I suggest Tolerable Speech or Civilized Speech, something not tied to EBT terminology.
I have a question for you. Are beliefs karmic formations and is insistence that yours are right an others are wrong evidence of attachment?
Let’s not derail this good sir. I’ll answer in short only, yes and sometimes, but i won’t discuss this further here.
1 Like
Derailment has arisen.
I have no intention to derail the conversation. there are plenty of passages in the canon that would suggest that belief in rebirth is not right view. We have what the Buddha does not declare, we have the Kalama sutta, we have the Atthakavagga stating very clearing that we should not have formulated views about other realms…
Someone who is not an inerrantist, has reason to doubt passages declaring belief in rebirth as right view. Religious texts have a long history of redaction and interpolation. A more critical read is called for. That is why we have a forum for discussion.
In general i think questioning rebirth is tolerable to me and i think if not anything else it can do good in further convincing those who already believe and we help developing their understanding.
It is only people who are fixated in their opposition that need restraining because they can overwhelm the discourse.
I think secular buddhism is absolutely rejected by all conservative buddhists who think that scripture is absolutely clear on this.
I think it is essentially a secular discussion and text-critical in nature. Therefore on a platform dedicated to ‘discussion of EBTs’ it is well appropriate on one hand but there is then a complicated divide between people.
I think that textual criticism can get overwhelming, just due to the amount of people that there is and it is essentially content meant to disprove what the buddha supposedly taught.
Nevermind if opponents of conservative buddhism would make bots like this.
Perhaps a good solution is having a dedicated section for secular people to engage non-secular people.
Some interesting food for thought on this thread. Obviously, this is a Discussion Forum about EBTs so exactly how to interpret the texts is on topic. While the texts definitely talk of rebirth, I agree with @cdpatton that there is sometimes some over-reach into non-Buddhist concepts when discussing and/or justifying rebirth:
I have found Patrick Kearney’s comments in his talks that cover anatta and what he calls “life after life” very helpful. The two are inexorably connected and any discussion of rebirth without a deep experiential understanding of anatta is merely the stating of concepts.
I would therefore urge caution in labelling the questioning of some concepts of rebirth as “wrong view”.
1 Like
I will reply as it is kind of an example
Like this thread here is about my feedback to the admin about the service. And you have force made an argument against rebirth in it.
For me to respond to every point you are making here would be tedious.
I have not engaged you in other threads much but i am familiar with things you say and much of it is like the points you raised here.
I think that if you want to write a text critical essay you can discuss your understanding of EBTs and i might consider participating but this is otherwise excessive.
I have not argued against rebirth here. I argued that there is good reason to believe the Buddha did not declare a position on it. I will leave my part of the discussion at that.
You should be able to discuss this.
An extreme example would be of people who believe that buddha is a mythical creature, that some people made up the suttapitaka and they have a hundred page powerpoint presentation that they want to show everyone but which nobody wants see.
I think the internet is big enough for everyone but the text critical content is a distict category which not many people are organically interested in.
I don’t ever approach secular buddhist spaces because i think they are deficient in expertise relevant to my interest and i don’t find it strange that secular buddhists come to non-secular spaces because non-secular spaces are not deficient in expertise relevant to my interest, and they would be welcome in my space on account of shared interest but if the non-secular space gets overly secularized then it’s just another secular space that non-secular people leave.
Can’t even factually accurate, correct and truthful speech, that seemingly is uttered to spread dhamma, be considered wrong speech depending upon the context and the wisdom/motivation of one uttering it? It seems to me wrong speech is just a convention and to rightly label it depends upon context and wisdom, right?
I can’t find any hard and fast universal essence to wrong speech that makes it so. Wrong speech, right speech, the ToS are all dependent phenomenons; thus it seemingly takes correct motivation and wisdom to apply these in a way that is beneficial to beings and avoids acting as a condition for further harm to beings. A tricky needle to thread…
Applying rigid rules and definitions without remembering the proper motivation and spirit of those rules risks causing further problems for all of us poor miserable beings trying to find a way out of this cycle we find ourselves in. I thank the moderators for trying their best to apply context and wisdom while making choices for the best outcomes on the forum. I’m sure it ain’t easy 
1 Like
You dug deeper yet. I think Right Speech is a practically unenforceable ideal and it’s not clear that it is a desirable ToS where the vast majority is presumably prone to wrong speech to some extent.
I also like the forum and moderation in general. I don’t even mind it if this was a secular space at it’s core & purpose, i am not the one paying the bills and so i don’t think to complain, do as you want.
I think the non-secular people don’t mind this until it turns into proselytizing and this happens when having tried to help they give up on him but he keeps going.
It’s a circumstance akin to the difference between Role-Play spaces and Non-RP spaces, where the secular buddhist communities are the RP spaces which ban people who don’t play along.
One can come to a non-rp space to roleplay but you can not expect people to engage with you and you have a bad experience.
Furthermore roleplaying in a non-rp space fractures the consensus on reality and impedes cooperation.
Therefore the tryhard non-rp people will always oppose their spaces becoming mixed because it impedes the attainment of their goals.
It is good that you are learning the texts.
There is also this
Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world?
Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world.
Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One.
SuttaCentral
I don’t think this matters because we know the meaning is the same however you translate it. The semantic target is a reappearance in a hell, a ghost realm or a heavenly realm. And some arahants can see beings having passed away here reconnect in either of the realms. This is canonical and is exactly what the people call “rebirth in another world or next world/life”. Whether it is called next or other world in the texts is of course much noteworthy but makes no difference to the point.
I think it’s ironic, in a way, that there’s a fear over the purity of the doctrine being corrupted the very moment that someone suggests they can simultaneously be a Buddhist thinker and also not wholeheartedly accept rebirth as definitively and absolutely crucial to the entire message.
The doctrine and the purity of the doctrine is not being threatened by us mere mortals. People do have minds of their owns and are far more inclined to believe what they already believe (as opposed to being sucked in to what some seem to think will be an “automatic schism” - somehow created on a message board).
The monastic community is not going to be threatened by talk on this forum about rebirth being true/not true.
I really don’t see why there’s a perceived threat to the sanctity of all who visit this forum, just because people with a more or less scientific view of reality want to discuss the implications of practicing Buddhism outside the confines of a positive view on rebirth.
It certainly doesn’t threaten me. I’m more or less a proponent of rebirth. Of course, I don’t have definitive proof or anything. But, at least I’m willing to entertain people with opposing views. Again, I don’t see how the sanctity of the doctrine is in any jeopardy whatsoever by people merely mentioning a lack of belief in rebirth. As it’s already been stated, any censorship on the issue would show a very dogmatic approach to our appreciation for the doctrine. Why should we be threatened? I don’t get it.
2 Likes
There’s a difference between people just stating their lack of faith, vs changing the meaning of the text to say Buddha didn’t meant to teach literal rebirth, or right view doesn’t include rebirth.
I don’t think it’s an issue even for the second case, as long as we are free to address it when it comes up. But I give up on this notion here. I will just happily address them in the topics which are dedicated to addressing them.
Perhaps @Notez is concerned that this would be like Dhammawheel where they have no upvoting system, so the person with the most energy wins and dominates the board with their views. I think this is needless worry, as we do have heartvotes and flagging here.
How are you deciding what is wrong view?
It sounds like you are appealing to the authority of the texts?
Is that correct?
In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha explicitly told you not to do that.
Why are you choosing to defy the Buddha?
How do you reconcile this conflict?
The early sermons of the Buddha were dedicated explicitly persuading people to NOT cling to views.
Why did the Buddha tell us NOT to cling to views?
People cling to views because they have been beaten into “learned helplessness”.
AKA saṁsāra.
When we have been beaten into “learned helplessness” we perceive sensory experience from the perspective of a drowning man looking for anything that floats to save them.
If a view seems like it might save us from our fate, we cling to that view for dear life.
That is why people cling to views.
“Learned helplessness” changes our perception of sensory experience.
We no longer perceive someone who questions our currently held views as someone who is trying to help us to correct an error which is causing our suffering.
On the contrary, we wrongly perceive them as someone who is trying to take away the only view that is protecting us from pain.
When we are trapped in “learned helplessness” we don’t see things the way they are, we see them the way we are.
We are self-absorbed in the narrative and clinging to it for dear life because we cannot handle the truth.
More so, we are so broken that we cannot even fathom ever being strong enough to summon the courage to turn towards the uncomfortable truth.
This choice to be willfully ignorant is called avijjā.
It is the root cause of all suffering.
Māra is a liar.
Māra tells you that you must cling to views in order to be safe.
The Buddha chose to defy Māra.
The Buddha chose to see the world the way it actually is.
You should give consideration to doing what the Buddha did.
Choose to heroically turn toward the demon of avijjā and slay him.
How?
The heroic path to nibbana is found by joining the 5 powers with the 7 factors of awakening on the join points of sati and samadhi:
Like so.
5 powers:
saddha (faith)
viriya (heroic effort)
sati (mindfulness)
samādhi (unification of mind)
pañña (understanding)
7 factors:
sati (mindfulness)
dhamma vicaya (investigation)
viriya (heroic effort)
pīti (rapture)
passaddhi (tranquility)
samādhi (unification of mind)
upekkha (equanimity)
Notice how, when you do this, the term viriya directs us towards each join point.
5 powers + 7 factors:
saddha (faith) + viriya (heroic effort) ← first nudge; towards “sati”; with the aim of countering avijjā
sati (mindfulness)
dhamma vicaya (investigation) + viriya (heroic effort) ← second nudge; towards “samadhi” with the aim of vipassanā
pīti (rapture)
passaddhi (tranquility)
samādhi (unification of mind)
pañña (understanding) + upekkha (equanimity)
Notice how “heroic effort” (viriya) precedes both the choice to turn towards sati and the choice to turn towards samadhi.
What does this mean?
It means that some uncomfortable truths are so uncomfortable that we cannot reconcile with them directly.
We must hold them in mindfulness for extended periods of time before we can even consider entering samadhi whereupon the underlying conflict can be teased apart and resolved.
For this reason, 2 heroic choices are needed.
heroic choice #1: The choice to turn away from the willful ignorance of avijjā towards sati so that fear of the uncomfortable truth can be conquered.
heroic choice #2: The choice to turn away from the temptation of taṇhā towards samadhi so that the inner conflict giving rise to the suffering can be fully resolved and the suffering ended.
Nsmo Buddhaya!
Not to speak for Bhante here but i will comment on this because you keep making this point.
You are trying to use the sutta to undermine the authority of the sutta.
If you assert that we should not go by scripture because the scripture tells you not to go by scripture then you contradict yourself.
One can turn it around saying that if i really go by scripture then I should not go by scripture because the scripture says not to.
Obviously this kind of reasoning is not going to work.
Not all scripture is alike but following scripture in general is like following authority, it’s not something that one should be doing blindly just because it is tradition or authority.
Are we trying to help each other to end our suffering or are we trying to win arguments and cling to views?
If our intentions are skillful, quarrels will not exist.
There should be no quarrels in the sangha.
If there are quarrels, we should examine our intentions.