That the Buddha taught multiple births based on his own meditative experience, is totally acceptable to me, but not RE-birth. As that, to me, includes the idea that there is something that can be identified as the same person between the births. To me that is the soul theory.
I think that if you take anattā to mean not-self, then we probably will not be able to have a mutually satisfying discussion of this. For, to me, it means ‘not soul’ as is mostly found (in the EBTs?) according to the PTS dictionary.
I do not dismiss main “religious” and “supernatural” ideas in the EBTs or the Buddha’s teaching, but I do not accept what I believe is the interpretation ‘rebirth’ of various words in the explanation of the First Superknowledge, for, to me, they require the Buddha to not teach with an open hand, to be imprecise, to not be the unexcelled teacher.
To be precise ‘re-brith’ could be easily translated as ‘punna-jāti’ or ‘jāti punna-punnam’, but that term is not used at all in the First Superknowledge description: (PDF) Accurate translations of Catu-(rūpa)-jhāna and Te-vijjā passages | Joe Smith - Academia.edu (I should relabel that ‘my accurate…’)
And as I understand ‘jāti punna-punnam’ (or punna-jāti) is not used by the Buddha in the First Four Nikayas at all.
If you could show me where in the EBTs the Buddha taught of re-birth, literally punna-jāti, that would be great, as it has escaped my research.
Instantly, Buddhism is akin to Xianity, and is not set apart the way “visible here and now” would seem to indicate. Rebirth is not visible here and now except as a wholly subjective experience re: meditation that follows on long-instantiated social expectations. Just like everywhere else.
Brahmali said once that we need to consider seriously what else the Buddha said, because of the things we can indeed know here and now. But technical skill is not a guarantee
of metaphysical accuracy, given the variables involved. The whole ideological makeup is thus put up into “as yet undemonstrated”.
(Yes, people need to understand rebirth as a central EBT concern; that’s true, Sujato. We get it, and keep saying so; some people are using a psychological model for it, but if it’s clear that that isn’t in the EBT, we’re good to go, yeah?)
The technical skills of meditation, from Buddhism and elsewhere, remain behind as something that can be investigated, with mechanisms of action clearly demonstrated, effects which are visible here & now, etc. I already said in another thread that the title “Secular Buddhism” was inaccurate; I think Sujato just wants them to remove the “Buddhism” word as well. I suggested “Contemplative”.
Is that really all this is? Secular Buddhists just oughtn’t to use the word? Maybe just say that…?
Secularists don’t generally preclude such things. There attitude is just that since the traditionalist views about the denizens of higher sense realms are extraordinary claims for which there is little compelling evidence, there is no point in making one’s practice depend on such claims.
I seriously question my own views if and when they diverge from the Buddha - If Buddhism has taught me anything over all these years, it is that “my” understanding of things is very often biased, incomplete, narrow, self-referential, and overly confident.
I suspect you would bring up Mt. Meru and 80,000 year human life lengths etc…at this point. IMO there are some things in the suttas that are not meant to be taken totally literally, and other things which may have been added over time. So an investigation of these things is necessary. Since discovering suttacentral, I can say that I appreciate reading Bhante Sujato’s in depth investigations of these texts. But alas, I have not arrived anywhere near a perfect reading of the suttas, and I cannot with complete certainty tell you which bits, if any, should be discarded. I allow the possibility that Mt. Meru could be true in some sense which is beyond my current understanding, and I have faith enough in the Buddha that this seems plausible to me.
But how often do I think of Mt. Meru? Very seldom. I cannot say the same for rebirth - I fully expect “life” to continue at death, and I know that death is on its way. This is not a trivial issue as far as I’m concerned. That being said, I don’t at all expect that everyone will feel the same - We are individuals with different perspectives (and those perspectives are not permanent) and “it’s all good!”
Thank you for sharing your perspective. But I don’t quite understand why literal re-birth would necessarily imply the existence of a soul. If actual rebirth is a process as natural as the continuation we experience in this life, and if there is no soul necessary for us to exist one moment to the next, then why should a soul be assumed necessary for the continuation of existence after physical death? It is a real process, but with nothing substantial (permanent) underlying it - this is my view.
One sees animals every day. Are they not denizens of a lower realm, marked by limited intelligence, diversity of form, and a generally brutal, fearful existence?
Some few animals are very lucky to be treated as adored pets of wealthy (on a global scale) humans. Compare that number to the number of animals in less fortunate circumstances of being…
And speaking of animals, I’m curious how they fit into the Secularist buddhist worldview. I haven’t come across any explanations of their place in it…
I’m not sure secularists all have the same view. But, by and large, I imagine they regard animals other than human beings as as constituting an extremely diverse biological assortment. They all share some traits with human animals - eating, reproducing, ambulating - but also differ from us in varying degrees according to species. Like us, they have a lifespan during which their own characteristic individual clusters and patterns of mental and physical states arise and pass away in accordance with causal conditions. And then, eventually, their lifespans come to an end and those individual patterns transform and die out.
Do you allow that it’s true the way the average Iron Age individual would have understood it? You kinda have to, if you’re going to be consistent about these things. Iron Age folk thought of it as true in a very real sense, however infrequently they thought about it. It was not an esoteric teaching, it was basically just geography to them.
Is it that way for anyone here? I’d like to hear about it.
There is no “secularist buddhist worldview”. There’s secularism as a lack of religious worldviews, and then from that place, all sorts of views can show up. Probably animals are evolved forms of life, for most secularists, such that basic biology comprises the response to your question.
You realize this rhetoric cuts both ways, don’t you?
Jayarava has written extensively on this topic, so I’ll mention a short little .pdf here: Some Problems with Believing in Rebirth. There are many philosophical problems with rebirth in general; Buddhist versions are not exempt.
Maybe Secular Buddhists should drop the word ‘Buddhist’. Buddhists, in turn, should stop claiming that their metaphysics are uniquely visible here & now. They aren’t. They are one among many.
What if we said the Buddha had great skill with a/the way to remove all dissatisfying phenomenological experiences of any kind, and then we said nothing about Iron Age cosmology or ontology?
Indeed. There are so many insects. So many. And few are loved in the manner of a cat.
Incidentally, I do not think my cat is a deva, just to be clear, since this is the internet, and one can never be sure. I meant it as a joke: the old trope of cats considering themselves God.
What are the causes and conditions that gave rise to your circumstances, the subjective experience of a human being? How about the subjective experience of a dog? An ant? Surely different, no? I’m sure the instinctive answer will involve recourse to biology, but that’s not directly relevant. I’m asking about subjective experience of these different beings, what are the causes and conditions that have led to being born into each one?
I don’t think I understand the question. The subjective experiences of different kinds of animals are no doubt very different, according to their species. But there is no explanation of why a dog has dog-like experiences other than the fact that it is a dog, and not something else.
How does the Secular buddhist worldview explain how among human beings, why are some born into and subjectively experience excellent circumstances (e.g. good health, loving and financially secure parents, higher intelligence, etc.), others miserable ones (e.g. poor health, abusive and poor parents, lower intelligence, etc.), and everything in between?
I assume it doesn’t. They see Buddhism as a path leading to escape from suffering, not a cosmic explanation for why things happen to people according to some righteous background plan, providence or hidden system of justice.
The world is full of shitty things. It is what it is, and not some other world we would like to live in where everything works out happily ever after. The Buddha left his home and people in search of an escape. He found something.
Not really; rephrase the same rhetoric with e.g. Xian terms, or even materialist terms, and I think we’ll see that it’s a case of personal preference being recast as some sort of pseudo-reasonable rhetorical flourish, such as a Pascal’s Wager.
