Sorry, I misread the ‘we’ that I was quoting and did not know you were speaking of a particular ‘we’, namely, people who do not believe in rebirth, I think, from your clarification.
1 Like
What do you think?
Scenario 1 - 100 years from now most humans alive now will have passed away. That is really not that long from now! If there is no rebirth, or anything else after death, then we will all be equally nothing…as far as we are concerned, subjectively speaking, it won’t have mattered what we believed one way or the other.
Scenario 2 - there is experience beyond death (e.g., rebirth) and perhaps it is not the same for everyone, perhaps it depends in part on the views we held and acted on…in this particular scenario, there is a lot more at stake.
Sounds like a fairly strong argument to me actually - although I can understand someone objecting “why should I believe in Buddhist rebirth though? out of all the possibly beliefs in an afterlife - Other people say I should believe in God, or the tooth fairy or whatever, and if I don’t I’ll be punished in the afterlife”…
All I can say is that I have faith in the Buddha and not in the tooth fairy. I would argue there is a big difference, but I don’t feel capable of explaining my faith in a way that would necessarily come across as a compelling argument to someone else, especially one without faith and who insists on physical, objective, third person, hard-scientific evidence.
1 Like
I sought out Buddhism because I became convinced that hate is not conquered by hate, and that the only way to freedom and the end of suffering is to put down the rod of violence, gradually relinquish all attachments, including conceptual ones, unravel the delusions of egoism, and make a place for pure, selfless and universal love in my heart.
I also reject the modern secular path, since it teaches that the point of life is to eat, drink, fuck, play and acquire stuff - and also to make babies so that the same cycle of cravings perpetuates itself. I could see that those things also did not provide a path out of suffering.
3 Likes
I came to Buddhism for similar reasons - I think they are all quite good!
1 Like
I don’t think I understand why in the second scenario there is more at stake. Even though all people now alive will be dead in 100 years, won’t there be other people?
I hear what you’re saying, and I understand.
To me the logic of my original post was simply an attempt at providing sound advice.
Suppose you have two friends, one of whom says: ”We may not wake up tomorrow, so let’s spend the day taking drugs and going wild."
Another friend offers: “Since there is a chance that we will wake up tomorrow, it makes sense to act in a way that we will not regret.”
To me, the second friend is to be considered wise. And his admonishment is not intended to be any kind of subjugation, but rather it should be seen that his intentions are good.
3 Likes
I also like this, and if you find rebirth truly and utterly profoundly impossible for you ‘believe’ in, in any way, I don’t think that anyone would advocate that you should
And if that has been your experience, generally, that’s pretty unfortunate. Internet condolences, I suppose I can offer?
But this
IMO relies on a very particular ‘actual’. Consider it in light of other statements:
These aren’t exactly neutral words here. They seem to presume a fundamental assumption that laboratory-nondemonstrable suggestions from any source at all are all equally ‘wild/quixotic’ regardless of any qualifying detail they could possibly have: rebirth is as ridiculous as Elvis’s ghost that I just made up, uncritically, that is what the underlying belief seem to be. Is this wrong?
Oh come on though, that’s a false equivalency. If someone says the world is gonna end tomorrow I’ll think they’re insane. But if someone says the world is gonna end and I see the sun exploding, then the person who says it’s smarter to wait just in case would be ridiculous. That’s obviously not the same either, but we’re not talking about the world ending, we’re talking about something happening after death. This is very different. Saying the wiser choice is to believe something because that belief may affect what happens after you die is a far more provocative claim then the world probably isn’t going to end. Besides, when the Buddha talks about right view, I don’t think he meant believing without evidence. Yes, trusting him will do well for you, but saying you’re not gonna believe in rebirth outright has nothing to do with trust. Wrong view is a mind set, I mean that’s what kamma is all about. If you’re mind set is that you’re totally with all the buddhist ideals and concepts and you practice, but you’re holding out on rebirth until you get more information, well that is still right view in my eyes. That is still a mind set moving you toward awakening, it’s still good kamma. The point is, you can’t choose to believe something because it might be better to believe it, either it makes sense to you or it doesn’t, the next best thing though is holding off judgement until you get more experience and information, that you can choose to do.
Also pertinent - and perhaps the puzzle piece that can reconcile us all in the Dhamma (believers in rebirth and disbelievers/those on the fence) From MN 95 (https://suttacentral.net/en/mn95):
“But, Master Gotama, in what way is there the preservation of truth? How does one preserve truth? We ask Master Gotama about the preservation of truth.”
“If a person has faith, Bhāradvāja, he preserves truth when he says: ‘My faith is thus’; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’ In this way, Bhāradvāja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth.
“If a person approves of something…if he receives an oral tradition…if he reaches a conclusion based on reasoned cogitation…if he gains a reflective acceptance of a view, he preserves truth when he says: ‘My reflective acceptance of a view is thus’; but he does not yet come to the definite conclusion: ‘Only this is true, anything else is wrong.’ In this way too, Bhāradvāja, there is the preservation of truth; in this way he preserves truth; in this way we describe the preservation of truth. But as yet there is no discovery of truth.”
7 Likes
Yes! I love that.
No, I don’t think that has been my general experience, but I do think it’s involved if anyone thinks, “I have to believe in rebirth, because if it is true, I have to believe in it to be born in a good place.”
Well, I suppose someone could offer persuasive, non-laboratory, non-publicly verifiable testimonial evidence that they themselves have had such experiences, and those experiences are what their belief is based on. I don’t deny the possibility of direct experiential awareness of mental phenomena that are inherently private to the person who has them, and therefore cannot be publicly verified otherwise than in an indirect way.
But, if instead, someone has not had such experiences and offers only their belief that the Buddha had such experiences, and can only offer vague conjectures of what that experience of the Buddha might have consisted in I would say that their belief is probably faith-based. And that’s fine. That’s what I argued in the first place. And several people in this conversation have just said, “I have faith in the Buddha.” I only object to imagining that that rationally unsupported faith in the Buddha amounts to a rational possession of a higher science, which then gives one grounds for criticizing the supposedly inferior insights and abilities of others.
What I would say to the friend is "There is still a lot of time left today. And although having drug experiences and going wild might seem like “fun”, they are actually a form of suffering, and so it would be better for us to cultivate peaceful contentment - now, for the rest of the day, and then in whatever time might come later.
It would hard to compare the two without further context. In some cases belief in rebirth could be just as wild and quixotic as belief in Elvis’s ghost. It depends on what the beliefs are based on.
belief in rebirth can’t be coerced. Buddha did not teach by coercion.
1 Like
Apparently Analayo is coming out with a book on rebirth next year, I’m definitely looking forward to that.
Forcibly believing in something has nothing to do with Buddhism but perhaps more common in theistic religions. Belief per se has no connection with finding a favorable rebirth - being a wholesome and happy person does. I understand that belief is strongly connected to ending up in heaven in other religions. Personal practice and transformation is what is linked to ending up in higher realms in the dhamma. Rebirth and kamma can lead to such attitudes and behaviour, but it isn’t absolutely required, I don’t think. Compassion can equally lead to wholesome behaviour.
“Householders, there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine and view is this: ‘There are definitely no immaterial realms.’
.
“Now there are some recluses and brahmins whose doctrine is directly opposed to that of those recluses and brahmins, and they say thus: ‘There definitely are immaterial realms.’ What do you think, householders? Don’t these recluses and brahmins hold doctrines directly opposed to each other?”—“Yes, venerable sir.”
.
“About this a wise man considers thus: ‘These good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there are definitely no immaterial realms,” but that has not been seen by me. And these other good recluses and brahmins hold the doctrine and view “there definitely are immaterial realms,” but that has not been known by me. If, without knowing and seeing, I were to take one side and declare: “Only this is true, anything else is wrong,” that would not be fitting for me."MN20
“Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] ‘May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!’ What do you think: would that man — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?”
.
“No, lord.”
.
“Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] ‘Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!’ What do you think: would that boulder — because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people — rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?”
.
“No, lord.” SN42.6
with metta
2 Likes
Those who are cleansed do not form a view
About states of becoming or nonbecoming anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned illusions and conceit,
By what means would those who are cleansed go [to nonattachment]?
They are without attachment.
One who is attached argues over doctrines–
How and with what does one argue with someone unattached?
Embracing nothing, rejecting nothing,
Right here, a person has shaken off every view.
Verses seven and eight from the Dutthatthaka Sutta, the third chapter of the Atthakavagga (“Book of Eights”). Translated by Gil Fronsdal.
2 Likes
I suggest to be careful with ‘no-view-Buddhism’. No-views was the position of the ascetic Sañjaya Belatthaputta, of whom it is said
“If you ask me: ‘Is there another world?’ if I thought so, I would say so. But I don’t think so. I don’t say it is so, and I don’t say otherwise. I don’t say it is not, and I don’t not say it is not. If you ask: ‘Isn’t there another world?’…‘Both?’…‘Neither?’…‘Is there fruit and result of good and bad deeds?’ ‘Isn’t there?’… ‘Both?’…‘Neither? ’…‘Does the Tathagata exist after death?’ ‘Does he not?’…‘Both?’…‘Neither?’… I don’t not say it is not.” (DN 1, DN 2, DN 34, MN 41, MN 60, MN 76, MN 110, MN 114, MN 117, SN 42.13, AN 3.66, AN 3.118, AN 8.29, 10.211)
I know one could get the impression from parts of the Snp that no-views is a legitimate perspective of Buddhism, but it dwarfs in comparison to the EBT as a whole where the distinction between right and wrong views dominates.
And of course the Buddha was pushing people to believe in ethics-driven rebirth. What else is it when he says “If you do this you go to hell, if you do that you go to heaven”? No need to doubt his motivation, it’s simply the function of a Tathagata to move beings towards the end of suffering. But it doesn’t change the fact that from the perspective of the unenlightened listener it was like “holy crap, he seems to know what he’s talking about, I don’t want to go to hell, let me better do what he says” - and where is here the difference to other religions with the threat of hell? we might say: the unquestionably pure being of the Buddha. But would that convince followers of other heaven-and-hell-religions?
1 Like