Many EBT’s do mention supernatural events, travel, and destinations after death. One such example from SN 22.2 that is clear about the relationship between our current practice and not only our current lives, but also what happens after we die.
If those who acquired and kept unskillful qualities were to live happily in the present life, free of anguish, distress, and fever; and if, when their body breaks up, after death, they could expect to go to a good place, the Buddha would not praise giving up unskillful qualities. But since those who acquire and keep unskillful qualities live unhappily in the present life, full of anguish, distress, and fever; and since, when their body breaks up, after death, they can expect to go to a bad place, the Buddha praises giving up unskillful qualities.
If those who embraced and kept skillful qualities were to live unhappily in the present life, full of anguish, distress, and fever; and if, when their body breaks up, after death, they could expect to go to a bad place, the Buddha would not praise embracing skillful qualities. But since those who embrace and keep skillful qualities live happily in the present life, free of anguish, distress, and fever; and since, when their body breaks up, after death, they can expect to go to a good place, the Buddha praises embracing skillful qualities.
I personally don’t feel comfortable speaking to what someone’s intention is since we cannot ask them. I will say although I do not agree with Gil’s position on rebirth, the Insight Meditation Center is completely freely offered I benefited tremendously from daylongs held there when first learning to meditate.
Maybe! But I am right there with you sometimes if I am being honest.
I just think the Western mind is conditioned so much against the idea of rebirth. Especially the non-religionist type that sometimes finds their way to alternate (outside of Western norm) spiritual circles. I look at it this way … there are certain things you disclose on the “first date” and other things you may want to wait until things get more serious to start chatting about.
I think the real thing that people need to overcome, and I could be wrong, is their strict adherence to “scientific” principles or world views. They often don’t realize how much of a hindrance it can be in benefitting from this practice. Many Western teachers try to blend these into this pseudo-Buddhist-pop-psychology-self-help concoction that for some reason is very popular.
Hi Bhante, it would be great to have your OP in a standalone essay format.
The reason I suggest this is that I would like to share it with people and noticed that whenever I present them with a link to D&D they don’t really read.
It seems to me that people don’t really enjoy reading pieces like these in a forum where dozens of comments stack up and add noise to the original message.
Thank you, Bhante @sujato for your clear point-by-point analysis.
What was the most disheartening to me about learning about Gil’s stance: I believe there are members of such lay/secular sanghas as IMC who would really benefit and grow spiritually by learning the Buddha’s teachings more directly and allowing themselves to sit with rebirth, kamma, dependent origination and the relationship to nibbana. There are probably folks who are stuck in their development due to lack of this exposure. I certainly was one of them but not for too long thankfully (less than 6 months).
On the other hand, when I asked a couple of monastics about whether what Gil and other secular teachers are doing is 'bad" there was the "at least” those folks are getting exposed and can then come find the true teachings!
I hope for a time when our western cultures can evolve to want not just comfortable quick fixes to apply to their lives, but deep spirituality, ethics, and holding of the unknown/uncomfortable.
We aren’t there yet overall but it is a hope in my heart
I want to note, as I did comment on Gil’s essay, that I have viewed a number of his talks on youtube, and do find him to be a very decent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable teacher. I’ve not come across at any time online a suggestion from any of his students that he was anything other than highly ethical and personally and professionally sound. My blip of a comment was only directed at his essay on rebirth, but he likely deserves credit for his longstanding role as a sound Buddhist teacher, having invested many years of teaching in good faith.
There are a lot of fools out there spouting pseudo-Dhamma, and it’s all too easy to find fault. That’s why, as a rule, I ignore them and try to address critical essays only to those who are worthy. Same with my translation studies; I occasionally mention mistakes in work by Ven Bodhi or KR Norman because they are the best and the mistakes so rare and small.
But without a rigorous culture of debate and accountability, we’ll never learn how to improve.
I do find it difficult to conceptualise rebirth without some kind of “soul” which moves from life to life.
I haven’t yet found a satisfactory answer in the suttas to that basic question: “What is reborn?”
I was one of them too. During that time I was an involved member of a lay sangha here in the Netherlands. As my own view changed through practice and studying the suttas, I found myself more and more on the fringe. So by coming closer to the essence of the Buddha’s teachings, I drifted further away from the essence of the local lay communities.
I’m so thankful for online communities like these, where I don’t feel like I have to play along with the rules of secular Buddhism to be welcome.
Neither did the ‘Car’ actually exist, nor does the ‘Truck’… all that happens is that the building blocks of its temporary existence (the aggregates) undergo transformation.
Does any of those aggregates constitute a ‘Self’? Which one would you pick? How can they constitute any kind of permanent Self, when they themselves are constantly changing and dependently originated?
Yet, if the yellow blocks of the ‘Car’ get discoloured due to harsh use, the blocks of the ‘Truck’ will be discoloured too won’t they? Ah…Karma!
The difficulty I see with the lego analogy is that it doesn’t explain why the lego car is reborn as a lego truck, as opposed to a lego boat, for example.
Presumably its due to the lego car’s kamma, but anatta says there is no lego car, just a collection of lego bricks (like the chariot simile). But where then is the car’s kamma “stored”? Is there a “kamma brick”?
To put it another way, how do the bricks know they need to reassemble themselves as a truck, once the car has been “disassembled”?
All analogies, being mere simplifications are imperfect. Say the lego car drives itself rashly and suffers a scratch on a certain brick. Now, that kamma is stored within the system of bricks itself. It need not come to fruition immediately, but it will certainly reveal itself when the conditions are right.
What causes the building blocks of Samsara to constantly reassemble themselves? Why, Craving of course and the wanting-to- be that comes from it! That illusory thing that thinks ‘I am this’ cannot bear the thought of not being… when the ‘car’ falls apart that very craving to be pulls the blocks together again into the next shape of ‘truck’ …which shape will come to be depends on the particular state of the mental factors at the time of disassembly.
Yes, “tedious” is a good description. I have no problem with people feeling that it is irrelevant to them, but I get tired of them reminding me that it is irrelevant…
What I find curious is that some people who are quite negative about the idea of rebirth enthusiastically promote ideas such as interconnectedness, a universal “knowing” that is outside of the aggregates, etc. They seem happy with some “non-scientific” phenomena, while rejecting others…
My guess is (also based on how I used to be) that ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ are the stabiliser wheels of the bicycle of western identity. People have a sense that the field may be more open and feel the need to move more freely and flexibly, but they truly doubt that they can stay upright with beliefs not supported by rationality and science. Interconnectedness fits in with what we know of systems, biology etc in a way that rebirth does not (yet).
I can understand how a “soul” would crave further existences, but I struggle with this idea of disembodied craving.
If the “I” is illusory, then what is it that does the craving?
What irks me is continually being told that rebirth is an inferior teaching aimed at pujjhanas. Such comments are generally made by people who obviously don’t regard themselves as mere pujjhanas.
