Good luck to you as well on your path and may you become stream enterer quickly
Good point @Tusbuddha.
For me this sutta’s explains the right view of a noble, noble right view. For me it comes down to a total understanding from realisation. The wisdom faculty is brought to max. It is not a kind of intellectual understanding of 4 noble truth, food, Paticca Samuppada etc. No, it is all seen and really realised.
That is the difference between this noble right view and mundane right view, i belief.
This noble right view is connected with the goal of Nibbana. I feel these views in MN9 is the Noble right view described earlier above as:
“And what is right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path? It’s the wisdom—the faculty of wisdom, the power of wisdom, the awakening factor of investigation of principles, and right view as a factor of the path—in one of noble mind and undefiled mind, who possesses the noble path and develops the noble path. This is called right view that is noble, undefiled, transcendent, a factor of the path”.
Do you agree?
The view there is an afterlife is different. It is profitable to view things that way. Even if one has no direct knowledge of afterlife is it good to view it that way there is afterlife, etc. This is an intellectual kind of knowing, like a worldview. Yes, and the sutta’s clearly state that there are worldviews, like materialism, that are really not profitable and not connected with merit. Note, that all the mundane wrong views Buddha described were exactly the views Kesakambali taught to the world. He was considered to be a materialist.
The sutta’s make clear that one has to drop such wrong mundane views and embrace the worldview of rebirth etc. Why?
Views are very important because based on views there arises a certain intention, speech, acts. It is said that if the view is wrong…" whatever bodily, verbal, or mental deeds they undertake in line with that view, their intentions, aims, wishes, and choices all lead to what is unlikable, undesirable, disagreeable, harmful, and suffering"
(AN1.314, see also AN1.315)
That is a very strong statement, right?
So, i belief we must understand this statement to see why we need right views.
I do not really question that there is something like re-birth, a continuation, an afterlife. I also do not question that even the knowledege of emancipation is not different from the knowledge that 're-birth has ended…etc. Many sutta’s describe this. In some way, one, apparantly knows that re-birth as ended when the heart is purified, totally.
But i still think that one can also practice the dhamma, purifying ones heart, developing love and wisdom, in a way that rebirth and a beginningless and endless samsara, are not such a motivational forces.
3 Likes
I have learned this is also described in Abhidhamma. Sutta’s also describe this.
Because there is a correlation between taking birth in a certain mental state in real time and after death. Many sutta’s describe this mechanism.
People, for example, in the time of the Buddha choose to live as cows or dogs and developed all dog- and cowlike mentallity and behaviour. They thought this would lead to heaven. Buddha made clear that if one as a human in real time takes on all the habits and mentallities of a cow or dog, one will be born among cows and dogs! So, what one does and feeds in real time is very important because it shapes, as it were, the future.
Sutta’s describe also positive connections between real time birth and birth after death. For example, if one develops jhana in this very life, one in real time gets a taste of how deva existence is. And if one does not loose this abillity to enter jhana at death, because of the strong kamma of jhana, one will be born among deva’s. Here again this correspondance between taking birth in real time and after death.
So, this correspondence between birth in real time and after death is, i belief, part of the basics of Buddha-Dhamma, especially on kamma and rebirth.
If one does not take birth anymore in real time due to an absent grasping at habitual forces like hate and greed, well then there is in real time no becoming anymore, no birth, no decay of what would otherwise be born, no dying of what otherwise would be born when there would be grasping.
3 Likes
no I still have craving which sources duality of like and dislike
I have delusion too I focus on gratification instead of drawback of conditioned phenomena
but could the advance teaching be taught without basic teaching ?
and what’s the enlightenment if not the ending of greed,hate and delusion ?
and I don’t find there’s relationship between the ending of greed,hate and delusion with believing or not believing in rebirth and kamma, there’s no correlation at all, delusion is if we crave the conditioned and not knowing the drawback of impermanence of the conditioned and the escape of the conditioned which is cessation of that very craving and not knowing that cessation of suffering could be achieved by cessation of craving
people could be free of greed,hate and delusion without even believing in rebirth and kamma hence no need to understand rebirth and kamma, it may help us but it’s not necessary to us
people could be free from greed,hate and delusion for 1 mind moment or 1 planksecond but they still can’t be called as freed, it’s the permanent non arising of greed,hate and delusion that Buddha means in suttas when declared someone is arahant
that’s my current understanding
much metta 
1 Like
Hi @Donabedian, thank you for your reply to explain precisely in clear terms your understanding of the First Noble Truth about Suffering.
Taking your above understanding of the First Noble Truth, could you please again, explain precisely in clear terms in max 500 words:
How to properly respond to the criticism from the 3 following types of people:
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to pursue the pleasure in the senses to the highest. Example: kings and billionaires and also people on the way to purse the path to kings/billionaire. Your proposed solution is too silly to them because it’s clear that they have a better solution to dukkha until the end of their life.
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to pursue self-mortification to the highest measures. Example: the ascetics who practice self-mortification in very extreme ways. Your solution is considered too mild and below-standard to them. To their eyes, your eradicating of craving and clinging is not worthy enough to claim any valuable knowledge because you can’t endure the hardship as they did. They are the ones who truly eradicate clinging and craving while you are just an amateur.
-
People who believe in the same understanding of the First Noble Truth as you do above: Instead of choosing to solve the problem of dukkha by eradicating craving and clinging, they choose instead to live a super normal life and practice doing merits here and there to their own likings. Your solution is considered redundant to them. When their death (or their parent’s death) is near, they choose to inject a dose of drug to solve the problem of dukkha. Your proposed solution will also vanish into thin air when they got Alzheimer’s disease. Why bother to understand and waste their time to follow your proposed solution?
Finally, do you think that the Buddha at his time could persuade so many types of persons (not just such 3 types of persons above) while claiming that he is the BEST in the World by proposing such a version of the Noble Truths as you did?
itipi so bhagavā arahaṁ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṁ buddho bhagavā.
2 Likes
We might had read it too fast. Let’s read it again:
And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is the end of suffering.”
You will not be here. Here refers to this life.
Hereafter refers to after death.
In between the two refers to the in-between states between rebirth.
Bhante sujato’s translation: When you’re not ‘in that’, you won’t be in this world or the world beyond or between the two.
Clearly the Buddha was referring to rebirth here. So even the advanced teachings build upon the basics.
For many from Hinduism background, they have basically the 10 mundane right views, especially on kamma, rebirth and the sages with direct insight into these as taken for granted. When they ask Buddhists questions about the Buddha’s path, I found that I really can just answer in brief and they got understand things very well. Before that, I was puzzled why so many suttas had the Buddha given very brief answers to profound questions, without elaboration. Turns out the questioners has sufficient basis to understand the answers.
For those with western education background, there is the underlying worldview of materialism. Rebirth is not taught as a fact in schools. Science is often hailed as the ultimate standard, until some developed the attitude of scientism. A lot of learning and basics are needed for these western educated people if they are not in the culture which has buddhist concepts.
The Chinese has been shaped by Buddhism so much that our common phrase includes past life dunno what debt i had incur to you, this life i pay back. Or see you next life.
Rebirth as the concept becomes a critical part to be able to understand about Buddhism or else it is just a self help programme, not the liberation from cosmic injustice of kamma and the cruelty of beginningless rebirth. Ending finally what might not have an end otherwise.
It could be said that not seeing that unenlightened people are subject to rebirth is a form of delusion. A delusion of falling into annihilation thinking for materialists. For God based believers the delusion is to more commonly fall into eternalism thinking.
Yes, one can practice the path without much emphasis on rebirth. But if there’s a fundamental misunderstanding about rebirth up to the point of not wanting to acknowledge that even enlightened ones acknowledges that unenlightened people undergoes rebirth, then there could be a danger here.
Danger of not actually attaining to the enlightenment of the Buddha. There’s plenty of Hindu sages who claims enlightenment. Do we acknowledge that they are? If they don’t follow the noble 8fold path, we say, wrong view leads to wrong knowledge and wrong liberation.
Wrong liberation is where one is not enlightened, one thinks one is enlightened.
You can try to look at r/streamentry in Reddit. So many people self proclaim to be stream winners, when I asked one of them if rebirth is true, they adopt an agnostic view. Later on, another guy from another website whom I trust more, when I ask about this secular stream winner, he said that’s not likely to be real attainment.
The lesson here is not to judge who’s right, but that there’s plenty of subtlety in insight business and plenty of levels. Plenty of disagreements.
Even if a secular Buddhists might attain to stream winning for sure, then can the general Buddhist community trust that? Especially if that so called stream winner wouldn’t want to acknowledge that unenlightened people are in danger of being reborn.
Say if this really is a pathway, then it’s still two issues. Best not to get confused.
Issue 1. It’s possible to become a stream winner by being agnostic about rebirth. Secular Buddhism can be a valid pathway for those too mired into scientism to be most appealing to them.
Issue 2. Rebirth is not true. Buddhism should change to reflect this.
For issue 1, it’s yet to be settled if secular Buddhism can produce stream winners, although I think if you ask people, maybe some will say yes, as long as it’s not active disbelieve, which would fall into wrong view.
Say if it is settled, we have a solid pathway for those who are too deep into scientism to be comfortable of letting that worldview go. Then project that into the future. 200 years later, rebirth evidences has millions of cases, but still ignored and suppressed by academia and the God based religions. Buddhism keeps on shrinking in numbers. Most non God believers practice secular Buddhism. They might ridicule Buddhism for being so backward thinking and clinging to superstition of rebirth.
Until the world condition becomes an utopia, the kids of the secular Buddhists don’t believe in their parents of the awesomeness of stream entry, they prefer to become one with the singularity AI. That’s not better, claimed the parents, but the kids don’t believe in rebirth, don’t want to die and annihilated after death, so they choose their temporary “immortality” in singularity AI upload. The secular Buddhist parents lack the doctrinal tool to convince their kids that that too is impermanent, and it’s not the ultimate end to suffering. Secular Buddhism dies out due to no more attainers. Too bad that in the wake of secular Buddhism’s damage to Buddhism, very few joined in the monastic order and Buddhism can benefit less people for liberation.
Or scientists are finally acknowledging that rebirth is fact, after 80 years of uncomfortable existence side by side, most secular Buddhist returned to the fold of Buddhism. Only extremists are left in the cold, being like flat earthers.
Regardless, given that the whole enterprise of Buddhism is to produce stream winners, these scenarios are not too bad.
What is bad is issue 2. For the secular Buddhists stream winners to have some of their disciples pushing for rebirth is not true and completely take over Buddhism. Their next generation abandons the pursuit of enlightenment due to realization that the path is too hard for most but only some of the most talented ones and they don’t have faith in rebirth to push them through the difficult part of the path.
Ok, sorry got a bit too carried away projecting stories.
Just that even if it is true that one doesn’t need to emphasize on rebirth for liberation, rebirth is still true. One should not use the issue 1 to promote for issue 2. To claim that we don’t need rebirth concept, therefore rebirth not true. Faulty logic.
There also can be the consideration of demographics. Most westerners come into Buddhism are super talented in being able to meditate. And then they can attain so easily. Maybe they had the view that since it’s so easy for them, and they don’t need rebirth concept on their path, they throw it out.
When they try to become a guru, they might find the second generation of people who has past merits who can follow them.
Then after a while, no more. The rest of the people tried meditating, got stuck, gave up. Didn’t believe in the drug like experience of the stream winners, abandoned the path. After all, they reasoned, no next life, why should they try so hard?
Their secular Buddhism became not for the masses.
Whereas Buddhism has a complete teaching. For those who are not yet ready for the path to enlightenment, there’s the path to heaven. For those who would had been spurred on by the dangers of samsara, they might put off effort to become a stream winner compared to those who don’t.
Secular Buddhism is a fine stepping stone into Buddhism. But it’s not the final form of teachings the Buddha meant to give the world. So step on. Come fully into Buddhism. Mature out of the attachment to materialism worldview. After all, one should abandon attachments to even views to become an arahant.
Once the attachments to materialism view is let go of, it becomes much easier to make sense of rebirth and have a facepalm moment of why didn’t I see this obvious thing before?
As it is, denying rebirth is not only against scriptures, it’s also against empirical evidences. Which is why I keep on getting puzzled by secular Buddhists who claims to not believe in rebirth due to kalama sutta, but reject empirical evidences as well, not just rejecting the logical and scriptural support for rebirth. It’s a clear case of double standard.
1 Like
I think that Buddha did go 2 major ways:
-
a Path of Great Effort, of conditioning, a Path of actively applying mind and using and developing all its powers and qualities to adress obsessions, tanha, asava’s, kilesa’s and anusaya in a specific way, i.e. he adressed his heartsache, heart oppressing forces. But he felt, in a way it was no real skill, not liberating. He needed something else.
-
He found the Path of surrender. The power of inactiveness and just seeing or knowing. Whatever Mara did, Buddha did not handle it anymore with specifik skillful means. He did not react on it. In this way he did not feed the demon anymore.
Mara’s army became beaten by doing nothing but observing and knowing and fully embracing all tricks (love). No good to develop, no bad to abandon, at that moment. No unwholesome to abandon, no wholesome to develop. No moral to strive for and immoral to conquer. No level to attain. Nothing to become. Nothing to reject. Nothing to attract. No passion or movement at all. The Noble Path.
Poor Mara, beaten because the Buddha even loved his tricks and did not fight his armies anymore.
Even his beautitful daughters were without change when the Buddha became totally passive, without any passion to react or change anything he experienced. (Green would be their pray!, but that you know).
Doing nothing proofed itself as the ultimate conquerer. Ultimate power. Ultimate liberating.
Can we really expact liberation if we keep dividing our experiences?
2 Likes
Hi @Green. Thank you for your answer.
However, my question was originally meant for @Donabedian and/or anyone currently does not believe in and/or is agnostic about rebirth and/or anyone has a different understanding of rebirth as the conventional sense (such as @Joe.C or @Raftafarian or @Alaray or @Gabriel)
If you want to answer my question in a consistent way, please firstly trace back to my post here and then Donabedian’s answer to understand the context of what I said in the later post .
The first noble truth is a concept of the Buddha which expresses that the religious professionals of his time & place saw an existential problem in being reborn continuously.
It came to 770 words.
-
For the mortal craving sensual pleasure, if they get what they want, they become enraptured in mind. If all goes well with the gamble, one feels whimsical pleasures that covers up or masks the suffering. But if all doesn’t go well, suffering resurfaces. So it’s silly for them to think the endless chasing of sense pleasures will always solve the problem. From trial and error, from experience, the human learns it isn’t a reliable solution. It’s like putting a bandage on a wound, but the bandage lacks adhesive, so the cover eventually falls off. Those kings and billionaires may keep trying to keep the bandage on, only for it to fall off again until they find a better solution.
-
For ascetics who crave/pursue self-mortification, they are like those who approach the dangerous eye of a hurricane. On one hand, it is true that life is filled with unexpected disasters. Even if one does not approach hurricanes like these ascetics, one is subject to encountering storms. It is not wrong for ascetics or seekers to train the mind to be prepared for great tribulations, but there is still no good reason to, amidst immense discontent, pursue and hasten the arrival of those disasters.
Their delusion arises in thinking that the arrival of those hardships will somehow, magically, make suffering vanish. Further, those ascetics oft perform self-mortification because they wish to conquer those hardships to reach a desired state of being, much in the same way a fighter struggles, withstands blows and strikes, yet manages to defeat a stronger opponent to become the new MMA champion. There is a sense of accomplishment, self-aggrandization, pride, pleasure that stems from the victory, but that pleasure too is temporary and addictive. When it fades, the ascetic, if still breathing, will once again crave more difficult hardships to battle. From trial and error, from experience, the human learns it isn’t a reliable solution.
- For those who practice merits here and there, indeed they receive a reward in this very life. That reward is happiness, contentment. Protecting beings brings about relief in the protector. Loving another brings joy. Giving brings about happiness in the giver. Caring for beings brings satisfaction to the caretaker. The wise do indeed praise them. They are recognized as virtuous. Indeed, the making of merit here, in this very life brings about tremendous happiness in giver and recipient, bringing about pleasant states of minds and delaying states of death and loss.
So long as beings are capable of making merit, they may delight in making merit. But if, for whatever reason, they are unable to continue making merit, they suffer. Some suggest that they may wish to take a lethal drug when they get old to relieve their suffering. That practice was common in ancient India. When a householder became old, no longer able to make merit, they would sometimes seek death. Some would aim to die in battle, others would let themselves be eaten by wild animals, while others would march north until the body collapsed from exhaustion. Some would jump off cliffs, others use a blade or poison.
But in the present moment, whilst these individuals are craving death, grasping after non-existence, by poison or blade, by fang or by injury, here in this very life they continue to suffer. Needlessly. In the moment whilst these individuals are craving death, they are also oft torn because in their minds re-arises “self-preservation” that is a desire to live and be free from harm. While not as futile as the pursuit of sense pleasures or mortification, this method is not always a reliable solution.
Alzheimer’s is the decline and decay of mental faculties, but if a seeker has trained the mind not to grasp or crave, even if they forget what the noble truths are called, even if they do not know the eightfold path by name, even if they lose command of language itself, they do not experience dukkha.
As per being agnostic about rebirth, the doctrine of post-mortem or pre-natal rebirth is a doctrine I do take up or put down. Among the various doctrines of afterlives and rebirth, there is nothing that is grasped at or held as “this is the truth” here. Rather, the ‘re-birth’ of “I” and “me” in the mind, here in this life, in this body, is seen as the problem to solve.
I take that Gotama, the sage did not claim to be the best in the world, or the worst, or equal. He had eradicated self-view in its entirety, a feat which aided and persuaded many.
1 Like
I will describe my understanding of Right View based mostly on SN12.15 and to some extent on SN2.26 and AN9.38. I think it is especially well suited to someone like myself who never subscribed to Brahminism and the concept of an unchanging Atman. It also integrates very nicely with Right Samadhi.
“Sir, they speak of this thing called ‘right view’. How is right view defined?”
“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
We either long for life in this world or its end.
The Pali is very awkward here, but the verses at the end of SN2.26 makes this clear.
But when you truly see the origin of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of non-existence regarding the world. And when you truly see the cessation of the world with right understanding, you won’t have the notion of existence regarding the world.
Note: I am going to reverse the order here because I think it reads more naturally and occurs this order in mediation.
When you have seen the inner world cease during deep states of samadhi with understanding, you will no longer long for the world.
When you have seen the inner world arise with understanding as you leave deep states of samadhi, you will no longer long for its end.
AN9.38 tells us deep states of samadhi are the end of the world.
The world is for the most part shackled by attraction, grasping, and insisting.
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing.
When you no longer long for the world and, consequently, yourself, you see clearly that the inner world and self that arises is suffering and that the inner world and self that ceases is the end of suffering.
Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
This is how right view is defined.
Direct knowledge of this is Right View.
The remainder of the sutta basically just reiterates in different terms.
With regard to how to sell the dharma to the three individuals you describe, I think you want to say I need rebirth and karma to seal the deal. This fails because the fact that it might be useful, does not make it so.
That said even the rich and self indulgent suffer and the dharma still makes sense. That is why there are Secular Buddhists.
2 Likes
Well said.
One other point to be introduced is that historically, there have always been Buddhists who drew from the Indian skeptical (similar to secular) tradition. Sāriputta and Moggallāna were prior students of Sañjaya and there is a strong skeptical element in the suttas of the Aṭṭhakavagga.
Not only are the suttas of the Aṭṭhakavagga of the Sutta Nipata among the oldest stratum in the canon for their metrical composition, use of antiquated vocabulary terms, absence of stock phrases, and for their early commentary within the Khuddaka’s Niddessa, but also because the recitation of the Aṭṭhakavagga as dhamma in the Buddha’s presence is referenced in the Udana (which is likely also part of the earlier stratum), which rules out the idea that it was a later formation or non-Buddhist content that snuck its way into the sutta pitaka.
Given the sheer rarity of canonical self-references and the early Niddessa commentary, the evidence suggests that we can take what the Aṭṭhakavagga suggests seriously and give it the attention it deserves.
And what are suggested in the suttas there?
Namely (amongst others):
- The non-formation, non-adoption, and shaking off of views
- Not taking up or putting down views
- Not following factions among those who hold views
- Non-adherence to doctrines even
- Not depending on knowledge
- Not taking up opinions
- Blowing out the self
- Not clinging to rules/rituals or over-focusing on purity
- Abandoning desire for future existences
- Not clinging to the world
- Going to the far shore
“With barb/dart pulled out, living vigilantly, he [the sage] does not long for this world or the next” Snp 4.2
"That’s why a mendicant ought not rely on what’s seen, heard, or thought, or on precepts and vows.
Nor would they form a view about the world through a notion or through precepts and vows. They would never represent themselves as “equal”, nor conceive themselves “worse” or “better”.
What was picked up has been set down and is not grasped again; they form no dependency even on notions. They follow no side among the factions, and believe in no view at all.
One here who has no wish for either end—for any form of existence in this life or the next—has adopted no dogma at all after judging among the teachings.
For them not even the tiniest idea is formulated here regarding what is seen, heard, or thought. That brahmin does not grasp any view—how could anyone in this world judge them?
They don’t make things up or promote them, and don’t subscribe to any of the doctrines. The brahmin has no need to be led by precept or vow; gone to the far shore, one such does not return." - snp 4.5
The focus is more so on abandoning desire for future states of existence for the purpose of quenching and peace in the present than encouraging the formation of views, which suits the practice of secular or skeptical buddhists today.
2 Likes
I belief that for a Buddha and others re-birth is not an opinion nor a view, but it is seen directly as truth of life. I think that needs attention.
The idea behind the need for right mundane worldview is, i belief, that without right understanding of this world, one does not think, speak and act in a way which conforms with how life is. That mismatch is the basic of inner conflict. It causes suffering.
So even in a mundane way one really needs right views to not make a mess of life. For example,
If i have the care for animals or humans and have wrong views about what leads to their welbeing, i create a mess. I nead some right understanding, right view to work for their welbeing.
Anyway, I cannot belief the Buddha did not care about mundane views at all because also in a mundane way suffering and the end of suffering, or welbeing and the path to welbeing is connected with right understanding, with right views.
2 Likes
Yes, but i think…Noble Right View, or the view of a Noble. This is different from the series mundane right views. (MN117).For example, you en I can and might belief in rebirth but that does not mean we have noble right view.
Mundane right views (like there is an afterlife), just like good choices (or meritorious intentional formations), do not lead to the end of suffering. At least that’s how i have understood this.
It does not break the bond with samsara. One can say both merit and demerit are bonds. The bond of the heavenly realms and the bond of lower realms. Results of both are also impermanent. Some texts from Dhammapada (translation Sujato):
One whose mind is uncorrupted,
whose heart is undamaged,
who’s given up right and wrong,
alert, has nothing to fear.
Here one sees that it also talks about giving up right, not only wrong. In my opinion it comes down to seeing that also right or wholesome or moral intentions are not really pure behaviour.
I have also seen an interpretation that ones right views and intentions become really no bond when those are connected with an understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta. I like the interpretation that what comes straight from your heart, and goes as it were beyond your disposition, does not become a bond. But maybe this is a kind of idealistic and romantic. I like it.
But one living a spiritual life,
who has banished both merit and evil,
who wanders having assessed the world,
is said to be a mendicant.
They’ve given up human bonds,
and gone beyond heavenly bonds;
detached from all attachments:
that’s who I call a brahmin.
Regarding deep states of samadhi. I have understood one does not have to have the ability to enter arupa jhana’s and the cessation of perception and feeling to have noble right view and realise Nibbana.
At this moment i cannot provide the exact sutta.
2 Likes
@Green ,
The canon is very inconsistent on the role of samadhi. I think that may have a lot to do with what version of self a convert was enamored of.
I think that Brahmins with their belief in an unchanging Atman needed a different technique that would demonstrate impermanence of all five aggregates.
I think the “person in the world” version I picked works best for me as a westerner. SA301 is the Chinese version of the variant I chose and it uses that “person in the world” phrase.
1 Like
Hi @Donabedian, thank you for your reply
I must say upfront that your replies to the criticisms from the mentioned 3 types of people are not adequate and not convincing.
-
For the kings, billionaires: They, by definition, already solved your proposed type of suffering in this life. You don’t understand yet the implication in the definition of this type of people so your argument about “bandage lacks adhesive” is totally missing the point. In this life, their power and wealth, by definition, are guaranteed to solve your proposed type of suffering. You are the one who is silly under their eyes and also a coward without courage to pursue wealth and power to solve the dukkha as you proposed. Their so-called bandage does not lack adhesive at all, it sticks very well until their life ends. Without the rebirth case referring to the next life, you have literally nothing to reply to their criticism. The kings can even execute you for being a pathetic fool and for defying their power.
-
For the ascetics: They, by definition, already exceeded your proposed way of solving such type of suffering in this life. With their practice, they can abide in such sphere of neither perception nor non-perception without experiencing a slight trouble with your proposed type of suffering until the end of this life. Again, you don’t understand yet the implication in the definition of this type of people so your argument about “fighting another MMA match” is totally missing the point. They, by definition, no need to fight any more match of MMA, they are already uncontested champions who experience very high bliss in this life, until their death. With their practice, they can see their previous lives and also can see your previous lives while you are here denying rebirth. With their practice, they can also read your mind and see clearly that you are still full of fetters while boasting that your way is better than theirs. They also know about the existence that does not require physical body and abiding in that sphere daily while you are asserting that an untrained/unenlightened person goes poof after the physical body is destroyed. Meanwhile, what kind of super power do you have or can show them? You are like a totally naked amateur in front of them while trying to persuade them that your proposed solution is better. Again, without the rebirth case referring to the next life, you have literally nothing to reply to their criticism. The ascetics will look with contempt at your way as an amateur and can even wreak their rage on you for looking down to their practice.
-
For the common people who use drugs: They, by definition, already thought that they got the better solution for your proposed type of suffering in this life: drug. Their solution is simple, no need to waste time to study and practice as you do. Again, you don’t understand yet the implication in the definition of this type of people so your argument about “not always a reliable solution” is totally missing the point. Their solution works every time, everywhere for everyone. Again, without the rebirth case referring to the next life, you have literally nothing to reply to their criticism. Word of caution: if you displease them while replying to their criticism, they can give you your own jab of lethal drug while yelling “Let me help you firstly to solve your problem of suffering in the much better sure fire way”. You on the other hand, by definition of your proposed solution to such type of suffering, can’t refuse their “help”.
Finally, you missed the Pali text in my post and denied that the Buddha claimed that he is the best in the world (teacher of man and gods, knower of the world, the World-honored one, etc.) when he persuaded all kinds of people. As shown above, without the rebirth case referring to the next life, thinking of persuading these types of people by “eradicating self view in its entirety” as you said, will only bring upon yourself: humiliation, futility and danger. With your limited understanding of rebirth, you are bringing down the Buddha’s teaching to an embarrassing situation when confronting with such criticisms: That is a terrible mistake that deeply affects your spiritual growth, I must tell you so. No one claims being a Buddhist can distort the Buddha’s teaching as such.
Lastly, with metta 
, I would like to recommend that you should stop denying right away rebirth and should stop distorting the Buddha’s teaching by saying that he only taught rebirth in psychological sense. Instead, you should remain agnostic on rebirth and refer to your understanding of rebirth as psychological sense as yours alone, NOT of the Buddha.
2 Likes
I have not ad hominemed anyone and I ask you to retract that accusation.
An ad hominem is when one says another is wrong because they are “x” or “Y” or makes some insult. There is no insulting that has taken place.
Secular humanists include those who would identify as skeptics and those skeptical of religion or religious or supernatural claims. Yes, not all secular people are skeptics. Some are materialists but many are indeed skeptics and not materialists.
The “evidence” for rebirth from the links you cited is not conclusive. You remain fixated and fettered on the view that 1) those children in the studies recall past lives and 2) those past lives were real.
- and 2) both may be false.
Those children may instead be hallucinating, creating false memories, or making up stories, much in the same way children do. I have younger cousins and they make up imaginary friends and stories all the time. Those children may have been taught or instructed to say certain things to the researchers by their parents. People, including children and parents, lie all the time for $ and attention.
Or 1-2 may be true, I’ll give you that. I need not cling to one view over the other, then long to get others to accept my view.
Also, I know you want to believe that your hypothesis is correct, but skeptics are not so eager to jump and believe in one hypothesis over others. After all, dozens of people each year claim to be the rebirth/reincarnation of Jesus, Gotama Buddha, and other historical figures. People are always making things up. I’ve encountered people who have said I was such and such in a past life- usually they want something from you.
Here are what some skeptics write about Stevenson.
http://skepdic.com/stevenson.html
One person online who is familiar with Stevenson’s work writes that the strongest argument against his research is the fact that…
“in the vast majority of these cases, the kid was already in contact with the family he was related to in the past life. There are few, if any, instances where people immediately picked up the phone to call him and have him verify the information himself, of course. But it does make it impossible to know for sure what the kid himself remembers, and what he learned while in contact with the family.”
So some kid claims to be the reincarnation of person X, but it’s found out that the kid and the kid’s family is already close to and in contact with the family of person X. That’s a big red flag right there. The family of person X would obviously talk about Person X and all the details would be passed onto the kid.
1 Like
Please keep in mind that you all should agree to disagree at some point in your debate.
From our FAQ…
2 Likes
Hi @Gabriel, thank you for your reply.
I interpret your answer as: you don’t state your personal view about rebirth (in conventional sense, not only psychological sense as Donabedian proposed). However, you still agree that the Buddha himself did teach about problem with rebirth and also how to deal with that problem.
Is my interpretation correct? If not, please rephrase your answer more clearly.
1 Like
That is a problem of semantics. A truth is still a view, at the end of the day.
And as pointed out elsewhere, there are early suttas that claim right view is actually holding to no views or doctrines at all, not adopting or putting down any view, being completely detached.
In any case, for all intents and purposes, I believe the ‘rebirth’ of “I” “me” and the self can end in this very life, that is possible to experience it in this very body, that is to say quenching and the state of peace when
"being a thinker, he would put a stop to the whole root of what is called diversification, “I am” " - Snp 4.14
When that occurs no more "me"s or “selves” are reborn or re-arise in the mind of the arahant. There is no more rebecoming in the mind. Those processes have been blown out and the mind is liberated.
Perhaps indeed, this process leads to an end of literal rebirth (if it exists), but if rebirth is understood in terms of the arising of self-concept and identity view, then the literal view is not needed or can be rephrased as.
There are countless beings in whom selves and "I"s arise. There are beings in the past in whom selves and "I"s arose. There will be beings in the future in whom selves and Is will arise. But here, in the mind of arahant, there is no further birth of selves and Is. That process has ended and the self has been blown out.
1 Like