You should note that this sutta is framing things in terms of the Abhidhamma view of supramundane Jhānas. That is what “right view without taints” is referring to.
We are all agnostic about nibbāna, until we know. I assume though you believe in nibbāna being attainable? If you believe in that unseen and unknown, why not kamma & rebirth?
1 Like
Nibbana is defined as the cessation of bhava. If your interpretation of bhava is not phenomological (experienced here and now) then yes, you would be dogmatically believing in something which cannot be known for yourself. If your interpretation of bhava is phenomological, then you wouldn’t be dogmatically believing in something.
Here is a phenomological interpretation of bhava: Being and Craving – Path Press
Faith in the Buddha and Dhamma is akin to having faith that the doctor’s treatment is going to work (the suttas even use this exact analogy). For that you already have to know that the disease is present, otherwise why would you get treatment for a disease you don’t have. The doctor’s treatment has worked when the present experiential phenomena of “disease” has ceased. Bhava, Upadana, Tanha, and Dukkha are seen before they are ceased, thus believing in Nibbana (the cessation of bhava, upadana, tanha, and dukkha) is not dogmatic like believing in God/Rebirth.
Lastly, the practice for all 4 ariyan types is the same (see Silavant Sutta), so a sotapanna phala attainer has confirmed already the path, and already has seen that the path works, that’s why a sotapanna has experiential confidence. If Faith was referring to Rebirth, then why all of a sudden does the sotapanna have experiential confidence in the dhamma? Wouldn’t they need to have psychic powers first? No, because Faith has to do with the four noble truths, not rebirth. Experiential confidence is akin to someone seeing that the doctor’s method is in fact alleviating the disease. There is no “partial experiential confidence” when it comes to God/Rebirth, you cannot know what happens to you until you die, and even then you cannot know because your knowing faculty has ceased. If Rebirth is indeed true, then it cannot be known easily, as you would know for yourself, it would be common knowledge, and no one would be debating it.
- A dying person has not yet been reborn
- A dead person doesn’t know because they don’t have the faculty to know things (no active brain)
- A newly born person also doesn’t know because they have newly created faculties
So in conclusion: whether rebirth is true or not, doesn’t matter because it’s not relevant to bhava ceasing, if it was then the psychic powers regarding seeing past lives/other beings reborn would be considered Supermundane, but they’re not. The only Supermundane abhiñña (knowledge) is the destruction of asavas. It’s the only one that Sariputta attained, and the only one that matters.
Ironically, having to force yourself to attain psychic powers in order to later destroy asavas would make you more skeptical than someone like Sariputta who didn’t require knowing unnecessary (non-supermundane) extra things to destroy the asavas. So who is really the skeptical one here? The one who forces himself to believe in a mundane view (and then wastes time trying to confirm it via psychic powers), or the one who goes straight for stopping dukkha here and now. You can say the former is so deluded they’re rejecting what’s right in front of their eyes visible here and now.
‘The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.
‘svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhīti.
SN 16.3
1 Like
Your list of knowing rebirth missed out children who can recall past lives, regression hypnosis to past lives, and meditation masters who developed past life recall. Really do read the rebirth cases of the children types. It’s plain for all to see rebirth is fact, independent of the truth value of Buddhism.
Have you listened to this? The 4 noble truths inherently includes rebirth. Nibbana is ending of rebirth. 2nd noble truth includes dependent origination, which is the mechanism of rebirth. Very clearly defined in SN12.2. the definition of rebirth and redeath cannot be mistaken to be momentary, but very clearly, once a lifetime.
Noble 8fold path as possessed by a stream enterer would include the 10 mundane right views and not believing in rebirth actively could be an obstacle to attainment.
MN12 has this:
When I know and see in this way, suppose someone were to say this: ‘The ascetic Gotama has no superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. He teaches what he’s worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing his own perspective.’ Unless they give up that speech and that thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell. Just as a mendicant accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom would reach enlightenment in this very life, such is the consequence, I say. Unless they give up that speech and thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell.
If you would admit that supernormal powers of past life recall is real, then there’s no question that rebirth and Kamma etc, can be verified in the here and now, for those who has developed these supernormal powers.
The stream enterer should have confirmed faith in rebirth due to understanding dependent origination, knowing that it is not possible for things to end at death, unless the stream winner becomes an arahant in this life, he should know that due to dependent origination, he would get reborn again.
It’s actually those who has doubts about rebirth who needs to verify it. For those who have enough trust in the Buddha, it’s optional.
For those with persistent wrong views, thinking that rebirth is not literal, it might be compulsory. Or else, as the suttas said, wrong view might lead to wrong liberation. AN10.103
How can one truly understand what is liberation, liberated from what, when one doesn’t include rebirth into the picture?
Liberated from rebirth (at enlightenment). From redeath (after parinibbana).
From greed, hatred, delusion.
The secular Buddhists might not know that there’s still delusion holding onto him, most likely due to still not affirming rebirth even if he “thinks” arahant attainment is won. So it’s good to check. Develop past life recall, don’t be so overconfident. Since it’s the secular Buddhists who doubts Buddha’s words literally.
From MN76, it’s clear that both denying rebirth and agnostic attitude about it are not enough to motivate the holy life.
The arahants do not cling onto views, but they would have right views nonetheless. And if anyone would ask them if beings get reborn, they would answer yes, unless one attains to arahanthood. That’s how they manifest their right views.
Whereas a theoretically secular Buddhist who “thinks” that he attained to “arahanthood”, would give the wrong answer to the question above, showing wrong view, thus wrong liberation. Not liberated, thinking that one is liberated.
Nothing of what you wrote is relevant at all to what I said.
For example you quoted this sutta as proof for your argument:
When I know and see in this way, suppose someone were to say this: ‘The ascetic Gotama has no superhuman distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. He teaches what he’s worked out by logic, following a line of inquiry, expressing his own perspective.’ Unless they give up that speech and that thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell. Just as a mendicant accomplished in ethics, immersion, and wisdom would reach enlightenment in this very life, such is the consequence, I say. Unless they give up that speech and thought, and let go of that view, they will be cast down to hell.
- Nowhere did I say that Gotama/Buddha doesn’t have superhuman distinction
- Nowhere did I say that the suttas/Buddha don’t talk about rebirth
- Furthermore destruction of asavas is a superhuman distinction, and the only one that is Supermundane.
And again you demonstrate that you don’t actually understand that no one is denying rebirth and/or heaven/hell by writing something like this:
Why would I “admit” to something that I don’t know is true? That would be lying and unethical. The suttas also say that saying “I know” when you don’t know is a form of wrong speech. So by telling me to lie, you would be generating bad kamma for yourself, and myself if I were to follow that advice. Also no one is denying that the suttas say that rebirth can be verified via psychic powers, read my conclusion and response to you regarding Sariputta. Again, you’re only demonstrating that you don’t actually understand the conversation.
Telling people to “admit” something sounds rather manipulative in the first place. There’s nothing to admit anyway, either you know, or you don’t know something. It doesn’t matter what affirmations you try to convince yourself or others of. Believing in something you don’t know doesn’t mean you’re ethical either, there are many people who believe in heaven and hell who use that as a stick to beat others with (as evidenced in this thread).
To be completely honest, I don’t know if Buddha had superpowers. I am not in a position to verify that.
Twice on this forum I have had the impression that I have integrity of thought with Thito. He wrote what I was thinking myself - using metaphors I thought of, but this is the greatest evidence of superpowers I have observed on this forum.
However, there is a strong possibility for me that psychic powers - like flying or being in several places at once - can exist in dreams. If, for us, there is no distinction between a dream movie and a waking movie, then superpowers do exist. For me, a bhava is a collection of movie frames floating around - well they can be fantasy movies or movies about boring life. But a movie is a movie - if you think about it that way, I’m very open to the idea that the Buddha had superpowers.
1 Like
I was responding to this when I said if you would admit…
Notice the if.
Also, just by this quote alone, it does very much sounds like you didn’t question that recall past life supernormal powers do exist. Or at least believe that supernormal powers exist.
It’s clear now that you’re talking on my level, of assuming it exist, and not on your own personal knowledge or belief of it. So too with my statements. I can say rebirth exist without any personal commitment to knowing it exist or not. See more explained below.
Anyway, it’s good that you clarified your position.
Many secular Buddhists deny Buddha taught rebirth etc. It seems that you don’t make that mistake. So good.
I don’t normally make a sharp distinction between believing and knowing.
For say non Buddhists, maybe I would be more alert and make more effort to distinguish it. Like talking to a non Buddhist I might say, we Buddhists believe in rebirth and past life recall superpower, which we believe can be developed via meditation.
To a fellow Buddhist, putting in “believe” there seems to undermine the level of faith we have towards the Buddha’s words. I believe it enough to just say:
Rebirth exist. To verify it personally, one can develop past life recall supernormal powers.
The statement above doesn’t have to imply anything on my personal knowledge on these issues.
It’s harder to teach those without faith. It’s easier to teach those with faith. And faith is 2 of the 37 factors of enlightenment.
Also, just notice that if we just talk on issues, dhamma, we don’t need to bring in personal knowledge to the table nor belief.
The suttas itself is clear enough to justify that rebirth, supernormal powers exists.
The issue is more that it is also part of the right views for the enlightened ones.
So the next video will display, which I will interpret as the previous videos I had?
What videos? I don’t get what you’re asking.
Images appear all the time, which come together to form a movie. Frame by frame. So I’ll see previous frames from a previous life - and the main character will interpret them as previous film frames? Then the character will believe that he has participated in other films. What should this exeperiment look like?
The suttas are old texts, no different than any other ideology. So the suttas by themselves don’t prove anything or give you any direct knowledge.
So instead I go by
It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.
Notice the Buddha here makes a distinction about “knowing for yourself”. And also not to go by “This monk is our teacher”, i.e. the Buddha doesn’t even want you to believe him just because he’s your teacher, but because his teachings are verifiable for oneself.
and
Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, ‘These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome’: You may categorically hold, ‘This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher’s instruction.’
Neither of these mention superpowers or rebirth. Instead they mention only to go by the 3 poisons, your own mind, and to give up unwholesome qualities. That is the dhamma, everything else is unnecessary fluff that dogmatic people get hung up on, and unable to let go of, but that is their own problem, not mine.
1 Like
If we exclude the round of actual rebirths and dukkha also including physical pain (I think we need to also include these, but for the sake of argument), the end goal of then nibbāna is a state where the mind is totally free from afflictive emotions. No more lust, aversion, fear, anger, grief, sadness and so on. Those are totally put out. Now you and I don’t know if such a state is possible, and if you asked any secular person or a modern sceptic that it’s possible to live as a healthy human, as an ape, without those emotions ever rising again they wouldn’t believe it. You and I take it as an act of faith that such a state is possible. That the Buddha achieved this and taught others the path to it. It’s a belief. So, phenomenological Buddhism or not you still have to have faith in the Buddha’s awakening and faith in the possibility of nibbāna. What I find peculiar is how secular Buddhists, or Buddhists like yourselves, throw-out kamma & rebirth because it is an unknown yet fully accept and believe in nibbāna which, could be argued, is an even greater unknown. As for dogmatism, in my experience Phenomenological Buddhists and Secular Buddhists can be just as dogmatic as traditional Buddhists like I.
1 Like
Some textual criticism is helpful here. In the parallel to this, it starts with “do not doubt”. In both texts, the audience are confused as to who take as their teacher. At the end, they take the Buddha as their teacher. When someone goes for refuge in the Buddha, they then place faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Interestingly, elsewhere, it is said that even Arahants have faith. They have perfect faith in the Buddha.
1 Like
To be fair, they are also called ‘faithless’ or ‘without faith’ too. Their perfection in faith is specifically those with the tevijjā who have perfect confidence in the Buddha’s message because they themselves realized it in the same way. So these usages of the word are often rhetorical.
You say that teachings about rebirth are ‘mundane’ for worldly audiences, as opposed to the higher teachings of the four noble truths. But as @Ceisiwr partially pointed out, the Kālāma sutta is taught to a bunch of worldly village people who are struggling with a diversity of religious views—it’s the epitome of a common mundane teaching to people for general worldly advice, not transcendental or world-transcending advice. It’s very similar to the advice to Rāhula in that the Buddha basically tells them to be good people. This is apart from the fact that rebirth is contained within the four noble truths.
Mettā
3 Likes
I haven’t come across them being described as “faithless”, which is pretty interesting. Do you have a quote?
1 Like
I was mainly referring to Dhp 97 where they are called ‘assaddho’ in a passage with ‘shock value.’ The point of this epithet seems to be that they do not need faith anymore, and this is backed up by AN 7.57 in which we see a dichotomy between direct knowledge of something the Buddha says vs. relying on faith.
Mettā
2 Likes
There is one very serious mistake in this reasoning. First of all cessation of bhava now and here doesn’t come by itself, it requires many factors in order to be realised. Now, but why one should spend entire life in solitude, observing the breath, and keep celibacy, if one believes that his problems will come to the end after the death of the body?
And if one come to conclusion that nibbana cessation of being is above his abilities, why straving in the forest? Why not to disrobe?
It is a serious distortion of the Dhamma to eliminate element of faith, your faith that you can arrive in the right view without faith, has no any justification in the Suttas. Instead you are posting links to Path Press page. It would be good if you support your statements with Suttas instead. Venerable Nyanamoli who is recognised there as a Teacher made statement that sotapanna doesn’t suffer and in all his seriousness and self-confidence insisted on it during all discussion. Now, it doesn’t create any faith in me … And I do claim that without such faith I can manage.
Anyway mundane right view means only that it is without direct knowledge of sotapanna, it doesn’t mean that sotapanna has no mundane right view.
Now this Life Divine is lived to abandon pain” (Ud 3.10).
He was not alone in this estimation of the world: “Here, bhikkhus, some clansman goes forth out of faith [saddhā] from the home life into homelessness [considering] ‘I am a victim of birth, ageing and death…. I am exposed to pain. Surely an end to this whole aggregate mass of suffering is described?” (MN 29).
Now in this situation how does the Buddha show the function of faith? “One who has faith [saddhā] succeeds, Mahānāma, not one who has no faith” (AN 11:12).
Here the question at once intrudes: Is the translation of “saddhā” by “faith” justified? Let us try it out and see, for the contexts in which it appears will be the test. We shall be strictly consistent in our renderings. The Buddha speaks of five Faculties, or human potentialities, through whose means an ignorant ordinary man may emerge from ignorance to right understanding, and so from suffering to its cessation. They are faith (saddhā), energy, mindfulness, concentration, and understanding (as “mother wit” to start with). If they can be maintained in being against opposition, they are called Powers (SN 48:43). Managed by reasoned attention (yoniso manasikāra, awareness of the organic structure of experience), and carefully balanced, they build each other up. Maintained in being and cultivated, they merge into the Deathless (SN 48:57).
The Buddha speaks of faith as one of the Seven Noble Treasures (AN 7:4), one of the Seven True Ideas (DN 33), one of the Five Factors of Endeavour (MN 8), as an Idea “on the side of enlightenment” (SN 48:51), as a Fount of Great Merit (Aṅguttara Ṭīkā 41), as one of the Three Forms of Growth (Aṅguttara Ṭīkā 48), which “brings five advantages” (AN 5:38).
And then, “Where is the faith faculty to be met with? Among the four Factors of Stream-entry.” (SN 48:8). “A Stream-enterer [of whom more below] has absolute confidence [pasāda] in the Enlightened One, in the True Idea [the Dhamma], and in the Community, and he has the virtue beloved of Noble Ones” (SN 55:1). Four other factors of Stream-entry are frequenting True Men, hearing the True Idea, reasoned attention, and the putting into practice of ideas that are in accordance with the True Idea (SN 55:5).
“What is the faith faculty? Here a noble disciple who has faith places his faith in a Tathāgata thus: ‘This Blessed One is such since he is accomplished and fully enlightened, perfect in true knowledge and conduct, sublime, knower of worlds, incomparable leader of men to be tamed, enlightened, blessed.’” (SN 48:9) “If these five faculties are absolutely perfected, they make an Accomplished One [Arahant]; if a little weaker, a Non-returner; if a little weaker still, a Once-returner; if a little weaker still, a Stream-enterer; if a littleweaker still, One Mature in Faith or One Mature in the True Idea” (SN 48:12).
“Those who have not known, seen, found, realized, touched with understanding, may go by faith in others that [these five faculties] when maintained in being and developed merge in the Deathless … but on knowing, seeing, finding, realizing, and touching with understanding, there is no more doubt or uncertainty that when maintained in being and developed they merge in the Deathless” (SN 48:44).
But then, does not the Buddha say in the Kālāma Sutta, “Come, Kālāmas, [do] not [be satisfied] with hearsay-learning or with tradition or with legendary lore or with what has come down in scripture or with conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with choice of a view after pondering it or with someone else’s ability or with the thought ‘The monk is our teacher”’? Is not that an injunction to have nothing to do with faith, to “throw away your books,” as Marcus Aurelius says, and listen to no one at all?
If that statement of the Buddha’s is taken as a general instruction to disregard instruction, it is then impossible to carry out. For then one could only carry it out by not carrying it out (a well-known logical dilemma). But that is not what is intended, as is shown by the rest of the passage: ” … or with the thought ‘The monk is our teacher.’ When you know in your-selves ‘Certain ideas are unprofitable, liable to censure, condemned by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to harm and suffering,’ then you should abandon them …. When you know in yourselves ‘Certain ideas are profitable, not liable to censure, commended by the wise, being adopted and put into effect, they lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should abide in the practice of them” (Aṅguttara Ṭīkā 65).
The ordinary man is affected by ignorance, and he cannot dispense with simple faith, though in good faith he may grossly misplace it, or dissipate it, and be said to have no faith (asaddhā).
But if he places it honestly and reasonably, he is called faithful (saddhā). In the Buddha’s words, “A bhikkhu who possesses understanding founds his faith in accordance with that understanding” (SN 48:45), to which words may be added also those of the venerable Sāriputta: “There are two conditions for the arising of right view: another’s speech and reasoned attention” (MN 43). From this it emerges that an ordinary man has need of a germ of “mother wit” in order to know where to place his faith and a germ of unsquandered faith in order to believe he can develop his understanding. That is the starting position.
Faith thus begins to appear as a fusion of two elements:
confidence (pasāda), and what the confidence is placed in. Faith as confidence is elsewhere described as a clearing of the mind, like water cleared of suspended mud by a water-clearing nut, or as a launching out (pakkhandana), like a boat’s launching out from the near bank to cross a flood to the further bank, or as a hand that resolutely grasps. (A grain of “mother wit” is needed to recognize the nut, to avoid launching out into a flood that has no other shore, to refrain from grasping a red-hot poker as a stick to lean on). Just as “Seeing is the meaning of the understanding as a faculty,” so also “Decision [adhimokkha] is the meaning of faith as a faculty.”
(Paṭisambhidā Ñāṇakatha). When faith is aided by concentration, “The mind launches out [to its object] and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision” (MN 122).
Choice of a bad object will debauch faith by the disappointment and frustration it entails. Craving and desire can corrupt it into bad faith by the self-deception that it is not necessary to investigate and test the object, and then, as well as error, there is disregard of truth.
Nanamoli Thera from DOES SADDHĀ MEAN FAITH?
1 Like
Just want to add on many of the stock phrase BEFORE Buddha taught 4NT, He taught the following to an outsider on MN 56:
Then the Buddha taught the householder Upāli step by step, with
- a talk on giving,
- ethical conduct, and
- heaven.
- He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation.
And when he knew that Upāli’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas:
suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.
Also, does a stream enterer believe and have faith in heaven? Of course they are. General Siha a stream enterer is having faith to Buddha about heaven. See AN 5.34.
But when the Blessed One tells me:
‘Sīha, with the breakup of the body, after death, a donor, a giver, is going to a good destination, in a heavenly world,’ I do not know this, and here I go by faith in the Blessed One.”
Regarding Bahiya Ud 1.10.
Why Buddha didn’t teach the heaven? Because Bahiya has the knowledge already. Just need to reorient the view.
Then a deva who was a former relative of Bāhiya, having compassion and wanting what’s best for him, approached him and said:
“Bāhiya, you’re not a perfected one, nor on the path to perfection.
So problem is where are you in the path. This needs to be analyzed by each individual.
-
If you are a stream enterer, well no way one can have right view without asava all the time yet. This is why they will comeback to human world to get it done. Because samma sati/samma samadhi hasn’t even been developed.
-
If you are a non returner, surely one can have right view without kamasava. No need to return to this human world ever, because the jhana is always on all the time. One can declare something similar as this:
The householder Citta is bound by no fetter that might return him to this world.
-
If you are an arahant, well your right view is without any asava. And Congratulation for ending the dukkhas.
-
If you are an ordinary person, well then see the above stock phrase, how one get converted into stream enterer. One needs to understand/see the following 4 things, before see/understand 4NT:
- a talk on giving,
- ethical conduct, and
- heaven.
- He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation.
kaccayanagotta
Wow. Thank you in your effort to prove your thesis.
knigarian
I would like to sort it out and answer anything important.
-
Whether faith and trust in the Buddha was important according to these texts - everything points to that.
Of course, as you fervently believe in Buddha your path will be easier. Just imagine a man facing a forest he intends to walk through to get to a better place. If he meets another man who has made it there, who tells him that in that better place it’s like heaven, and that if he stands still the forest fire will reach him - then when the man seeking the way believes the person who knows the way, in every detail, he will reach his destination faster, exposing himself to fewer pitfalls, and will certainly not stray. Faith and trust are virtues in such a situation. - Do I believe in Nibbana? I believe in the way to reduce suffering because I can see its effects. Is there a complete absence of bad emotions at the end? I don’t know. I think it’s worth checking. Especially since I know of states in myself when it is actually extremely resistant to bad emotions. So it would be worthwhile to consolidate this state.
-
Now, but why one should spend entire life in solitude, observing the breath, and keep celibacy, if one believes that his problems will come to the end after the death of the body?
Maybe it’s because when you meditate you have fewer obstacles of the mind - fewer bad emotions. You feel better.
If you see that sensual pleasure causes pain. When you don’t like pain, you start looking for pleasures that don’t cause unnecessary pain. Such pleasures are deep meditation. They don’t create a swing of pain-pleasure and are not a debt. You can also discover pleasure in solitude. -
does secular Buddhism make sense?
I have already encountered statements on this forum that we should not call ourselves Buddhists. in a similar thread. Honestly, if you want I can call myself a Gnostic, because I believe first of all in my own experience if empirical science confirms it - then I strengthen myself in believing in my own experience. All texts that lead to greater satisfaction are useful to me. If something creates obstacles of the mind then it is unnecessary for me.
The two are not alike at all. As I said, there’s a
difference between having unverifiable faith and verifiable faith. One can have faith that their real estate agent/doctor/specialized profession knows what they’re doing, and this doesn’t take long to be verified, “immediately effective” and “in this very life” as per this sutta
The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.
‘svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhīti.
SN 16.3
Notice the suttas state that a sotapanna has experiential confidence. It’s obviously referring to something exceptionally rare that only ariyas have.
It’s not me that’s saying this it’s the sutta we were discussing that literally said this.
First, an agnostic doesn’t believe in annihilationism either. So your question is a strawman because an agnostic doesn’t believe that “his problems come to an end after death”.
That’s the problem with not learning how to think logically, you will certainly misinterpret and misunderstand something and then waste a long time arguing for something that has nothing to do with the original argument.
Second, why should anyone do anything? Why quit smoking or any addiction if the problem comes to an end at the death of the body? Yet people do because the results are in this life, just like this sutta says:
The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know it for themselves.
‘svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṁ veditabbo viññūhīti.
SN 16.3
Third, according to the sutta on memories, even if there is rebirth, it doesn’t mean you’ll know your “problems” in your next life. In your next life you’re basically starting from scratch, and you may not even believe in rebirth in your next life. The sutta on memory says that memory can come up very slowly, and may require someone else to trigger it, and I’m assuming if that’s only if you’re an ariya. There nothing in the suttas that imply that most ariyans or any Puthujjana would remember their current set of beliefs in their next life. You’re basically a different person. If you haven’t destroyed any fetters, you may even be a Muslim, Atheist, Hedonist, Murderer or anything else in your next life. There’s no reason to assume that rebirth happens as you imagine it.
1 Like