and part of it involves an expansion and deepening of our understanding of the mind - not just in theory but in practice. Those who have been fortunate enough to deepen in their understanding of the liberating Dhamma are here to help us in any way they can. We just need to step-out of the security of the known - the dominant paradigm - with an open-heart and an inquiring mind. What do we have to lose? If we are not on the ‘edge’ we are taking up to much room - step-off and enjoy the breeze - there is no ground.
4 Likes