Secular Buddhists represents scientism

Perhaps this should be stickied with each post, but the suttas are a not a homogenous collection and, as a result, one is bound to encounter contradictions. There are suttas where the Buddha is portrayed as claiming he is best in the world and there are suttas where Gotama claims the arahant, the sage, does not engage in that sort of behavior and has abandoned all forms of conceit. Consult the atthakavagga for the emphasis on how the awakened sage does not claim to be better than anyone or equal or lesser than anyone in the world. They don’t engage in those sorts of processes that create rather than quench a self.

  1. Perhaps there is a lack of familiarity with kings or billionaires, but many of them are indeed miserable. They chase sensual highs and pleasures and then crash. Depression is at an all time high in the western, industrialized, wealthy world. Their bandage does indeed lack adhesive, as if it didn’t, they would all be perfectly content. They’re not. They suffer in this very life because they have not put an end to the canker that is “I am”. They have not blown out the self, and allow "me"s and “identity view” to arise again and again. Because they allow "me"s to arise, they begin to crave states of existence. And because they crave states of existence, they suffer.

They worry about what will happen after the body decomposes. They form views about what happens and that causes them anxiety and worry. They are so worried about the future and the next life or lacktherof, that they fail to realize the cessation of suffering and the quenching of self can occur within this very life.

  1. You assume ascetics can abide in that sphere without experiencing trouble. That simply is not always the case. These meditative attainments and states are temporary. If the ascetic can maintain it, they feel relieved, but the moment that ability goes away and they are unable to, suffering resurfaces. I assure you that starving the body like a Jain is not a blissful activity. It is incredibly painful. Let them execute this body, it won’t bring about the cessation of dukkha or help them.

With their practice, they can see their previous lives and also can see your previous lives while you are here denying rebirth.

If one has memories of lives, be real memories or fake memories, if they cling to those lives and say “mine”, they have not put an end to “me-making”. Rebirth/rebecoming is still taking place in their minds, whenever they say this was me or I was this. Memory is a sankhara. When one clings to a sankhara as self, including past self, or as belonging to oneself they have not attained quenching.

The memories, thoughts, feelings, whatever arises in the body are not “one’s memories” or “your memories”. They are inherently selfless, and belong to no one even if they are clung to or claimed as “mine”.

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.

Let them attempt to read minds. The knowledge of what arises in this mind won’t bring them any closer to quenching. It won’t bring them any closer to dukkha’s cessation. I do not crave any super power or state of existence with a superpower. Many crave that, but that craving is not helpful. Instead I point out the arising of self in the mind, in this very life, and the problems it causes. There is no needed to be so fixated on the theory or idea of rebirths in the next life if the self is constantly being reborn and is experiencing becoming and stress and death in this very life. Here. Now.

It’s better to deal with the problems one is facing right now, in the present, than theorize about problems of the future or worry about problems in the past. And the ascetic way of dealing with those problems is flawed, but experience itself is enough of a teacher in this regard.

Let them wreak their rage, it won’t bring them any closer to ending dukkha.

  1. Have you taken drugs? I assure you the solution is not reliable and works everytime. I’ve worked with and befriended addicts. I’ve seen people who are high on this drug or high on that drug. They don’t always experience a “good trip”. Some go mad or suffer anxieties. Others suffer pains or begin seeing things that aren’t there. It’s not always a pleasant experience. It’s incredibly inconsistent. The solution to use drugs to end dukkha is not reliable.

If they are displeased and wish to jab the lethal drug into this body, just know that their act will not bring upon the cessation of dukkha.

Indeed, we have some suttas where Gotama is portrayed as the best in the world, and suttas where Gotama is portrayed as failing to convince people and one who doesn’t boast or create any form of self view “I’m the best or I’m better”, none of that. The sutta pitaka is not the work of a single author.

Let humiliation and futility fall upon me. Praise and humiliation are temporary and should not be craved or feared. If one doesn’t put an end to self view in its entirety, one will never be quenched and experience the state of peace known as quenching.

Samana ORsEnTURVI, I will have to agree to disagree about your appraisal of my spiritual growth or your opinions about what my understanding of rebirth is or your accusations that I distort Gotama’s teaching.

The understanding of rebirth as a psychological process, as a process of me-making, rather than literal comes from my own study of the suttas and practice. Even if both literal and psychological interpretations end up true, the latter is more important than the former for quenching in this life.

Did I deny rebirth? There is a difference between denial and non-adoption of doctrines, dogmas, and views. If you wish to understand the position I hold, I kindly ask you consult the suttas of the atthakavagga. Shaking off views and doctrines, one can focus on ending craving, me-making, and reaching the far shore of peace.

2 Likes

That’s right. I’m not even myself interested in my personal view about rebirth.

That’s the conclusion from my research so far. The issue of rebirth, aka the first truth, would be the same for most religious professionals in Magadha/Kosala. I can even well imagine that truths 2-3 were not particularly unique, many ascetics were targeting their desires at that time. Truth 4 would be specifically Buddhist, but not something that the Buddha would just teach anyone and everyone.

As I understand it, he wouldn’t tell everyone to end rebirth and the path to it, but only/mostly the talented individuals who then became monastics.

Culturally, I didn’t grow up with the rebirth belief. And I’m not an aspiring monastic. So I don’t see why I should burdon myself with a religious dogma I’m not intrinsically convinced of. And I find the proselytizing mindset irritating - why convince people of one’s ‘truths’? I have no problem with someone interpreting the Buddha’s teaching differently. If they have taken sufficient sources as the base for their interpretation I like when someone comes to a different conclusion.

1 Like

I think the Pali Canon should be thought of as the Pali Canons. The problem is that they are presented as one. Its like the Christian Bible. In one gospel Jesus keeps the Old Testament laws and one he does not. They even differ on the day he died. It is a monument to cognitive dissonance that fundamentalist can’t see the contradictions. Proof texting across the many Pali Canons is tricky business.

I often compare it to going to a garage sale and buying a puzzle and discovering someone just dumped pieces from many puzzles into one box. Some people notice that pieces vary in thickness and approximate size and others don’t.

I think subconsciously people realize this and stick to the suttas they think are genuine and just ignore the rest or they jump though hoops to harmonize them. I personally stick to suttas the I think best illuminate the Eightfold Path. I look for consistency and coherence.
That is not to say I disregard the rest. I just treat them differently.

3 Likes

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/secular-buddhists-represents-scientism/23654/59?u=ngxinzhao

I think it’s better to make a new topic for this super long reply, can put like essay category?

I am still halfway through it, so far it’s very good. I doubt if anyone had read it fully, unless they tell you they did. It does addresses a lot of the issues, but too long.

1 Like

That reply is an uncredited copy and paste of Ajahn Geoff’s book, which @Tusbuddha did put in a new topic here

3 Likes

Hi @Donabedian

Suppose you have children. I do not know, but suppose you have. Is that in the end of the day just a view? Is it really questionable, or do you, at that point, begin to deceive yourself and others and become a sceptic, a philosopher? In denial? Lost in concepts, words, phrases, logic, reaonings, an imagined world, escaping reality, evasive by means of reasonings?

I think such reactions are really nonsense and damaging too.

I read Ajahn Mun, a Theravada Thai forest teacher, like the Buddha also had contacts with others beings than humans and animals. For him this was normal. I feel the risk in your way of thinking is that one becomes judgemental and will start doubting all, and at that same time making such persons suspicious. Like they are sick people. Deluded. And like I am the only person who knows what is real and unreal. Like I am the true knowledge-judge. I see this as problematic mentallity. Very conceited, closed fist. I do not say you have, but do you see this too?

Yes, that is called Noble right view and is very different from mundane right views like ‘there i an afterlife’, ‘there are arahant who know this and the other world’, ‘there is kamma and result of kamma’ etc.

2 Likes

For me this is about letting go. For a deluded mind, a sense of ‘I am’ exist and is based on what is being experienced, and also vice versa. The mind works as a mirror. In the morning you see your own face and the reflection in the mirror confirms ‘I exist’. In the same way there is an inner mirroring. "There are perceptions, so ‘I exist’ and also ’ I exist’ because there are perceptions’. 'There are feelings, so “I exist” and vice versa.

When with progressive cessation reflections of mind cease also progressively, it is not that one ceases progressively too. Impossible! That is our fear rooted in delusion.

But i belief that when the reflections or formations of mind end progressively, one becomes more and more oneself. All what is alien ends. What remains is the mirror without reflections. This is also called the knowing aspect of the mind.

Now one really sees that "this is not mine, this is not me, this is not myself’ in regard to all what is being experienced (all reflections) is not a theory, is not some skillful means, but it is seen as truth now.

But it is very hard to see this truth, Dhamma, because we are so afraid loosing ourselves when mind becomes progressively still, subtle, unburned. We fear it. Really. In a strange way we fear Dhamma, Buddha, Sangha. We fear being unburdened because since time without discernable beginning the burden is felt as Me and mine. We are identitief with the burden, with pain. It is like our sense of existence is most felt when body and mind is burdened.

Therefor, loosing the burden is for us like loosing ourselves.

1 Like

I think this is very true. We might differ on the why. I have a naturalistic world view so I see this in evolutionary terms. Conscious organisms in a hostile environment/world do not see the world objectively. Everything is valued in terms of its potential impact on the organism’s ability to survive and pass its genes onto future generations. These values are expressed in terms of shades of pleasant and unpleasant. There is even a mental object representing the organism. We call it a “self”.

Metaphorically speaking, evolution does not want organisms to be happy. It wants organism/selves to survive and pass on their genes. I think that fear we sometimes get when entering samadhi is a defense mechanism to prevent a conscious organism from seeing through the illusion of self in the world. Organisms in a hostile environment cannot afford to be indifferent.

1 Like

Yes, in your approach it is not skillfull, wise at all, to to see rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana as not Me and not mine.

1 Like

Hi @Donabedian, thank you for your reply.

I really don’t understand why you keep changing the definitions of the 3 types of people in our discussion to suit your own arguments. First time that happens, I can say that it’s because you don’t have the knowledge to understand the definitions. But after the 2nd time, when I have already pointed out explicitly with the bold highlighting in my post, you still attempt to change the definition and go ahead to give arguments for something else totally different. In the case anyone wants to change any definition (to something broader, narrower, etc.) then we need to mutually agree on that first, don’t you think that way should be done for a meaningful discussion?

Because you gave arguments on your own definition of the terms in discussion, I maintain that your replies are off the points.

You are thinking that you are not holding any view but you are actually AT LEAST clinging 4 below views very dearly:

  1. You hold the view that the Buddha taught about rebirth only in a restricted psychological sense.
    Why? Because: when you are under rightful criticism by other people and scholars such as @Gabriel also gave the conclusion of his research, you still cling so much that you can’t let that view go but instead choose to change the definition in the discussion to evade the rightful criticisms.
  2. You hold the view that there is no literal rebirth.
    Why? Because: you have not seen for yourself your own literal death. Instead, you only fantasize such an idea without directly experiencing it. You don’t know the how part, the why part and the why not part.
    For a person who directly sees for himself previous lives through meditation: that person does not hold a view on literal rebirth because he already directly seen it, he understands the how he sees part, the why he sees part and the why others not see part.
    For a person who has faith in the Buddha who taught rebirth in literal sense: that person does not hold a view on literal rebirth because he understands the how he believes part, the why he believes part and the why he believes not part.
  3. You hold the view that you are currently have no view whatsoever when you are hypnotizing yourself with “no-I”, “no-mine”, “no-self”, “no-me making”, “no-I am”, etc.
    Why? Because: you think that approach alone in this life is enough to end rebirth but you forgot that particular knowledge is reserved only at the arahant level. Again, sadly another fantasy from your side that you can fake the arahant level until you make it.
    On the way to your fantasized arahant level, how did you miss the other stages of stream-entry, once returner and non-returner? If you didn’t miss those 3 stages, how did you forget that those 3 stages all involve rebirth?
    So, you are actually only faking the knowledge at the arahant level while you yourself are not even a stream-entry and still miserably lost in the wild ocean.
  4. You are holding the view that “rebirth in conventional sense” and “not-self” are mutually exclusive while they are NOT mutually exclusive.
    Why? Because you are ignoring available sources of knowledge out there to upgrade yourself and you can’t let that view go while you are too busy faking the arahant level.

I repeat for the 2nd and also the last time: I strongly recommend you should remain agnostic on rebirth and refer to your understanding of rebirth only as psychological sense as yours alone, NOT of the Buddha. In that way, you let go of your 1st clinging view and therefore you can work to remove the other 3 clinging views, you will still have the chance to see for yourself the direct knowledge of rebirth through meditation following the Buddha’s teaching.

1 Like

Funny, I actually had a similar conversation lately.

The view or statement “I have children” is indeed a view.

It can be broken down. The first component is the generation of self or self concept, manifested in the arising of the I.

The second component is the generation of possession of the concept of possession, manifested in the have.

The third component is the generation of the concept of children. Indeed, the concept of children is still a concept.

The arahant works to end the generation of these concepts in order to bring upon mental tranquility. The thought “I am” does not arise. The arahant does not possess anything or claim as “mine”. And the concept of children are understood to be impermanent sankhara, an abstracted construct that arise and fades in the mind. Abstraction is process by which impermanent phenomena, things, forms etc. are given a sense of separateness, a sense of self or “thing in of itself”, and a name or qualities. The Arahant works to end abstraction, but understands how conventional society is always engaged in it. Indeed, in certain deep states of Samadhi, one may experience an end of abstraction where things feel non-dual, empty even. For example, in those states one could look upon what would be normally called a book but the sense or discernment, that is a book, doesn’t arise or take place. Things feel more “flowey” without strict boundaries to separate some forms from others. I’m sorry if this is difficult to put into words, but it points to the cessation of concepts, words, phrases, etc.

Lost in concepts, words, phrases, logic, reaonings, an imagined world, escaping reality, evasive by means of reasonings? I think such reactions are really nonsense and damaging too.

This isn’t escaping reality, but rather demonstrating how reality is largely in part a constructed process. The goal isn’t to doubt or to affirm, neither to put things down as false or take things up as true but rather to experience the arising and cessation of sankharas, whilst working to quench them.

In that sense, the Therevada monk whose philosophy this resembles is Buddhadasa, who also observes or defines rebirth to be psychological process by which selves/Is are generated rather than a literal process of transmigration. I am less familiar with Ajahn Mun’s teachings.

Indeed, it is possible to interact with the world and what one might abstract as animals or other beings without a sense of "I"s and "you"s beyond what is needed for conventional conversation.

And like I am the only person who knows what is real and unreal. Like I am the true knowledge-judge. I see this as problematic mentallity. Very conceited, closed fist. I do not say you have, but do you see this too?

You are 100% right to see this as a danger. Fortunately it can be remedied by the removal of the I. If one removes the I and I am, who is there to know truth? No one. That process has been blown out.

Yes, that is called Noble right view and is very different from mundane right views like ‘there i an afterlife’, ‘there are arahant who know this and the other world’, ‘there is kamma and result of kamma’ etc.

I think that distinguishment occurs later in buddhist history and evolution and originally wasn’t present. That being said, the arahants obtain knowledge derived from sense faculties, but that knowledge isn’t geared to find out ultimately what exists or what doesn’t exist. Instead one need not even depend upon knowledge or form views based on what is seen, thought, or heard, beyond that which is necessary for quenching.

Interestingly enough, this notion of not forming views based on what is experienced occurs most commonly in the suttas of the sutta nipata, but is less commonly encountered in the Nikayas. There are few historical debates and explanations for this, regarding the evolution in Sramana culture at the time, but I don’t wish to get into them.

1 Like

I do not think I am changing the definitions of the 3 types of people. Rather you are making assumptions about those three types of people or holding premises that I reject.

You assume that billionaires and kings, self mortifiers, and drug users are almost always happy and that their solution works for the rest of their life. From experience, we know that is not the case. They suffer terribly, a lot more than you realize. Their solutions don’t work well.

  1. Indeed, unlike an arahant who clings to no views, I do hold views about what Gotama did and did not teach. The focus on rebirth as something taking place post-mortem completely ignores the rebirth and rebecoming that is taking place, now, in the present, here in this very body. It is like me visiting a doctor and instead of the doctor treating my aching broken leg, he tells me he believes I will develop cancer in the far future.

With establishing mindfulness, one can instead see the generation of the self in here and now and work towards its cessation. If one doesn’t, suffering resurfaces. Why worry and theorize and postulate about past and future and future states of existence when you have a problem to be fixed right in front of you.

There is a difference between saying there is no literal rebirth and I do not hold the view, there is literal rebirth.

Right now, there is no need for me to hold the view, there is literal rebirth. I hold enough views as it is, and I don’t need to possess, grasp, or crave to hold more. The only type of rebirth I experience, right now, is purely psychological. It’s enough of a problem to deal with.

If you experience memories, and you conclude or view that those memories are not illusions or fake memories but instead came from other lives, you may arrive at the view you currently do. But if you cling to those memories from other lives as “me or mine”, then not only is literal rebirth taking place but psychological rebirth too.

As the sutta nipata teaches, there are certainly dangers regarding the formation of views with regards to what is seen, heard, or thought. Imagine, for a moment, I heard a sound and say a vision that no one else heard or saw.

I could form any number of views about that sound and vision. That sound could have come from heavenly beings. Or demons. Or aliens. Or that sound and vision could be of the future. Or that sound and vision could be of the past, from a past life. Or that sound and vision could be an illusion, an imagination. Or that sound and vision is from a different dimension or realm. Or that sound and vision could be a memory from a dream.

There are any number of views one may arrive at. Perhaps some views are true and some views are false. But the formation and adoption of views, speculating, pondering, clinging and craving this to be true and that to be false- this does not lead to dukkha’s cessation. Shaking off views and the processes by which one forms views based on what is experienced, one arrives closer to quenching.

  1. I hold the view that arahants have no view. I am not an arahant. I still engage in views, so your characterization of me is wrong. But for those who observed psychological rebecoming and unbecoming the arising and cessation of self, or “I am”, and know the cessation of I am as “peace”, they know that is a goal to spiritually strive towards. I strive towards that.

Many suttas don’t mention or worry about stream winners or non-returners. Brahmins and ascetics ask Gotama how to bring upon quenching, and he teaches them. He doesn’t focus on putting them into categories. He shows them the path.

  1. When one grasps at the khandhas as self and allows for the generation of self to arise, that is rebirth and rebecoming. A self is reborn and it will die. The “me” and “I” and the “self” that is generated will die. And what happens when it dies or fades? Another “me” or “I” is born moments later. Every morning after waking up, the Is and mes resurface and buzz. This process is samsara. It can be observed.

If unfamiliar memories are to be experienced here, I will not cling to them as me or mine. I will not say they are from “My” past lives. That is unskillful and painful me-making. As the sutta nipata suggests, I will not form a view or opinion in light of what is heard, seen, or thought.

1 Like

I do not understand why you find it really useful to illustrate that having children is just a play with words and just a view. Do you really belief that you can deconstruct this in a way you really do not have children? For me this is ulitmate delusion. Having lost any sense of reality.

Is meant ‘forming self-views’ or just any views?

Why would it be wise to form no views based on the experienced?
For example…suppose…i am to much exposed to sunlight and are in pains now, sunburn…it is helpful to not form any views and not learn from this experience and develop the view…"be careful with over-exposure of sunlight Green!'.

If one does not form such views based on what one experiences, does that not mean one does not learn and must make again and again the same mistakes?

No, I do not belief that the Buddha taught there is something wrong with forming views or knowledge based on experience. He stimulated this!

My Dutch translation also speak in Sutta Nipata about dogmatic views or opinions. Dogmatic views are seen as a problem. Here this dogmatic view is distinguised from the direct knowledge of a Buddha. It is not Buddha’s opinion there is Nibbana, or re-birth or kamma, anusaya, asava etc. He has seen this directly.

Many teachers are only philosophers which have hatched out some kind of worldview of scepticism, materialisme, eternalism etc. It is not really based on their direct knowledge. This is not helpful and does not lead to Nibbana. Such hatched out views are probably meant in Sutta Nipata?.

3 Likes

Please pardon the length.

We humans are constantly engaged in the processes of abstraction: following contact with sense objects or sensory information, the mental production of concepts, categories, views, judgements, and constructs. While it is certainly possible to (instinctually) abstract without language, words and language streamline that process. Ultimately, our constructs and conceptualizations are nothing but mental fabrications, impressions, or delusions. Granted, for the householder, these delusions are incredibly useful and, in normal states of consciousness, we outwardly experience them as if they were “reality” rather than being aware of and mindfully observing them as what they really are: impermanent sankhara that arise and fall in the mindstream and influence/impact our perceptions and apperceptions of other sense objects.

When the term delusions are used, it isn’t to say that they are fake- rather it is best to look upon them almost as an added filter one would put over a camera lens. Indeed, there can and usually is an empirical basis to these delusions (the intake of discerned sensory information), but the “delusion” arises from abstraction rather than the initially unabstracted discernment of the sense objects/phenomena following contact.

Without abstraction or giving names to outward forms/objects, civilization and survival would not be possible as every aspect of the householder life depends on abstraction or what some would refer to as “conventional” truths. These truths are “conventional” in the sense they are not mind-independent or ultimately true, but rather depend on temporary mental processes for further causal efficaciousness. So delusions in a sense that “New York” or “Walmart” or “Car” or “Donabedian” don’t really exist outside of our minds, they’re just sensory information that we have collected/grouped together, given names to, and formed concepts/constructs of.

With reference to quenching and reaching the state of peace, the problem with abstraction is mainly that it results in the generation of concepts, views, and states that we are subject to craving and clinging to. When one generates any concept or construct, one usually experiences fascination or aversion to that construct. For example, when some people observe outward forms they abstract and conceptualize as “children”, their immediate reaction is to want to socially interact, talk, or play with the child. They crave that state. For others, it’s more like “ew, keep that away from me, I don’t want to interact”. They averse that state. And for some others, they may abstract the concept of child but experience no enchantment or aversion.

That being said, it is certainly possible to crave/cling without abstraction and abstraction, like any tool, can be used to bring upon states of happiness and states of suffering.

As for the abstraction of children, we can point to cases where that abstraction “child” is absent.
There are animals who have children and don’t even recognize the concept of a child, to the point they’d even eat or cause harm to what we would define or abstract as their/the progeny. Even in animals who recognize the concept of child and have a concept of self/other, like deer or dogs, they might fail to abstract their progeny as “my child” or as “child” leading to the infant’s abandonment and a lack of care/breastfeeding.

Trigger warning. In the brutality of war, sometimes the process of abstraction is altered in the minds of those experiencing immense hatred, trauma, or stress, which causes those soldiers to cease to abstract the concept of “child” and treat and view all those they fire upon as the same, as the “enemy” [another abstraction]. One of my driving instructors back in the day was a Vietnam war veteran, who explained this process when he was once having a PTSD episode. He spoke on how in the midst of battle, he’d experience or perceive everyone as the ”enemy”, and the thoughts “this is a child”, “this is a non-combatent” or “this is a child that I am firing at” simply did not arise. :frowning:

In the brains of those with dementia or alzheimers, certain mental processes no longer arise. So like an untrained infant, a person with alzheimers may look upon an outward form we would abstract as a child and not make that abstraction or generate that concept. Since abstraction is also a learned ability, that is socially influenced, some humans experience abstractions/concepts others do not. For example, in some cultures, they may abstract the concept of brother or sister or family when interacting with non-relatives. Now in the west this is strange, because we have not been conditioned to generate the concept of “brother” or “family” when dealing with non-kin. In many cultures, the concept of “child” goes away when a person reaches a certain age. This can be unfortunate for some people who look significantly younger than their actual age, as others may look upon them and conceived/abstracted as “children” when they are in their 20’s and 30’s. A mother may abstract her 28-year-old son as “my baby” when the son is like “Mom, I’m not a kid anymore who has to follow your rules”.

Similarly, abstractions of child may occur elsewhere. A person may experience their pet dog as “their baby” and “their child”, much in the same way biological offspring are treated. Or adopted children may be experienced like that. But abstraction is best explained with reference to children. When working with children, I would pass on the constructs, concepts and abstractions generated in my mind to them. I would teach them “this is a tree”, “this is the quadratic formula”, “this is bad”, “this is a spoiled tomato”. Prior to that learning, when looking at an unabstracted object, a child would merely think “this” or “that” or may not even generate a thought or object to abstract at all.

Abstraction can be addicting and is certainly a source of pleasure, given how useful it is for survival. It’s sort of crazy how much abstraction we do without realizing it… the sheer volume is astounding. Looking upon outward forms and sense objects, we tend to abstract, name, and generate concepts and constructs of those sense objects/phenomena/sensory information. We should try to be at least mindful of these tendencies and note how they are related to craving.

Is meant ‘forming self-views’ or just any views?

This is where there is presently a debate, sometimes referred to the “No view” vs “right view” debate. I demonstrated my position but by no means is it exclusive or exhaustive. We have suttas that support one side and others that support the other. While I disagree with Paul Fuller’s conclusion on the matter, like Grace Burford, he is one of the scholars who has written about this topic.

Why would it be wise to form no views based on the experienced? For example…suppose…i am to much exposed to sunlight and are in pains now, sunburn…it is helpful to not form any views and not learn from this experience and develop the view…"be careful with over-exposure of sunlight Green!’.

The functional purpose of views is to help us reach certain craved future states of being or help us avoid certain aversed states. Indeed, for one who longs to avoid experiencing the physical pain of a sunburn, views can be incredibly useful. Building on your example, for example, you got burnt after spending 30 minutes in the sun, a view may arise in your mind that says sunburn occurs after 30 minutes of sunlight so avoid overexposure (which would be defined as 30 minutes). Since you crave not to be burnt, that view would influence future behavior. That view may prove useful in the future, sure, but it may have the undesired effect of leading you to a state you do not desire. For another example, let’s say a person who craves to lose weight goes to the gym and after working out for 30 minutes, experiences a very bad muscle tear that required a cast. They might arrive at the view “it is dangerous for me to work out for 30 minutes” and because they crave to avoid the pain of the tear, no longer regularly work out daily over 30 minutes. Because they no longer risk exercising over 30 minutes, they do not lose weight, and because they do not reach the state of the body they desire, they suffer. It may be that their view is mistaken- the tear was random and had nothing to do with the length of exercise or that the person was dehydrated that day or tired or over-stretched. It could be that the person’s body is just prone to strains, irrespective of length of time exercised. Or their view may be correct, who knows. Whatever the case, the formation of views is seldom divorced from the functional purpose of views- to help us reach or avoid certain states of existence.

If one does not form such views based on what one experiences, does that not mean one does not learn and must make again and again the same mistakes?

Sort of. Learning is closely linked to behavior. Nevertheless, animals/beings can “learn” without forming or abstracting views. A great example of this is Pavlovian conditioning in dogs, where the dog learns that the sound of a bell means food is coming. The dog initially does not salivate when a bell is heard, only when food is smelled, but by ringing a bell and giving a dog food, the dog eventually learns to associate food with the bell. So ringing the bell causes the dog to start salivating.

Sometimes, one forms views based on what one has experienced, but that doesn’t change behavior. For example, a person who overdoses on a drug and comes to the view, drugs are dangerous and harmful, yet continues to partake in drug usage.

But most of the time, if we don’t form views, our behavior doesn’t change and we continue to make the same mistakes or, on the flip side, make the same successes. One who learned to live in a way that results in the complete quenching of dukkha, has no further inward cravings, and has attained the goal need not to form further views. Their behavior simply doesn’t need to change. There is nothing further to be grasped at, no need for further learning to occur or truths to be craved. Whatever views they had in the past, these they may even let go of those or abandon.

No, I do not belief that the Buddha taught there is something wrong with forming views or knowledge based on experience. He stimulated this!

And we get back to the problem where we realize the suttas are not a homogenous collection. We have some suttas that teach or recommend one thing and suttas which contradict that. So you may not be wrong Green about the Buddha, but it remains difficult when dealing with texts where the Buddha is said to have said one thing only for the Buddha to say something contrary elsewhere.

My Dutch translation also speak in Sutta Nipata about dogmatic views or opinions. Dogmatic views are seen as a problem. Here this dogmatic view is distinguised from the direct knowledge of a Buddha. It is not Buddha’s opinion there is Nibbana, or re-birth or kamma, anusaya, asava etc. He has seen this directly.

The English translations of the sutta nipata claim that not only dogmatic views are abandoned, but all views. It portrays the awakened sage as one who does not depend on direct knowledge even or arrive at views/concepts based on what is seen, heard or thought.

Some scholars have suggested that the sutta nipata’s “no views” paradigm reflects an earlier form of Buddhism, before Gotama’s philosophy and doctrine was fully fleshed out (over the decades of his teaching). Others think the emphasis on the importance of reaching Abhijñā/higher knowledges/truths/correct views about ultimate reality became stressed after Gotama’s death and thus wasn’t a key part of “Original Buddhism”. Without a time machine, it’s hard to know what is correct.

2 Likes

but “no view” is still a view, how do you arrive at the conclusion you have no more view without viewing you have no view ?

1 Like

I think this is true. For example Snp4.12 says:

Convinced of their own theories,
Comparing others to oneself,
They get into more disputes with the world.
But by leaving behind all theories,
They don’t have any problems with the world.

Those views about the nature of the cosmos and soul etc. are for the persons who hold such views only theories. But for the Buddha the evolution, the ending of universe was not such a theory or view.
He saw this with the eye which is not of the flesh.

I belief it is all the time about the difference between theoretical and dogmatic knowledge and direct and true knowledge. If one has not developed the heavenly eye yet, then one has no direct knowledge about for example, the existence of deva’s. Those are seen with the heavenly eye, which is not of the flesh.

The Buddha in this sutta alsos says that there is only one truth.

Indeed the truth is one, there’s not another,
about this the One who Knows
does not dispute with another,
but the Samaṇas proclaim their varied “truths”
and so they speak not in the same way.

I belief the Buddha knew that theoretical knowledge will never ever free the oppressed heart because one is never really sure about it. One never comes beyond doubts. Only direct or true knowledge can free the heart.

Direct or true knowledge is special because one is not burdened with it. If you see a black swan you are not burdened anymore about their existence or non-existence. It is not like you are now attached to the view “black swans exist”. One just knows. And by knowing one does not attach to a view. For me it is the same with all Buddha’s direct knowledge about re-birth, others beings, kamma. It i not like he carries this knowledge on his shoulders. No, direct knowledge does not work that way. It is known, so one lets go. This is the nature of true knowledge. Views one carries around like ego-possessions but not true knowledge. True knowledge does not feed ego but views do.

Ofcourse one can also question if one can come to true knowledge but i do not think Buddha did.

3 Likes

It’s exactly to help reduce the posting of people with wrong views that the restriction is useful.

You can have confidence that rebirth exist, as various means elaborated above.

  1. Rebirth evidences. Do really read the cases, it seals the deal. You’ll know that people who still deny rebirth haven’t read enough cases.

  2. Sutta statements, it’s all over the suttas.

  3. Logical consistency with the rest of the teachings, as elaborated in the super long article posted above by @Tusbuddha.

  4. Assurances from monastics that rebirth is literal. We also have means to filter out people with wrong view from monastic. Novice monks who has wrong views is ground for disrobing the novice monk. People ordained in another religion (of which we might be able to define secular Buddhism as one of them), would need 4 months of probation as novice monks to be certain that they had renounced their former wrong views and affirm Buddha’s right view.

  5. Those who are enlightened would not deny that those before arahanthood are subject to rebirth.

  6. Please contact your local suicide hotline for suicide danger. From Buddhist point of view, having faith in rebirth allows one to endure all kinds of suffering for we know it’s not going to end via suicide. Only via enlightenment. This is one of the points I forgot to add that it’s important to believe in rebirth for otherwise, the depressed, suicidal, secular Buddhists without friends or family might not have any reason to not kill themselves. That’s unskillful. Looking at the Buddha’s wager, if rebirth didn’t exist and one believes in rebirth, there’s no lost. If rebirth exist and one does not believe in rebirth, there’s lost in the afterlife.

  7. One of the user here misuses the dhamma a lot, by keep on producing beautiful, deep dhamma of no self to support their wrong view of no literal rebirth. It’s grasping the dhamma wrongly, like taking the snake at the tail end. It’s hard for me to counter due to the beautiful dhamma there, I think others here had done a wonderful job of countering. In short, do not listen to secular Buddhists who has wrong views about rebirth. Do not be discouraged or produce doubt due to the wrong views of certain persons.

1 Like

yes I think one argument that supports rebirth is the concept of craving for existence or craving for being I always translate craving as unsatisfiable thirst so if you have thirst for sex for example then you would want it repeatedly, you want it again and again, craving for existence could means you would want existence repeatedly or you want existence again and again so logically there should be many existences, right ?

people are slaves to their craving because they think craving as “I” and “mine” so they never think their craving enslave them in the first place once they disassociate with their craving they would be free from them they would unbind from them hence unbinding (nibbana)

now existence is unsatisfactory if existence is satisfactory no one wants existence again, right ? if existence is satisfactory then that one existence should be enough the fact that people are not satisfied by just one existence shows the unsatisfactoriness nature of existence

seeing existence as unsatisfactory, sane people should not have thirst for them yet they still do, that’s confusing too to me

another doubt of mine is if I am not mistaken Buddha said plant has no consciousness and is not involved in rebirth but science shows otherwise plant could cognize where light is and follow them so I think either Buddha was wrong or the oral tradition was wrong

that’s my current understanding

but “no view” is still a view, how do you arrive at the conclusion you have no more view without viewing you have no view? I think that’s just impossible, it’s like a snake wanting to eat their own head

Indeed, that is quite the paradox :).

I do respect your interpretation that states it only applies to the undeclared points/questions, rather than all views. As per the paradox, I guess the matter is whether the cessation of views is a view. It’s similar to the question, is the absence/cessation of emotion an emotion? Or is the absence/cessation of consciousness a state of consciousness? Rather than get too bogged down, I think what the text means is that no views arise in the mindstream of arahant/sage or whatever is conventionally identified/defined as a view or opinion (ditthi) is “shaken off” as Snp 4.3 recommends, rather than being held to, adhered to, or grasped at. Perhaps even the view that right is no view is shaken off, much like the raft example you provided below.

There are some differences between Sutta Nipata translations, but it seems like all translations mostly concur on how they translate the final gatha of Snp 4.3.

Sujato: For one who is involved gets embroiled in disputes about teachings (dhammas)—but how to dispute with the uninvolved? About what? For picking up and putting down is not what they do; they have shaken off all views in this very life.

Norman: An involved person is indeed involved in dispute in respect of doctrines (dhammas), (but) how, about what, could one dispute with one who is not involved? He has taken up or laid down nothing. He has shaken of all views in this very world.

Fronsdal: One who is attached argues over doctrines (dhammas). How and with what does one argue with someone unattached? Embracing nothing, rejecting nothing. Right here, a person has shaken off every view.

The same sutta also mentions…

Sujato: “The cleansed one has no formulated view at all in the world about the different realms”

Norman: “A purified man does not indeed form a view anywhere in the world in respect of different existences”

Fronsdal: Those who are cleansed do not form a view about states of becoming or nonbecoming anywhere in the world.

Which for anyone who is familiar with other suttas knows there are plenty of views/doctrines about different states of existence/realms, becoming/nonbecoming, hence a major textual contradiction.

Of course, the suttas not being a homogenous collection but rather the work of multiple authors over hundreds of years, we can at minimum claim that the sutta nipata’s sutta verses are one interpretation of what the awakened sage is like, with respect to the composer of the sutta. One is then at the liberty to compare this interpretation with different interpretations of sage-hood found elsewhere in the canon. To experiment and test out for oneself to see what works. The reason I give greater precedence to this interpretation is because the suttas of the Aṭṭhakavagga, particularly those that are in octet form, are on linguistic, metrical, and textual grounds older than much of the rest of the canon. For scholars, that leads to the fascinating question, is this an untainted form of earliest Buddhism—free from later developments that may have occurred shortly before or long after Gotama’s physical death-- or is it a pre/non-buddhist philosophy that made its way into the early buddhist/sangha via some converts who held onto their old ways/interpretations? It’s a fascinating area of research.

but rebirth is part of declared point the fact that Buddha didn’t include rebirth as part of undeclared point means something and we need to understand that something so I am still confuse here, if Buddha really think rebirth is not important he would be silent like what he did when asked all those undeclared points the fact that he refused to be silent when asked about rebirth means something and we need to understand that something, what do you think ?

Punnabhava (re-becoming or again existence) is often translated as re-birth. I think no buddhist or truthseeker on this forum denies that Gotama taught/encouraging the cessation of punnabhava.

Where we might disagree is

  1. What (we personally think) punnabhava means or how it works
  2. what (we personally think) Gotama meant by punnabhava
  3. What the composer of a sutta meant by punnabhava, relative to other suttas

Even if I do not accept a literal punnabhava like many Buddhists do, I still accept (and argue) that punnabhava is a problem, if not one of the most key obstructions to reaching the Far Shore/State of Peace. Instead of seeing it as a literal transmigration of consciousness, from life to life, or body to body, as many Buddhists do, I perceive it as a purely psychological process that leads to the arising of the notion or concept of self, “me-ness”, the ego and the “I”, alongside all forms of ontological views and identity formation. These "I"s undergo becoming again and again, for ex. I am becoming happy then I am becoming sad, until the process which generates these selves and I is quenched and blown out completely. There are suttas that would lend credence to this interpretation and suttas that would lend credence to the other interpretation mentioned above.

I always doubt my self sometimes I want to kill myself too

Everyone seeks the cessation of suffering, and the mind is always searching for ways to accomplish that.

So destroying the body for the purposes of ending suffering is a thought or desire that many have experienced at some point. Now, we are told that the body is not the self. The self concept, which many of us here still experience moment or moment, we are taught is responsible for much joy and suffering.

I truly believe Gotama taught a way for us to put an end to the process of the generation of our self-concepts and the suffering that comes alongwith it. That process fortunately doesn’t require the destruction of the body.

So contrary to much of Western psychology, where people are taught to “reinvent their selves”, many Buddhists feel there is a need to stop “inventing” the self and to blow out that mental process, much in the same way one would blow out the flame of a candle, without the desire or need to destroy or break the candle itself (which would be like suicide :frowning:

2 Likes

thanks, what do you think about my reply here ?