It seems to be that the most profound and enduringly important of the Buddha’s teachings have nothing to do with rebirth, heaven, hell or related matters.
3 Likes
Dan, thanks for your response. Once again, well written and food for thought. My immediate sense is that what we are discussing is what is sometimes referred to in the law of evidence as “weight” of the evidence.
then they go on to say that it is an empirical claim for which there is no compelling evidence
This is a judgment as to the weight that should be given to evidence and its probative value. Just as a judge might give weight to evidence, assess the credibility of the witness, and determine its probative value, that is what I feel is at the heart of this discussion. I think you’re saying that secular Buddhists give little to no weight to the evidence of rebirth. They may agree that there is evidence of rebirth, but refuse to give it weight or assign it any probative value. But this analysis is more than speculation, and to me, is a discussion over what value one places on the evidence.
1 Like
Yes, I am very interested in developing my mind further to attain deeper levels of concentration, insight, peace and liberation. Personally, I have no interest in cultivating “super-normal powers.” It’s impossible to know in advance what will “come up”, of course, but I imagine that I would respond to any images or visions or voices or tingles the way I try to respond to them now: by noting their existence, perhaps making some notes about what caused them to arise, and then turning away from them.
Yeah. Caffeine is good ! Caffeine is bad ! No, caffeine is good, really !
3 Likes
Wouldn’t you still want to put an end to your suffering, even if you found out its temporal duration was less than you originally thought?
And what about the suffering of others?
2 Likes
Naturally. I see it as part and parcel of the path at all stages.
Perhaps that’s one way of putting it. I think their more typical position is that there is very little positive evidence of rebirth, and that what little anecdotal evidence there is is heavily overwhelmed on the other side by the mountain of everyday contrary evidence that points toward the conclusion that are psychic lives depend on the organic functioning of our bodies, and so when the latter ceases to function, the former probably comes to an end.
1 Like
I hear you. Not to be a pain in the ar**, but I’d submit that if a group of secular Buddhists really took the time to explore the evidence (via coursework [Kamma and Rebirth course] , investigation, samadhi practice, experiences in one’s own life, analogy with other studied phenomena), there’d be a swing of perspectives in favor of the evidence. On the contrary, if Buddhists that have saddha in the Dhamma were to be exposed to the secular evidence, I’d submit that very few would change their perspective. In other words, I feel that many in the secular community just haven’t taken the time to review the evidence, to assess it and deliberate over its weight and value. Now, I am speculating, of course, but that is my sense of the issue.
2 Likes
Thanks. So all I was suggesting is that the Buddha’s path of practice still makes sense for those who think they only have one brief human life to live. They still want to find release from their suffering, and they still want to help others find release from their suffering.
It’s been suggested by several people here in the past that somehow the Buddha’s path doesn’t make sense unless one realizes how existentially dreadful and interminably long our existences are, and that those who don’t have this belief will not be motivated to practice, and will just wait around to die.
I find this claim hard to reconcile with the observation that in more traditional Buddhist cultures, where belief in rebirth is presumably more common, consistent meditation practice among the laity is said to be less common than it is among the western Buddhist laity, where people are all about the meditation. Might it not be that once people believe they will have an unfathomably long series of second chances to get things right, they have less motivation to practice diligently?
5 Likes
Comment relocated!
Yea I agree - my point was that this inappropriate attention is not the same thing as belief in rebirth.
No totally, that’s what I’m saying though, the fact that they are so profound is what moves me to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rebirth.
People looking for scientific evidence to ‘prove’ rebirth aren’t going to find it.
There are plenty of rebirth stories out there -which one (or how many) do you need before one is convinced?
The one that convinced me, and recently at that I might add, was the story of Dhamma Ruwan - a young 3-4 year old boy from Sri Lanka reciting melodiously the pali suttas. He recalled doing this as Bhikkhu in Sri Lanka in day gone by. His father recorded him on tape, and the odd things was I had never heard the melody it was recited in- ie it simply wasn’t chanted like that in modern Sri Lanka and there was little chance the young boy could develop this melody on his own. This boy, now a man is ordained now as Ven Samadhikusalo (if I am not mistaken) under Ajhan Brahmavanso.
So the issue is, how much evidence do you really need. If personal world views are at risk, the evidence level required will be higher.
As for wanting 100% proof, science can’t prove that I absolutely exist. I am mostly empty space, aren’t I? So it wont be able to prove rebirth exists- we cant even remember our childhood much less a past life? If the null-hypothesis, the way theories are proven or rejected- the scientific method is to be considered- science would start with the theory that the idea of rebirth is false. Then it would proceed to disprove it. You only need one case to disprove it, as Ajhan Brahmavanso was stating in his talks about rebirth. The question at this point is the confidence level required -what the burden of evidence or proof is. Or to put it in another way, how many Higgs bosons do you need to say the particle exists, 1 indirect evidence, 1 visual sighting, 1 direct evidence, a million hits? Scientists seem to have kept the probability at a reasonable level- ie very low level of evidence required. It would seem the proof of evidence must be kept relatively low, though the incidence is high, the memory of it is very rare. I think it is worthwhile looking at this with an open mind, and if it doesn’t work, put it in the ‘uncertain’ box, rather than I know better than everyone and more these superstitious so-and-so’s and reject its existence and try to uphold that as the truth . Better to say ‘rebirth doesn’t exist’ is my ‘personal truth’ and leave it at that.
with metta
3 Likes
@DKervick
OK, that sounds like a good strategy! As a consequence of doing this - when the time is right - and we find ourselves in a situation where the optimal causes and conditions are present, we may find that something new and unexpected appears on the horizon. Samadhi is that kind of discovery - it happens after we have finished noting [noticing] the arising and ceasing of “images or visions or voices or tingles” etc. - when everything has settled down in deep peace and stillness. Then, rapture and happiness and when the ‘beautiful’ ceases then, formless jhanas. The arising and ceasing of all these kinds of ‘phenomena’ are part of the journey of discovery. Some of us have already taken this journey of astonishing discoveries that came as a complete surprise. We need to have an open-mind when it comes to this journey and we cannot have that openness if we insist that we know things that we merely believe! This includes secular and religious beliefs regarding ‘what happens after death’ or other notions that we can neither prove or disprove. At this stage in the journey insights of this nature may seem inconceivable. They may be beyond us for now but the Dharma is full of surprises at every twist and turn. Those with no expectations are never disappointed, and are often, pleasantly surprised!
4 Likes
That’s possible. On the other hand, my experience has been that devoted traditional Buddhists don’t really want to discuss and critically evaluate the evidence, or its absence. Someone mentioned Robert Thurman above. Some might have listened to the panel discussions on Buddhist ethics that took place in 2011 at a Columbia University conference. The topic of evidence came up in a colloquy between Thurman and Owen Flanagan, and my recollection is that following a bit of a fumbling effort to establish that the evidence was there, Thurman launched into a petulant, emotional rant about scientific materialism, western militarism and imperialism.
1 Like
I absolutely totally agreed with @sujato
" I personally accept the second position, but I understand why someone would not be persuaded. Don’t worry, it’s okay! You can disagree with the Buddha! He never objected because people had a different view than him.
What the Buddha came really strong down on, though, was when people misrepresented what he said. He could hardly have made his position on rebirth clearer: he stated it again and again and again, smack bang in the middle of pretty much all his core analyses of the problem of suffering.”
To me, the real problem is “misrepresenting the Buddha’s teaching”. We can go on and on to argue about “did the Buddha really teach rebirth?” but personally, to be honest, i just can not get my head around the idea that the Buddha’s teaching help only to end or lessen suffering in this life. Even though we’re so lazy and do nothing our suffering will eventually end at death. What a relief!
You can argue otherwise but IMO it seems that we do not appreciate enough the profoundness of what the Buddha had awaken to.
I also understand different people perceive thing in different way when reading the same article. Like AnagarikaMichael, I also feel:
“I’m not sure where I see the personal attacks, nor do I see any jumble of ideas…”
Bhante clearly stated
“I might say that I don’t advocate, nor do I practice, shoving rebirth down people’s throats. Believe what you want! But I am a student of early Buddhist texts, and when I hear them being misrepresented, I try to clear it up.”
I am very happy that Bhante Sujato, with his critical mind and his excellent writing skills has surely “stirred the pot” and given us an opportunity to contemplate, argue and dig deeper into the “one” subject that is very crucial and important.
I have to admit that Bhante has a very strong opinion and his use of words may not be “music” to everybody’s ears but that’s the way he is and I believe sometime one should use strong argument to get the message across 
.
Remember Ajahn Brahm has said that disagreement is not a problem; it’s just give us a chance to learn from each other.
BTW i don’t want to involve in the endless discussion but just want to use this opportunity to say that I’m much grateful for countless things that Bhante has done to preserve and spread the Dhamma. If the Buddha’s teachings have benefited us in any way, we should remember to be grateful for the Sangha who have earnestly and carefully preserved those teachings to the best of their ability.
I’m so heartbroken when hearing ungrateful people dismiss all the wonderful work that the Sangha have done and focus only on finding faults with trivial details . Of course, the Sangha that I’m talking about are those who ‘truly’ practice the Dhamma and the Vinaya. 
Hopefully all of us could continue to “debate” in a friendly and meaningful way to benefit each other.
10 Likes
I certainly hope that we take the discussion in the spirit of sharpening our positions and understandings, but it’s good to explicitly say it every now and then, thanks 
But this question at least is settled. Anyone who is willing to read the EBT can have no doubt whatsoever. The Buddha taught rebirth. Granted, like @AndyL wrote, we don’t know what the Buddha said verbatim, but to ‘add’ rebirth as an editorial effort into the EBT would be like adding the 4NP or samadhi into the EBT - though not impossible that would be an incredible stretch.
5 Likes
Well said ! Sometimes simple, heartfelt words convey a lot more than strident sentences and paragraphs…
Here’s a thought: consciousness is not a “sense”, traditionally, in the West. Western paradigms (read: the metaphysical presumptions that inform ‘secular Buddhism’, etc.) surrounding truth often exclude ‘personal’ experiences as a viable method for determining ‘truth’ - specifically to the detriment of the demonstrability of truths that are posited to necessarily rely on personal experience to be established when operating under their own native epistemic paradigms. Is there a relation?
1 Like
yes. and always less contrived.