Also, a lot of the popular Buddhism I have encountered seems to represent nibbana as a kind of ultimate heaven - an eternal bliss unimaginably greater than even the happiness of the devas - that the arahant “enters” at death. It is not simply the extinguishment of the factors leading to cyclical samsaric rebirth and an end or blotting our of that wandering being, but the entering of that being into a far better place outside the cycle.
3 Likes
They already believed in a resurrection after death before Jesus, at the time, though (see Mark 12:18 when a Sadducee tries to argue against resurrection with a “gotcha” question that only really makes sense in the cultural framework it was asked).
This probably made it easier to believe in a) Jesus’s alleged resurrection and b) everyone else’s.
Just like how people in the Buddha’s time likely already thought they were going to be reincarnated already, and already there was a notion that escaping cyclic rebirth was a good thing.
1 Like
I don’t see that. The passage only shows that Jesus preached a view of the resurrection that held the resurrected would be like angels, and that the marriage laws and other such legal requirements of human life would be left behind. The sadducees in that passage, on the other hand, seem to think the whole resurrection doctrine is absurd because there would be no way in the afterlife for the resurrected to harmonize the human legal requirements that would still bind them. The dispute doesn’t tell us much about what most ordinary Jews believed or didn’t believe about the afterlife.
My understanding is that during this period the more trafitional belief in She’ol, a kind of shadowy and unsatisfactory ghostlike post-existence was being replaced by rabbinic Jews with various apocalyptic teachings about a resurrection and world to come, but that these beliefs were varied and not all mutually consistent, and not universally adopted.
Also, as Christianity spread, it was spread among secular gentiles, right? Among them, beliefs in either no afterlife at all, or a dismal Hades-like afterlife would have been common.
1 Like
In order for the Sadducees to be unique in rejecting the resurrection, it would have to be a widely accepted doctrine beforehand.
You can find many sources substantiating that a belief in resurrection was a mainstream feature of Judaism by the first century.
Going past that, it makes its way into the Mishnah and Talmud for instance, going so far as to say that those who deny the resurrection will have no part in the kingdom to come.
I think this is a far more ancient Judaism than you are giving credit for. Judaism by the time of Jesus is already extremely Hellenized, as in, this Hellenizing process:
Has already been underway for a long time by the time that Jesus shows up.
Most of the mystery cults (Orpheus, Eleusinian, etc.) promised some sort of eternal afterlife afaik. Part of their appeal as a want to escape these more brutal, or at the very least more boring, older afterlive-conceptions afaik.
For instance (this is less directly relevant but also strengthens my point, IMO), a very long time ago (22nd c. BC) the Egyptian peasants revolted against the priests so that they could also live eternally like the Pharaoh. Then there starts a whole spell-and-talisman business for the mummification of non-royals.
Contemporaneous Mithraic movements also claimed to give the practitioners an eternal reward, also, for example.
This is a very interesting point IMO, let me dig up the source for this.
So the above is not necessarily completely accurate. There is not necessarily a revolt, but there is a “democratization of the afterlife” where the afterlife previously known only to the royalty “trickles down”, so to speak.
That is from wikipedia, but I remember hearing it spun as a revolt in a documentary on Discovery Civilization back when it used to be a channel. It might have been a sensationalist documentary.
Yes, Christianity was spreading at the same time as a lot of other ideas in the eclectic mix stirred up by the expansion of global contacts, and was mutated and transformed in the spreading. But for some reason, the doctrine of resurrection was regarded as “good news”. So it must have seemed preferable to whatever the converts believed before.
I guess the meaning of this news would have been different in the Jewish communities in which it spread initially, and the gentile ones into which it expanded later. The Jews were perhaps captivated by the millenarian idea of the fulfillment of prophecy, the coming of the Messiah, the destruction of the deprived worldly order, the redemption of the saved and the dawning on Earth of a righteous kingdom of heaven. Many of the gentiles seem to have gone more in the eternalizing, Hellenizing direction with its focus on personal spiritual transformation and ascent?
It’s sort of like “trickle-down” afterlife.
In even very ancient henotheistic Judaism, Enoch and Elijah are taken directly up, alive, into God’s heaven.
Eventually, this trickles down to everyone. Like in Egyptian religion.
This has something of a parallel in “trickle-down” Buddha-nature.
At one point, the dhātu was found in the cremated remains of sages. The belief was that, through their supreme practice in their life, they had sort-of ‘trasmuted’ a part or parts of their bodies into something permanent and deathless, or at least significantly more permanent than their corpses. These would then be distributed to various temples, pilgrimage attractors, etc, and would be venerated as relics. “This is what the wise can achieve”, sort-of like.
We can see an echo of this practice in the Lotus Sūtra:
parinirvṛtaṃ dṛṣṭva mamātmabhāvaṃ
dhātūṣu pūjāṃ vividhāṃ karonti|
māṃ cā apaśyanti janenti tṛṣṇāṃ
tatorjukaṃ citta prabhoti teṣām||5||
Many see me, I pass into extinguishment,
widely they worship my relics,
sweetly, their hearts, each and every,
wish to look upon my heart with reverence.
(Saddharmapuṇḍarīkanāmamahāyānasūtra, Nepalese recension, English based on Kumarajīva recension, note that relics is “dhatu” in the Sanskritic recension.)
Over time, in Mahāyāna Buddhism, it seems that the belief comes to be that all beings have these dhātavaḥ. And eventually, down the line, we have Buddha-nature doctrines that proclaim the ordinary sentient being to be “already enlightened” in some way, sharing in the qualities of the Tathāgata, sometimes proclaiming every sentient being as equal to the Tathāgata:
At that time, the Buddha sat up straight in meditation in the sandalwood pavilion and, with his supernatural powers, put on a miraculous display. There appeared in the sky a countless number of thousand-petaled lotus flowers as large as chariot wheels, filled with colors and fragrances that one could not begin to enumerate. In the center of each flower was a conjured image of a Buddha. The flowers rose and covered the heavens like a jeweled banner, each flower giving forth countless rays of light. The petals all simultaneously unfolded their splendor and then, through the Buddha’s miraculous powers, all withered in an instant.
Within the flowers all the Buddha images sat cross-legged in the lotus position, and each issued forth countless hundreds of thousands of rays of light. The adornment of the spot at the time was so extraordinary that the whole assembly rejoiced and danced ecstatically. In fact, it was so very strange and extraordinary that all began to wonder why all the countless wonderful flowers should suddenly be destroyed. As they withered and darkened, the smell they gave off was foul and loathsome.
[…]
The Buddha said, ‘Good sons, there is a comparison that can be drawn between the countless flowers conjured up by the Buddha that suddenly withered and the innumerable conjured buddha images with their many adornments, seated in the lotus position within the flowers, who cast forth light so exceedingly rare that there was no one in the assembly who did not show reverence.
‘In a similar fashion, good sons, when I regard all beings with my buddha eye, I see that hidden within the kleśāḥ of greed, desire, anger, and stupidity there is seated augustly and unmovingly the Tathāgata’s wisdom, the Tathāgata’s vision, and the Tathāgata’s body. Good sons, all beings, though they find themselves with all sorts of kleśāḥ, have a Tathāgatagarbha that is eternally unsullied, and that is replete with virtues no different from my own.
‘Moreover, good sons, it is just like a person with supernatural vision who can see the bodies of Tathāgatāni seated in the lotus position inside the flowers, even though the petals are not yet unfurled; whereas after the wilted petals have been removed, those Tathāgatāni are manifested for all to see. In similar fashion, the Buddha can really see the Tathāgatagarbhāḥ of sentient beings. And because he wants to disclose the Tathāgatagarbha to them, he expounds the sutras and the Dharma, in order to destroy kleśāḥ and reveal Buddha-nature.
(Tathāgatagarbhasūtra)
迦葉菩薩白佛言：「世尊！我從今日始得正見。世尊！自是之前，我等悉名邪見之人。
Mahākāśyapa Bodhisattva asked the Buddha to speak: "Bhagavān! I from today start in obtaining samyagdṛṣṭi. Bhagavān! Until now, we all entirely abided in mithyādṛṣṭi.世尊！二十五有，有我不耶？」
Bhagavān! In the twenty five existences, is there ātman definitely?佛言：「善男子！我者即是如來藏義。一切眾生悉有佛性，即是我義。
The Buddha said: "Kulaputra! Ātman, prompt and exact, is Tathāgatagarbha in meaning. All sentient beings in entirety have the Buddha’s nature, prompt and exact, ātman is it’s meaning.如是我義，從本已來，常為無量煩惱所覆，是故眾生不能得見。
Thus so ātman’s meaning is, from root proceeding onwards, constantly without limit under kleśāḥ covered, therefore sentient beings cannot obtain sight of it.
(Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇasūtra Dharmakṣema recension)
Am I alone in seeing something of a relation?
This is one of the fancy containers that dhātavaḥ were/are venerated in:
Just for some added historical context.
3 Likes
Some modern Buddhisms can be seen to have “democratizing” aspects to them.
Although they are often critiqued, so-called “fast jhāna” teachers are in the process of enacting this tendency in the modern age, and sometimes attract large followings. Perhaps less controversially, here, EBT studies can be seen to have some democratizing tendencies as well, particularly when it is contrasted with some traditional heavily Abhidharma-influenced modern Buddhisms.
In some Abhidharma-influenced Buddhisms, I am thinking mostly of Mahāyāna Abhidharma perspectives but I have no doubt that modern & historical Theravāda is not also something like this occasionally, the mainline conception is that it takes something like three aeons of intense dharma practice to become even vaguely enlightened. You ought to be trying to get in a deva heaven or something. It’s going to take millenia.
That might be exaggerating, but that is sometimes how it is. It is interesting, because it causes Buddhism to take on some interestingly Egyptian overtones in religion: everything you do is in preparation for something that will happen after you die. Consider bardo practices, or some of the devotions in the so-called Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Secular Buddhism can be seen to be a democratizing tendency as well. When there is no reincarnation, everyone has to get their religious goals met in this life. There’s no Egyptian-esque preparation for undertaking taking the Path of Seeing in the next life after Stream-entry and bardo practice after death.
Of course this is not paying attention to who is right or wrong, just if they are showing a “democratizing” tendency.
2 Likes
Yes, I think that is true about the democratizing. It’s hard to say for sure, given the gap of time and the vicissitudes of textual transmission. But the overwhelming impression one gets from the suttas is that, whatever the exact nature of the spiritual goal the Buddha taught, many people were able to make rapid progress toward it, or even fully achieve it as they understood it, in a relatively short amount of time. One can argue that they all had eons of preparation, but if seems odd that so many such people would have all been present concurrently in the Indo-Gangetic plain at the same time.
Around 40% of europeans believe in rebirth, even in ultra-christian countries. It’s a natural, intuitive belief, same as materialism. The “this is my first life and I will then spend an eternity either in heaven or hell” is the unintuitive belief, not the other way around.
And when you have rebirth, you have 2 options:
- continue it and hope to get reborn in better circumstances
- realize that there is no lasting happiness to be found in this cycle and therefore desire to end it.
@ Glenara: Good quotes but there is also a sutta where Buddha is asked weather all being will escape samsara. He answered that no, they won’t. This looks as a very strange answer. Since conditions will assemble in an infinity of ways during an “infinity”, then at one point they will assemble in such a way as to end the cycle.
This caused great problems to B.Bodhi in an interview with B.Sujato, making him say some funky things. He was asked the question in a different way: "if there is no beginning to samsara and we are here since forever, then why haven’t we all got enlightened already ? There should be no-one here already. How could conditions not assemble in that perfect way during an infinity ? And B.Bodhi could not understand it either because this is a mathematical problem, so he answered that “perhaps consciousness can emerge…” something highly illogical and not to mention at odds with the historical Buddha opinion.
The reason why Buddha answer is correct is because of the “almost surely” paradox.
The easiest way to understand it is through this is: Image you are throwing darts at a rectangular area, such as a TV. Now imagine you split the rectangle into two perfectly equal sides by drawing a line between them (or by not drawing anything, but it’s easier to understand by imagining a line). Your arrow should land on any of the two sides, since there is no other space other than these 2 sides. How in the world could it not land on one of these 2 smaller pieces of the rectangle ? Well, even though they are split perfectly, it can still land right between them, on the line separating the squeres. If you will say that “I’ll make the line thinner, smaller” and you can make that line as small and thin as you want - all the way down to infinity - and there will still be a minuscule chance for the arrow to right straight in between the 2 pieces. Therefore, you can only say that it’s “almost surely” to land on one of the two sides, but there will always be an infinitisimal possibility of this not happening, therefore it can never be “surely”.
When somebody who has been here for eternity ends this cycle of rebirths, he is simply ending this string of events that was always statistically so close, “almost surely”, but never really hitting it.
Seems like a waste of time. The arguments for the dogmatic beliefs you want to promote just aren’t there. It would be better to focus on things that promote people’s happiness than to get tangled up in this kind of fundamentalist superstition and dogmatism.
The kinds of things you are talking about are to my mind the least attractive features of traditional and organized religion. You want to convert people to the habits of thought that keep humanity wallowing in ignorance, fear and subjugation to dubious power structures.
1 Like
Only one thing matters: weather something is true or false. Weather you like the truth or not has little importance. So, you can debate weather this is true or false, but it’s useless to debate weather it’s something likable or not.
By their nature people like to believe in utopian, highly optimistic ideas. But weather those ideas are true or false, in accordance with reality or not, is another problem.
As for dogmatism, you are the one believing in a belief refuted by science on many grounds, the idea that consciousness originates from matter. You are the one believing in the Many-worlds theory, one of the most ridiculous ideas ever thought by a human brain. So you might have to reconsider who is dogmatic and ridiculous.
Getting split into an infinite number of identical selves living in parallel universes every millisecond of our lives ? And those identical selves in parallel universes also getting split into infinite other versions every split of a second too. And this stuff happening every split of a second, all the time. I mean right now I’ve split into a billion parallel universes while writing this message, in every universe being a word written differently, in some the message was not posted, etc.
And you are the one to accuse others of dogmatism and ridiculous beliefs ? Really ? If there is one place where one can bring up the (flawed) argument of an idea being too ridiculous, the perfect place to do it is the Many-Worlds theory - required to be believed by anyone who clings strongly to the idea that consciousness comes from matter and that can not let go of that view.
Yes, it was one of my hobbies for a while.
I tend to agree, partly because these debates can get acrimonious, and partly because Buddhism has something different to offer.
I set up a local Buddhist group about 11 years ago, which is still going. Initially it was pan-Buddhist, it’s now mostly Theravada ( non-affiliated ). We haven’t advertised the group in recent years, though we have gained a couple of new members via word-of-mouth. Our group is currently quite small ( 5 regulars ) which means it’s practical for us to meet in each others’ houses. We could probably increase the numbers again by advertising, but that would mean hiring premises, which from previous experience is a pain in the bum!
In my part of the world Triratna ( ex-FWBO ) is by far the largest Buddhist group, they have their own centres and they are good at marketing. They get a lot of beginners in through the door, though I don’t know how many go to follow the Triratna “career path”, which is becoming a Mitra and then an Order Member. I nearly became an Order Member myself in the 1980s but in hindsight I’m glad I didn’t - another long story! 
Actually, I don’t believe in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, but lean toward the “collapse” interpretations. However, it is an open question, and we should all be open to wherever future evidence might lead.
There are aspects of Buddhism that relate only to how we experience the world and how, through practice, we can change the way we experience the world. These are the parts of Buddhism that people can be rationally persuaded, by direct experience, to take seriously. But there are other aspects of traditional Buddhism that are faith-based, and can’t really be given a rational defense. So, if those are the parts of Buddhism you have in mind, I don’t really see how your program of proselytizing via debate will work. Nobody is in a strong position to give a rational argument showing that there is really such a thing as a once-returner or a seven-time returner, or even an arahant, if these categories are interpreted doctrinally and literally in terms of number of remaining rebirths.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be involved in any project devoted to spreading unwarranted fear among people. There is already too much fear in this world. Terrorizing people into believing that, if they don’t shape up, they might get reborn as a bug or a demon or a hungry ghost is not something I will ever be part of. But I’m happy to try to persuade people that if they live a certain way, and pursue certain practices, they will suffer less - because that’s something I think I can back up from my own experience.
1 Like
Forget about future evidence, we have a ton of present evidence already. It’s not really an open question. To maintain a materialist position, you just have to believe in the Many Worlds theory. Thats why high caliber materialist, such as Stephen Hawkins, had to believe in this theory no matter how ridiculous it might be. And after this, you also have these problems:
- neuropasticity
- placebo effect
- some other things that I can’t remember at the moment
And, most importantly:
- at least attempting to come up with a theory about how such a thing as consciousness can originate from matter. It’s important to remember that, besides being refuted, there never really was a real theory out there in the first place. No attempt to at least try to explain the fundamental premise of materialism. How can one strongly believe in a theory that isn’t even really a theory ?
What I always suggest materialist to do is one simple experiment. Lay on the couch and contemplate for at least 10 minutes (I repeat, at least 10 minutes not 2 minutes) how could such a thing as matter originate from consciousness. How can a primitive organism such as an insect with 5 neurons posses consciousness, yet a computer that can beat you at chess can not. Only when one really contemplates this idea can he see how impossible it is.
There are aspects of Buddhism that relate only to how we experience the world and how, through practice, we can change the way we experience the world. These are the parts of Buddhism that people can be rationally persuaded, by direct experience, to take seriously. But there are other aspects of traditional Buddhism that are faith-based, and can’t really be given a rational defense. So, if those are the parts of Buddhism you have in mind, I don’t really see how your program of proselytizing via debate will work. Nobody is in a strong position to give a rational argument showing that there is really such a thing as a once-returner or a seven-time returner, or even an arahant, if these categories are interpreted doctrinally and literally in terms of number of remaining rebirths.
If I were to tell you that inlining a website CSS into it’s HTML will actually make it slower, not faster, if the html size gets over 50kb, what would you have to say about that? Is this correct? Is this false? Is this something that is impossible to prove using logic?
It may seem impossible to prove using logic at first, BUT, after learning about many other aspects, one will eventually understand why it does make a website slower and why this is actually very logical. Similarly, you can’t prove the things you listed there in 2 minutes and without having other information about how things work.
The starting point is understanding how the 5 aggregates technically work and eventually understanding no self. Same as any technical problem, it requires more than 2 minutes of discussion. There are 1500pag of “higher dhamma” dealing with these technical aspects. Without listening to that, it is impossible to understand other aspects such as those listed by you.
If the Buddha was correct, then one will remove all doubts afterwards. Same as there are no doubts in you right now that your car works because of the way it is built, because of the engine, etc. - and not because it’s a live animal or pushed by some spirit. Such ideas would seem ridiculous to you. You have supreme confidence regarding how the car works because you have been explained that in detail and have also checked it for yourself. If the Buddha was correct, then one will remove all doubts after listening and understanding the higher dhamma. His confidence regarding how things work will be identical to the confidence you have regarding how your car works - meaning supreme confidence.
And given that materialism has been refuted and was never a real theory to begin with, the only rational thing for a materialist to do is to at least be an agnostic. This means he should be searching and checking other options. So why not give Buddha a try and read the higher dhamma ? Read it as skeptical as you want, if it is indeed correct, then it will stand firm against any scrutiny. After all, the Buddha could be just another out of thousands of philosophers who got it wrong. Only by checking what he had to say and questioning it can one find out weather the higher dhamma is correct or wrong. Without checking it, without giving it a try, it is impossible to tell weather it’s correct or wrong.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to be involved in any project devoted to spreading unwarranted fear among people. There is already too much fear in this world. Terrorizing people into believing that, if they don’t shape up, they might get reborn as a bug or a demon or a hungry ghost is not something I will ever be part of. But I’m happy to try to persuade people that if they live a certain way, and pursue certain practices, they will suffer less - because that’s something I think I can back up from my own experience.
It’s certainly not something to bring up, marketing wise.
We had this discussion before, which convinced me the first time that you are not really up to date on the philosophical discussion of these topics. No need to go around the same circle again.
Good luck on your upcoming project to convert people to your religious dogmas.
Lol. You ran away then even faster than you are doing now. We barely spoke anything: You can't play chess with a pigeon - #19 by dxm_dxm
Many times I have claimed that materialist run away from debates faster than the most rigid religious extremist. You probably have a better chance discussing with an islamic terrorist about his beliefs then with a materialist. From my experience, all of them run away instanteniously when their beliefs are questioned. And this small exchange we just had is only confirming this long time claim of mine.
And despite all this, they are always the first to call you dogmatic…
I have had extremely long extended debates here with many people on almost all of the issues you just raised once again. You can look them up if you like. I have no wish to repeat myself, or to add further to people’s suffering. Critical thinking and faith don’t mix, and its pointless to push the matter.
I agree. People indeed tend to run away when you push the matter. 
The more their beliefs rely on faith and intuition, the faster they run.
The idea that consciousness originates from matter, besides being refuted, never even had an attempted explation to begin with and is entirely based on intuition. Maybe that’s why, from my experience with many materialist on buddhist forums, they simply run away instantaniously.
They love to question other beliefs, but out of all groups out there, they run away the fastest when their own beliefs are questioned.
??
??
What does neuroplasticity have to do with it? How does the placebo effect challenge the many worlds theory?