Secular buddhism align with early texts?

[CurlyCarl]

@knigarian

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?

I ended my reading of the post here. Who actually said they believed problems will come to the end after the death of the body? I imagine those who have great faith in the here & now Dhamma are so because they are intent on ending suffering in the here & now.

If fact, my impression is many who regard “rebirth” as the essence or heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma are the ones postponing practice for a future life. I recall, for example, a certain renowned scholar monk ssemed very clear about this when he proposed in his Just War Theory it was OK for the average Buddhist to kill Nazis in war because the average Buddhist had no interest in here & now Nibbana. Similarly, I have heard Ajahn Brahm say: “its OK if you have messed up this life; you can try again in the next life” or similar.

@Thito

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.

Interesting quote. I recall when a stayed in a monastery this was chanted every morning & every evening by the monks. From my reading of the sutta, I have gained the impression this is the sole description of the Refuge in the True Dhamma.

@knigarian

Nanamoli Thera from DOES SADDHĀ MEAN FAITH?

I did not read the post however to answer final question, Iti 90 and AN 4.34 say the highest kind of trust is trust in dispassion:

Fading away is said to be the best of all things whether conditioned or unconditioned. That is, the quelling of vanity, the removing of thirst, the abolishing of clinging, the breaking of the round, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.

Yāvatā, bhikkhave, dhammā saṅkhatā vā asaṅkhatā vā, virāgo tesaṁ aggamakkhāyati, yadidaṁ madanimmadano pipāsavinayo ālayasamugghāto vaṭṭupacchedo taṇhakkhayo virāgo nirodho nibbānaṁ.

Those who have confidence in the teaching of fading away have confidence in the best.

Ye, bhikkhave, virāge dhamme pasannā, agge te pasannā.

Having confidence in the best, the result is the best.

Agge kho pana pasannānaṁ aggo vipāko hoti.

@Joe.C

Just want to add on many of the stock phrase BEFORE Buddha taught 4NT, He taught the following to an outsider on MN 56:

In MN 56, Upali become independent regarding the Teachings.

Then Upāli saw, attained, understood, and fathomed the Dhamma. He went beyond doubt, got rid of indecision, and became self-assured and independent of others regarding the Teacher’s instructions.

Also, in MN 56, Upali had the following realisation:

“Everything that has a beginning has an end.”
“yaṁ kiñci samudayadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ nirodhadhamman”ti.

The realisation of Upali was not:

“Everything that has an end has a re-beginning .”
“yaṁ kiñci nirodhadhammaṁ sabbaṁ taṁ n” upapajjati ti.

@Joe.C

heaven.

Does “sagga” mean an “afterlife-heaven” in SN 35.135 & AN 10.73?

To end, I have not read anyone on this topic denying ‘rebirth’. However, it seems quite clear the Buddha’s supramundane (lokuttara) practice was as follows:

“Don’t run back to the past,
“Atītaṁ nānvāgameyya,
don’t hope for the future.
nappaṭikaṅkhe anāgataṁ;
What’s past is left behind;
Yadatītaṁ pahīnaṁ taṁ,
the future has not arrived;
appattañca anāgataṁ.

and phenomena in the present
Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṁ,
are clearly seen in every case.
Tattha tattha vipassati;
Knowing this, foster it—
Asaṁhīraṁ asaṅkuppaṁ,
unfaltering, unshakable.
Taṁ vidvā manubrūhaye.

MN 131

In summary, it seems those who believe “rebirth” is the essence/heartwood of the Holy Life will not be able to end “rebirth” unless they abide in the present moment, see the true nature of the present dhammas and eradicate craving & self-view in the present moment.

[Joe.C]

@CurlyCarl

Does “sagga” mean an “afterlife-heaven” in SN 35.135 & AN 10.73?

Funny thing is I never said anything about rebirth. Rebirth is a human concept and from not understanding the teaching.

I just say heaven (good places). Heaven can be experience here and now in Human life. No Need to wait for death of body. One can get very rich from just perfecting dana and sila NOW, live like a heaven being.

In Buddha teaching, once one entered the stream, they will practice precepts and keep hearing true dhamma. Perfecting precepts is like living in heaven here and now.

If one is died at any time, it is guaranteed only good places to go. Can’t go to lower realms.

If they haven’t able to fully developed samma samadhi/sati, then only good places in sensual realms.

If one got the chance to perfected precepts, then samadhi and panna along the way. Then, one finally can attain arahanthood. Then, one should know all the realms and fully let go all of it. Otherwise, there is no way to completely stop all the Asava(s).

But Buddha teaching is gradual, not suddenly one become an arahant.

Perfecting precepts also take time depending upon your faculties. Without hearing true dhamma, then attain right view, and perfecting precepts. It is not possible to attain samma samadhi/sati.

@CurlyCarl

Does “sagga” mean an “afterlife-heaven” in SN 35.135 & AN 10.73?

Well how about SN 40.10. Don’t just look at selective Sutta. Some Sutta explain thing in Supramundane, and some explain in mundane. One can get confused.

But yeah good places are all in your six senses. If you can fully understand all of that and free from asavas. GREAT, nothing to be done.

It’s the reason why some sentient beings, when their body breaks up, after death, are going to a good place, a heavenly realm.

Buddhe aveccappasādena samannāgamanahetu kho, devānaminda, evam’idhekacce sattā kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapajjanti.

@CurlyCarl

MN 131

If you can get into this, FANTASTIC. Your mind basically didn’t move anymore. Easier said than done. Because only a TRUE arahant can do this.

[Vaddha]

@Thito

It’s not me that’s saying this it’s the sutta we were discussing that literally said this.

I’m aware of MN 117 and the two versions of right view. I’m not trying to accuse you of coming up with the distinction. What I am saying is that you have taken an even more mundane sutta (to non-Buddhist people who need the most general advice possible to not be further confused) as somehow more authoritative and more reasonable as a view in the meantime. But the Buddha says that the view of rebirth in e.g. MN 117 is the higher mundane view to hold.

I also mean that it is not the teaching on rebirth in general which is mundane; rebirth is included in the four noble truths: jāti refers to rebirth, tanhā ponobbhavikā refers to rebirth, and nibbāna refers to the ending of rebirth (among other things). As for the path, this includes mundane view or the four noble truths with rebirth, plus ‘paññā’ often includes the realization of the tevijjā.

The mundane view of rebirth and merit is mundane in that it will only get people around samsāra better, not allow them to get out of it. It contains no information on transcendental conditionality (craving and its cessation), but only causality to steer one’s destination (merit and demerit). Thus it is not world-transcending but of the world—the world being samsāra generally. Rebirth is not the mundane part of this view; it is the lack of a solution to the problem of rebirth, seen as suffering, and the view of only good/bad kamma that is mundane about it. You’ve designated the wrong aspect as mundane.

Moreover, if the second noble truth is that the origin of dukkha is “craving which leads to a new existence,” then one has not fully realized this truth if they only realize “desire/aversion for things makes me suffer.” They have missed out on the qualifying characteristic of the origin of suffering and have realized a lesser version of this truth, visible by virtue of linguistics alone.

The Buddha and his disciples made assertions about rebirth constantly. The Buddha was just a human who realized these things for himself and taught others to realize them the same way. If this part of the teaching were not directly visible and attainable in this life, then the Buddha would not have been able to make accurate assertions with confidence and claim that others could learn to do the same.

An example from Sāriputta, who you mentioned, is AN 10.65. This also relates to the noble truths. He says:

“Rebirth is suffering, reverend, no rebirth is happiness.
(Abhinibbatti kho, āvuso, dukkhā, anabhinibbatti sukhā.)
When there is rebirth, you can expect this kind of suffering— Cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, and urination. Contact with fire, clubs, and knives. And relatives and friends get together and annoy you.

I understand where you’re coming from but really don’t see any grounds for it textually. It’s just an interpretation of the texts that one has to work around and rearrange things to fit into—and one that the Buddha himself did not seem to share. Clearly though he did value focusing on our mind-state and condition now in the present, and of quenching the three fires of greed/hatred/delusion + ignorance in the here and now. There’s nothing wrong with this whatsoever, and I think you make good points about this being a more valuable guide if the other teachings are not yet accessible enough (in line with the Buddha’s advice).

@CurlyCarl

Does “sagga” mean an “afterlife-heaven” in SN 35.135 & AN 10.73?

Also, BTW, yes. The Buddha is literally saying there is a hell where everything one comes into contact with is unpleasant, and an opposite heaven, and that the mendicants are lucky to be leading the spiritual life [because they transcend this duality of rebirth destinations]; there is no life on earth where all contact is purely pleasant. AN 10.73 is about heavenly rebirth as well; the ‘world’ refers to all of samsāric experience. The Buddha does not say ‘this world’ there. There are other places where he may analogize emotions to rebirth destinations, but these are not examples.

Mettā

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

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…

Notice the suttas state that a sotapanna has experiential confidence. It’s obviously referring to something exceptionally rare that only ariyas have.

Nibbāna, taking it here to only mean total freedom from emotions, can’t be objectively studied and observed in the way medicine can, or a house that you wish to buy can. It’s a purely subjective experience and truth that one awakens to, and so to accept it’s existence, that someone has realised it, and what they teach leads to it is faith based. The stream-enterer has glimpsed nibbāna, so they aren’t really comparable to you or I. Unless you are going to say you have actually experienced it for yourself, its still an article of faith that you have in it and the possibility of it. It is something that can only be known personally, and can’t be proven objectively, exactly like the other doctrines of kamma & rebirth. That you reject one, or rather take no position on it, but accept the other makes little sense to me.

[Thito]

@Ceisiwr

and can’t be proven objectively, exactly like the other doctrines of kamma & rebirth.

Except you can’t even know rebirth subjectively. Objectivity is irrelevant to phenomenology, as even seeing a person dying, their soul leaving, and then being reborn doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen to you. Phenomenology is often misunderstood, I would work on properly understanding it before making judgements.

@Ceisiwr

The stream-enterer has glimpsed nibbāna,

Exactly, therefore Nibbana can be verified for oneself (aka phenomologically) in this very life (hence verifiable faith), but Rebirth cannot even be verified phenomologically due to the reasons I stated earlier.

@Thito

• 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

Even if you were to attain the 2 supernormal powers of seeing other people being reborn, or your past life memories, that doesn’t necessarily mean in the future this must happen to you. You must make an assumption to close that gap.

However with “glimpsing” nibbana, at least you see in this very moment that the defilements have decreased.

Now sure, if I’m a Puthujjana, you could say that I am taking it on faith that I will be able to “glimpse” nibbana in the future, but according to the suttas, this should happen immediately upon properly understanding the dhamma. There is no immediate phenomological experience when it comes to rebirth… ever. The best you can hope for is that you’re the rare minority who can attain supernormal powers, and even then, it doesn’t mean you’ll know that future rebirth is certain. And I may not even know if “full nibbana” is certain, but I’m ok with whatever benefits I’ve gained, even as a Puthujjana.

So in conclusion, the dhamma having immediate results in the here and now, and in the “beginning, middle, and end” is not at all comparable to believing in something which you can never directly know because the circumstance in which both having a faculty to know things with and to be reborn cannot happen at the same time. With supernormal powers, you’re either observing it happening to other people, or you’re recalling your past life memories, neither are “here” (subjective/self-verified) nor “now” (present moment).

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

Except you can’t even know rebirth subjectively. Objectivity is irrelevant to phenomenology, as even seeing a person dying, their soul leaving, and then being reborn doesn’t necessarily mean it will happen to you. Phenomenology is often misunderstood, I would work on properly understanding it before making judgements.

If such a thing occurs, you would know it as much as you would any other memory. If objectivity is irrelevant, then all we can talk about is the subjective. Past life memory then would be on par with nibbāna and the germ theory of disease. I’m quite familiar with Phenomenological Buddhism, and it’s Western influences. It’s not for me. That said, even the well known Phenomenological Buddhists such as Venerable Ñāṇavīra and Venerable Nyanamoli accepted/accept rebirth and kamma, it’s just they don’t think dependent origination has much if anything to do with it.

Exactly, therefore Nibbana can be verified for oneself (aka phenomologically) in this very life (hence verifiable faith), but Rebirth cannot even be verified phenomologically due to the reasons I stated earlier.

Well they would know nibbāna in the same way they would know kamma & rebirth. You might reply by saying one can’t know they will be reborn (or not), but you could also apply that sort of scepticism to nibbāna. One can’t know if future anger etc will arise again, or not. We could go down that road but that would make us sceptics, not Buddhists. Do you think that before stream-entry, a Buddhist should have faith in nibbāna or not? If yes, why not also kamma & rebirth? If not, why are they practicing as a Buddhist at all, if they don’t believe in the end goal and the claims of their spiritual teacher i.e. The Buddha?

[Thito]

@Ceisiwr

Venerable Nyanamoli accept rebirth and kamma, it’s just they don’t think dependent origination has much if anything to do with it.

Then it doesn’t matter if they accept it. Although as I said the other day, I think believing it can be useful for certain groups of people (depending on time, place, culture, etc.) so that should answer your question at the end of your post.

There’s many monks who believe that a lot of the training in the path is optional, for example Ven Dhammavuddho says that the precepts, virtue, Samadhi can entirely be skipped and that some people in the suttas were able to skip the entire training and instantly attain Arahantship, but that it depends on the person on a case by case situation. Just like the Buddha said there will be more training rules in the future as humans degrade. So if this is true, that means Supermundane view is not entirely necessary, let alone mundane view, and nothing is set in stone.

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

Then it doesn’t matter if they accept it. Although as I said the other day, I think believing it can be useful for certain groups of people (depending on time, place, culture, etc.) so that should answer your question at the end of your post.

I think it pertinent that those who spearheaded Phenomenological Buddhism didn’t see a clash between that interpretation of the Dhamma and accepting kamma & rebirth. Perhaps it is not I who misunderstands Phenomenological Buddhism? On kamma & rebirth being useful, that of course can be argued. It would however make the Buddha a tad deceitful, since he would be claiming to know things that he didn’t really know or believe in himself (for it’s just a useful carrot & stick). That is of course possible, and a sceptic would argue that. If someone though believes that the Buddha was awakened and so never lied, based on that assumption it’s not really solid argument.

There’s many monks who believe that a lot of the training in the path is optional, for example Ven Dhammavuddho says that the precepts, virtue, Samadhi can entirely be skipped and that some people in the suttas were able to skip the entire training and instantly attain Arahantship, but that it depends on the person on a case by case situation. Just like the Buddha said there will be more training rules in the future as humans degrade. So if this is true, that means Supermundane view is not entirely necessary, let alone mundane view, and nothing is set in stone.

Ok, but lots of people claim lots of weird and wonderful things about the Dhamma. On MN 117, I don’t think you really understand the Abhidhammic underpinnings of that particular sutta. Supramundane view occurs with supramundane Jhāna (as opposed to mundane Jhāna), at the path moment where the singular unconditioned sabhāva-dhamma (nibbāna) is glimpsed. Notice that MN 117 frames the “supramundane” in terms of meditation there. It’s not some view you adopt in relation to mundane right view. It’s an Abhidhammic technical term relating to how awakening occurs, according to Theravāda.

[Thito]

@Ceisiwr

I think it pertient that those who spearheaded Phenomenological Buddhism didn’t see a clash between that interpretation of the Dhamma and accepting kamma & rebirth.

Not really, a variety of experiences happen to a variety of people. Just because it happens to 2 people doesn’t mean it must happen to everyone. The Buddha and Sariputta were equally Arahants but had two different paths to getting there, one which did not involve knowing rebirth. You can even see that when Anuruddha explains to Sariputta that his headache is a result of being attacked by a Yakkha, which Sariputta can’t see, Sariputta shrugs and moves on.

@Ceisiwr

I don’t think you really understand the Abhidhammic underpinnings

Nope, I don’t understand Abhidhamma, nor do I intend to.

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

Not really, a variety of experiences happen to a variety of people. Just because it happens to 2 people doesn’t mean it must happen to everyone. The Buddha and Sariputta were equally Arahants but had two different paths to getting there, one which did not involve knowing rebirth. You can even see that when Anuruddha explains to Sariputta that his headache is a result of being attacked by a Yakkha, which Sariputta can’t see, Sariputta shrugs and moves on.

That doesn’t have anything to do with what I said really, since I was talking about the compatibility of Phenomenological Buddhism and accepting (or knowing) rebirth & kamma.

Nope, I don’t understand Abhidhamma, nor do I intend to.

If you had learnt something about it, you wouldn’t have made the mistake in your reading of MN 117. You wouldn’t have, because you would have seen what is actually being referred to. It’s good to learn other systems of though within Buddhism IMO, as it can greatly inform your own understanding of the Dhamma. Even if you find the other is in error, that too enlightens us a little bit more.

[Thito]

@Ceisiwr

If you had learnt something about it, you wouldn’t have made the mistake in your reading of MN 117

Ok, and someone who has studied Mahayana texts can overrule your interpretation and say if you had studied Mahayana you would have interpretated MN 117 differently as well.

I’m passed the point of endless interpretations, but they may be useful for others.

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

Ok, and someone who has studied Mahayana texts can overrule your interpretation and say if you had studied Mahayana you would have interpretated MN 117 differently as well.

I’m past the point of endless interpretations, but they may be useful for others.

Not really. A Mahāyānist (well, a well educated one) would have also noticed the Abhidhamma within it. Mahāyānists are usually well versed in Abhidhamma, although more of the Vaibhāṣika kind.

[Thito]

Mahayana was an example, you could also replace that example with those Sri Lankans who believe everything in the suttas happened in Sri Lanka. The point being, anyone can use any text to add a layer of interpretation, in order to use it as a stick to beat others with and call their interpretation a mistake.

[Ceisiwr]

@Thito

Mahayana was an example, you could also replace the example with those Sri Lankans who believe everything in the suttas happened in Sri Lanka. The point being, anyone can use any text to add a layer of interpretation, in order to use a stick to beat others with and call their interpretation a mistake.

It’s no more interpretative than seeing the Abhidhamma thinking at work in MN 111. Someone who doesn’t know anything about Abhidhamma would miss the signs. Someone who is well versed in it would see it, just like when we see Sarvāstivādin sutras that talk about dhammas existing in the three times. This is why being well read helps you better understand the foundational texts. Otherwise, you miss what is actually being said in any given text. Context is always key to interpretation.

[Vaddha]

@Thito

Even if you were to attain the 2 supernormal powers of seeing other people being reborn, or your past life memories, that doesn’t necessarily mean in the future this must happen to you. You must make an assumption to close that gap.

This is what knowledge of the four noble truths and dependent origination is. As you’ve referenced Sāriputta, at SN 12.32 he says he knows he will not be reborn / return to a state of existence because the condition for this has been cut off. Moreover at MN 9 it’s clear that right view entails knowing that X will be so long as its condition Y is. The second noble truth is ‘craving which leads to a new life.’ If one has knowledge of the 4NT and recalls their past lives, they will know if they are or are not susceptible to further existence.

This is the whole point of the third knowledge paired with the first two: it provides the proper conditionality to knowledge of past lives and the laws of kamma.

Also: You must make an assumption that you will die. How do you subjectively know you are not immortal if you have never died? How do you know your consciousness is impermanent? Or your body for that matter?

Mettā

[Thito]

Sariputta directly experienced bhavanirodho. Sure he can draw assumptions from that experience, but the experience came first, and the assumptions came second. Assuming rebirth is true has no direct experience in the here and now to support that assumption. As I said, at best, they have indirect experiences (2 psychic powers) to make conclusions from.

I personally don’t have those psychic powers, so it’s not warranted for me to draw such conclusions.

[Vaddha]

@Thito

Sariputta directly experienced bhavanirodho

Ah, but where does it say this? Sāriputta says that a perception arose, and that the perception was “Nibbāna is the cessation of bhava.” At Iti 44 we see which aspect of Nibbāna this is clarified:

What has nothing left over pertains to what follows this life,
Anupādisesā pana samparāyikā,
where all states of existence cease.
Yamhi nirujjhanti bhavāni sabbaso.

A perception cannot be total bhavanirodha, because it would mean that there could be a state of perception outside of samsāra. Note too that the suttas consistently use bhava this way: it is continued existence, or a state of existence / life. What does cease is continued or the production of more existence.

Again, at SN 12.32 Sāriputta clarifies that he dwells experiencing the cessation of upādāna, and that because he knows this is the condition for bhava, he can declare that rebirth and returns to existence have ended.

Mettā

[Thito]

Reverend Ānanda, one time I was staying right here at Sāvatthī in the Dark Forest. There I gained a state of immersion like this. I didn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And I didn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And I didn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet I still perceived.”

“But at that time what did Reverend Sāriputta perceive?”

“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment. The cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment.”

AN 10.7

Only Arahants have that perception. Perhaps if I ever have that perception, then I would be warranted in making the same conclusions Sariputta did about “no further becoming”. Until then, I don’t have those direct experiences to draw those conclusions from.

[Vaddha]

@Thito

perceived that the cessation of continued existence is extinguishment

He perceived that bhavanirodha is Nibbāna. He does not say he dwelled in the cessation of bhava, which is how one talks about directly experiencing the cessation of something (like the defilements, etc.) He does use this language at e.g. SN 12.32 in reference to the defilements. And, again, a perception cannot be the cessation of existence just as it cannot be the cessation of consciousness. It is a perception about those events (X is Y), not one of them which is a contradiction in terms. This is despite the fact that contextually bhava’s usage in the suttas is clearly not a defilement like greed.

@Thito

Only Arahants have that perception

Personally, I’d disagree. It is clear in the suttas that a stream enterer and up knows for themselves that the cessation of bhava is Nibbāna (again, see MN 9). I’ve seen others here express the same opinion that it is accessible to all ariyas (e.g. Ven. Sunyo, I believe in the thread on bhava). This is less relevant to the matter at hand, though. Actually, it is relevant: one perceives their knowledge of this which is transcendental knowledge on the cessation of existence, but one does not dwell in it. This is what a perception of “bhavanirodha is nibbāna” means as well.

Mettā

[Thito]

Either way, I don’t have that perception to draw assumptions from. So I don’t see how your interpretation changes that.

To quote again:

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.

I only go by what I know for myself. I don’t know rebirth for myself, nor do I have psychic powers to draw indirect conclusions about rebirth, nor have I perceived bhavanirodho (or your interpretation) to also draw indirect conclusions from.