Would You Still Practice If Rebirth Does Not Exist?

[rockyysdt]

New to me, I learned recently that some Buddhists have differing views on the Buddhas teachings regarding Re Birth/ Reincarnation.

A lecturing Theravada Monk explained that Re Birth & Reincarnation appeared in Upanishad literature atleast 200 years before Buddha & has been cobbled onto Buddhist thought.

The Monk further suggested that when the Buddha spoke of Birth or Re Birth he was talking about the Re Birth of an incidence of ego, not Re Birth of soul or spirit as we are impermanent & conditioned & there is nothing inside to own our thoughts or to be re born.

Feeling arises in response to stimulation received by our nose, tongue, eyes, skin, &/or mind which then leads to consciousness. Due to defilements an incidence of self or ego arises which is illusion but gives us the sense of soul or a controller within.

This incidence of ego is dependent on the strength of our becoming, clinging or craving but will eventually subside only to be replaced by another incidence of ego due to further stimulation of our senses. Each of us may experience millions of incidences of ego in our lifetime.

The Monk suggested that the Buddha was really talking about new incidences of ego in ones life, & not Re Birth of a soul into another body.

He further said that Nibhanna is a state in which defilements have been extinguished, there is no longer attachment and any incidence of ego no longer arises.

In this state we automatically live our lives with true loving kindness, right view & right action. When we act there is no ulterior motive.

It is an accomplishment extremely difficult to achieve and only a few people in the world will be able to attain it. He indicated that there are many stages towards this pinnacle which are life changing and priceless.

In summary, as we are conditioned & impermanent & there is nothing inside which can be Re Born, when we die it's all over for our ego, or illusion. The one which we call "l"or "me".

This makes Buddhism stand out from religions.

With religions you must have faith exclusively and a promise of life after death awaits in order to soothe the ego.

Buddhism on the other hand requires effort, & through self experience, offers profound change in this life .

[Brucenkhamen]

Yes

[sabaijai]

Yes. I practice on the assumption that there is no transmigrating soul, just the khandas, as the Buddha taught.

[Xangsamhua]

Reminds me of Arthur Schopenhauer, who said that "Egoism really consists in man's restricting all reality to his own person, in that he imagines he lives in this alone, and not in others. Death teaches him something better, since it abolishes this person, so that man's true nature, that is his will, will henceforth live only in other individuals."

Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was a philosopher inspired by Vedic philosophy, as much as one could be in Germany at the time. (Max Mueller's studies of the Rig-Veda began in Schopenhauer's later years.) Nevertheless, Arthur read the Upanishads every day and, while not endorsing rebirth as a meaningful proposition, found consolation that in death we continue as manifold expressions of the Will, his term for the underlying, impersonal but energizing life-force that is found to some degree in all phenomena.

[sabaijai]

"If I were to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would have to consider Buddhism the finest of all religion."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

[Xangsamhua]

"If I were to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would have to consider Buddhism the finest of all religion."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Thank you, Sabaijai. I didn't know this quote. It's been a few years since I was reading Schopenhauer and would have thought he became familiar with Buddhist teaching only later in life; however, according to Wikipedia, that view is now contested. There is no contestation though about the debt he said he owed to the Vedas and Upanishads:

Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:

If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.

^[70]

He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: "It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!"

(Wikipedia: Arthur Schopenhauer)

From what I understand of Schopenhauer, although he may have, at least in the latter part of his life, been impressed by and influenced by Buddhism, especially the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how he could accept Karma/Kamma, as he rejected the possibility of free will on the ground that the Principle of Sufficient Reason simply doesn't allow for it. He refers negatively to the notion of free will several times in The World as Will and Representation.

His idea of and consolation in the reabsorption of the ego into the Will (universal energizing life force) and later re-expression in some form is reflected in his comment:

We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can forever draw new life and renewed time. (Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin Classics: These were written in the latter part of his life.)

There is much in Schopenhauer that sits well with the Buddhist view of life and destiny, and Buddhists would benefit from reading Schopenhauer. However, he can be read negatively also, e.g. by Nietzche, an early disciple, and his distaste for Judaism, while based on epistemology, not racism, was not helpful in his influence on the Wagnerian circle and later German thought. He also didn't have a favourable view of middle-class German women, which has led to his demonization by Western feminists. He was, however, well-disposed to working-class women and wrote passionately against their exploitation. As I said above, though, for Schopenhauer there is no Nirvana - the Will is not Nirvana - and karmic progress cannot be the result of freely chosen action, as there is no freely chosen action.

[camerata]

The Monk further suggested that when the Buddha spoke of Birth or Re Birth he was talking about the Re Birth of an incidence of ego, not Re Birth of soul or spirit as we are impermanent & conditioned & there is nothing inside to own our thoughts or to be re born.

It looks like something got lost in translation here. "Reincarnation" is the reappearance of an enduring soul/spirit in a different body. The Buddha didn't teach that. "Rebirth" is a term used in a special way by Buddhists to conveniently describe the stream of existence that continues from one realm to another. Nothing is actually "reborn," it's just a convenient term for a complex process. The idea that the Buddha only taught rebirth as rebirth of the ego isn't supported in the Pali Canon. A.K. Warder addresses this question in his book, Indian Buddhism.

However, there are plenty of Western monks and teachers who focus on rebirth of ego because it's easier to grasp. Ven Buddhadasa also focused on rebirth of ego, but AFAIK he never specifically rejected the idea of traditional Buddhist rebirth. Ajahn Sumedho says that future lives are "speculation" but he certainly doesn't reject Buddhist rebirth. Lay teachers like Jack Kornfield are pretty much ignoring the traditional idea of rebirth and concentrating on reducing suffering in the here and now, but they aren't actually rejecting rebirth. Check out his book The Wise Heart.

In answer to your question, there is no proof that the specifically Buddhist take on "rebirth" is a fact and I've never felt that I believed it or had to believe it, but I practise regardless. The benefits of practice in this life don't depend on a belief in literal rebirth. I think they depend more on an acceptance that everything is impermanent and that there is no enduring soul.

[rockyysdt]

In answer to your question, there is no proof that the specifically Buddhist take on "rebirth" is a fact and I've never felt that I believed it or had to believe it, but I practise regardless. The benefits of practice in this life don't depend on a belief in literal rebirth. I think they depend more on an acceptance that everything is impermanent and that there is no enduring soul.

Then the issue becomes: If the odds of becoming enlightened are 250 million to one, and if there is no Re Birth what value is practice?

Are there worthwhile achievable levels of experience worth the countless hours of practice and commitment?

Do advancements experienced fall back to square one after periods of non practice?

An example l point to was gleaned by observing a lecturing Monk. After many years of practice, observance of precepts, & austere lifestyle, this man continued to display his heavily conditioned state.

[camerata]

Then the issue becomes: If the odds of becoming enlightened are 250 million to one, and if there is no Re Birth what value is practice?

Are there worthwhile achievable levels of experience worth the countless hours of practice and commitment?

This depends on your particular situation, whether you are practising in a skillful way and having any success. In my case, it's a no-brainer. I don't find the practice a chore and I've had some benefits. Thanks to the Dhamma I'm no longer a quasi-zombie controlled by my ego. Thanks to the Dhamma, if a doctor tells me tomorrow that I have terminal cancer I know I could handle it better than before. But you have to answer this question for yourself.

One thing I noticed when hanging out at the BSWA web forum is that there often seems to be a trajectory for new Buddhists (especially young ones), starting off full of enthusiasm, accepting everything, then starting to doubt stuff as critical thinking kicks in, and finally disillusionment, over a period of 2-3 years. As far as I could see, the ones who got disillusioned didn't really get into it deeply enough. You have to guard against this and stay focused on results. If you're not getting any, you're probably doing something wrong.

Do advancements experienced fall back to square one after periods of non practice?

It seems to be generally accepted that this is more or less the case with meditation, i.e. it's not like learning to ride a bike. Not sure about the rest of it.

[Brucenkhamen]

Then the issue becomes: If the odds of becoming enlightened are 250 million to one, and if there is no Re Birth what value is practice?

Are there worthwhile achievable levels of experience worth the countless hours of practice and commitment?

Do advancements experienced fall back to square one after periods of non practice?

That's for you to answer.

To me the value of practice is experiencing the benefits in my life here and now, anything beyond that is speculation and a bonus. For me it's been well worthwhile but it has been very time consuming, what separates it from other other quick fix self help methodologies is I find it's on much firmer ground and one is dealing with the real problems not just with the symptoms.

[rockyysdt]

This depends on your particular situation, whether you are practising in a skillful way and having any success. In my case, it's a no-brainer. I don't find the practice a chore and I've had some benefits. Thanks to the Dhamma I'm no longer a quasi-zombie controlled by my ego. Thanks to the Dhamma, if a doctor tells me tomorrow that I have terminal cancer I know I could handle it better than before. But you have to answer this question for yourself.

How does this compare to a middle path way of life?

That is, live morally, exercise regularly, eat with consideration, maintain balance between work & relaxation, & respect fellow man & the environment.

Do advancements experienced fall back to square one after periods of non practice?

It seems to be generally accepted that this is more or less the case with meditation, i.e. it's not like learning to ride a bike. Not sure about the rest of it.

This appears to mean that unless one is 100% committed to regular practice, all deposits are lost.

[rockyysdt]

I find it's on much firmer ground and one is dealing with the real problems not just with the symptoms.

Can you give examples?

[sabaijai]

"If I were to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would have to consider Buddhism the finest of all religion."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Thank you, Sabaijai. I didn't know this quote. It's been a few years since I was reading Schopenhauer and would have thought he became familiar with Buddhist teaching only later in life; however, according to Wikipedia, that view is now contested. There is no contestation though about the debt he said he owed to the Vedas and Upanishads:

Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:

If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.

^[70]

He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: "It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!"

(Wikipedia: Arthur Schopenhauer)

From what I understand of Schopenhauer, although he may have, at least in the latter part of his life, been impressed by and influenced by Buddhism, especially the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how he could accept Karma/Kamma, as he rejected the possibility of free will on the ground that the Principle of Sufficient Reason simply doesn't allow for it. He refers negatively to the notion of free will several times in The World as Will and Representation.

His idea of and consolation in the reabsorption of the ego into the Will (universal energizing life force) and later re-expression in some form is reflected in his comment:

We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can forever draw new life and renewed time. (Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin Classics: These were written in the latter part of his life.)

There is much in Schopenhauer that sits well with the Buddhist view of life and destiny, and Buddhists would benefit from reading Schopenhauer. However, he can be read negatively also, e.g. by Nietzche, an early disciple, and his distaste for Judaism, while based on epistemology, not racism, was not helpful in his influence on the Wagnerian circle and later German thought. He also didn't have a favourable view of middle-class German women, which has led to his demonization by Western feminists. He was, however, well-disposed to working-class women and wrote passionately against their exploitation. As I said above, though, for Schopenhauer there is no Nirvana - the Will is not Nirvana - and karmic progress cannot be the result of freely chosen action, as there is no freely chosen action.

I think you've misunderstood the original quote. It doesn't mean that Schopenhauer wasn't more influenced by Vedanta than by Buddhism.

[fabianfred]

This depends on your particular situation, whether you are practising in a skillful way and having any success. In my case, it's a no-brainer. I don't find the practice a chore and I've had some benefits. Thanks to the Dhamma I'm no longer a quasi-zombie controlled by my ego. Thanks to the Dhamma, if a doctor tells me tomorrow that I have terminal cancer I know I could handle it better than before. But you have to answer this question for yourself.

How does this compare to a middle path way of life?

That is, live morally, exercise regularly, eat with consideration, maintain balance between work & relaxation, & respect fellow man & the environment.

Do advancements experienced fall back to square one after periods of non practice?

It seems to be generally accepted that this is more or less the case with meditation, i.e. it's not like learning to ride a bike. Not sure about the rest of it.

This appears to mean that unless one is 100% committed to regular practice, all deposits are lost.

any practice is not lost...inasmuch that it is all making merit...especially meditation which is the most difficult therefore the highest merit.

Vipassana is about moment to moment awareness...therefore the intensive courses try to get us to continue the mindfulness without break between formal sessions of sitting and walking ...by also trying to remain aware during normal walking about and washing bathing eating etc....so the intensive course of a week or more gets the best results if we practice determinedly and avoid chatting and other distractions.

Practice at home and when back to our normal lives is less intensive but can still be good.

Being good by living a good life is not good enough to get us out of Samsara.

[camerata]

That is, live morally, exercise regularly, eat with consideration, maintain balance between work & relaxation, & respect fellow man & the environment.

That doesn't seem to help much with suffering. Suppose you're in a car crash tomorrow and become a paraplegic - how would that lifestyle help? The Buddha said, "I teach suffering and the way out of suffering," which seems to be the main point of the teaching. The idea is to change the way you experience suffering, and there are different levels you can reach with this.

This appears to mean that unless one is 100% committed to regular practice, all deposits are lost.

I don't see why they would be. Your whole life is the practice. Every time you don't angry at someone or don't get irritated by something (because you're aware of what's going on in your mind) is the regular practice and the benefit. It's not like you have to dig a ditch every day. So I doubt you'd lose those benefits or stop doing that kind of practice. But it's true you have to put in more effort if you want to go deeper.

Don't think of it as a "Nirvana or bust" exercise. Think of it as a different way of living. If there's one book you should read at this point, it's Phillip Moffitt's Dancing with Life: "The path to happiness and a sense of well being in your life lies not in avoiding suffering but in using the direct experience of it as a vehicle to gain deep insight into the true nature of life and your own existence."

[sabaijai]

Even if you can only give it 25%, even 10%, the reduction in dukkha could be well worth the effort. Some people have only a little dust in their eyes, and receive fruit of the path with what seems like relatively little effort.

On the other hand, even with 100% practice (if there's such a thing) you won't necessarily derive 100% fruit.

[phetaroi]

What is the point of making up imaginary numbers about the percentage odds of experiencing rebirth?

Each person has their own reason for adopting Buddhism as their primary faith vehicle (so to speak).

[seedy]

I have always understood that to be reborn means the returning to the state I was before there was a conscious 'I' . Some I guess would call this Death not rebirth. Living as the Buddha taught is the correct path for me in this life.

[Xangsamhua]

"If I were to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would have to consider Buddhism the finest of all religion."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Thank you, Sabaijai. I didn't know this quote. It's been a few years since I was reading Schopenhauer and would have thought he became familiar with Buddhist teaching only later in life; however, according to Wikipedia, that view is now contested. There is no contestation though about the debt he said he owed to the Vedas and Upanishads:

Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:

If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.

^[70]

He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: "It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!"

(Wikipedia: Arthur Schopenhauer)

From what I understand of Schopenhauer, although he may have, at least in the latter part of his life, been impressed by and influenced by Buddhism, especially the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how he could accept Karma/Kamma, as he rejected the possibility of free will on the ground that the Principle of Sufficient Reason simply doesn't allow for it. He refers negatively to the notion of free will several times in The World as Will and Representation.

His idea of and consolation in the reabsorption of the ego into the Will (universal energizing life force) and later re-expression in some form is reflected in his comment:

We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can forever draw new life and renewed time. (Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin Classics: These were written in the latter part of his life.)

There is much in Schopenhauer that sits well with the Buddhist view of life and destiny, and Buddhists would benefit from reading Schopenhauer. However, he can be read negatively also, e.g. by Nietzche, an early disciple, and his distaste for Judaism, while based on epistemology, not racism, was not helpful in his influence on the Wagnerian circle and later German thought. He also didn't have a favourable view of middle-class German women, which has led to his demonization by Western feminists. He was, however, well-disposed to working-class women and wrote passionately against their exploitation. As I said above, though, for Schopenhauer there is no Nirvana - the Will is not Nirvana - and karmic progress cannot be the result of freely chosen action, as there is no freely chosen action.

I think you've misunderstood the original quote. It doesn't mean that Schopenhauer wasn't more influenced by Vedanta than by Buddhism.

I was very interested to see the quote and I don't think I misunderstood it. I was just a bit surprised that Schopenhauer was that much influenced by Buddhism at all. Somehow I'd missed that in my reading (around 2004-5) or forgotten it, so I went to Google and to Wikipedia and to Essays and Aphorisms - all quite cursorily, as I still work full time - and then wrote down my reflections.

Anyway, quote misunderstood or otherwise, it's always nice to see the often misunderstood Schopenhauer quoted and, whether via Vedanta or Buddhadhamma, he was a prescient spokesman in Europe for the wisdom of India and dhamma/dharma in either its Vedic or Buddhist forms.

[evanson]

Have I got this right? Is this thread saying 'if there's nothing in it for me, ergo being reborn, and you don't come back (why an earth would you? You sucker for punishment? Or has your life been so blissful you want another go at it? Then continuing to bother with it all's just a waste of you time?

[rockyysdt]

What is the point of making up imaginary numbers about the percentage odds of experiencing rebirth?

Each person has their own reason for adopting Buddhism as their primary faith vehicle (so to speak).

Hi Vince.

The percentage odds l see in this thread refer to achieving enlightenment, not Re Birth.

I thought it was agreed that Re Birth is theoretical, disputable & not essential to the practice of Buddhism.

A lecturing Monk indicated that it's extremely difficult to achieve enlightenment & very few travelers reach this pinnacle, hence my use of odds.

Is this what you were referring to?

[sabaijai]

"If I were to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I would have to consider Buddhism the finest of all religion."

-- Arthur Schopenhauer

Thank you, Sabaijai. I didn't know this quote. It's been a few years since I was reading Schopenhauer and would have thought he became familiar with Buddhist teaching only later in life; however, according to Wikipedia, that view is now contested. There is no contestation though about the debt he said he owed to the Vedas and Upanishads:

Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:

If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.

^[70]

He summarised the influence of the Upanishads thus: "It has been the solace of my life, it will be the solace of my death!"

(Wikipedia: Arthur Schopenhauer)

From what I understand of Schopenhauer, although he may have, at least in the latter part of his life, been impressed by and influenced by Buddhism, especially the Four Noble Truths, I don't see how he could accept Karma/Kamma, as he rejected the possibility of free will on the ground that the Principle of Sufficient Reason simply doesn't allow for it. He refers negatively to the notion of free will several times in The World as Will and Representation.

His idea of and consolation in the reabsorption of the ego into the Will (universal energizing life force) and later re-expression in some form is reflected in his comment:

We would perhaps grow frantic at the sight of this ebbing away of our short span of time were we not secretly conscious in the profoundest depths of our being that we share in the inexhaustible well of eternity, out of which we can forever draw new life and renewed time. (Essays and Aphorisms, Penguin Classics: These were written in the latter part of his life.)

There is much in Schopenhauer that sits well with the Buddhist view of life and destiny, and Buddhists would benefit from reading Schopenhauer. However, he can be read negatively also, e.g. by Nietzche, an early disciple, and his distaste for Judaism, while based on epistemology, not racism, was not helpful in his influence on the Wagnerian circle and later German thought. He also didn't have a favourable view of middle-class German women, which has led to his demonization by Western feminists. He was, however, well-disposed to working-class women and wrote passionately against their exploitation. As I said above, though, for Schopenhauer there is no Nirvana - the Will is not Nirvana - and karmic progress cannot be the result of freely chosen action, as there is no freely chosen action.

I think you've misunderstood the original quote. It doesn't mean that Schopenhauer wasn't more influenced by Vedanta than by Buddhism.

I was very interested to see the quote and I don't think I misunderstood it. I was just a bit surprised that Schopenhauer was that much influenced by Buddhism at all. Somehow I'd missed that in my reading (around 2004-5) or forgotten it, so I went to Google and to Wikipedia and to Essays and Aphorisms - all quite cursorily, as I still work full time - and then wrote down my reflections.

Anyway, quote misunderstood or otherwise, it's always nice to see the often misunderstood Schopenhauer quoted and, whether via Vedanta or Buddhadhamma, he was a prescient spokesman in Europe for the wisdom of India and dhamma/dharma in either its Vedic or Buddhist forms.

No, he was not influenced by Buddhism, according to his own account. But after he had developed his philosophical system, he found it largely congruent with Buddhism (as he understood it, obviously), and pronounced it the "finest" of all religion. Then he went on to compare his system with, for example, the Four Truths.

[sabaijai]

What is the point of making up imaginary numbers about the percentage odds of experiencing rebirth?

Some people are just inclined that way

[eggomaniac]

What is the point of making up imaginary numbers about the percentage odds of experiencing rebirth?

Some people are just inclined that way

Well, Stop the presses!

According to Ernest Valea, not me, Buddha taught that by even being born as a human we beat great mathematical odds. Things that make you go hmmm,,, mani ,, padme

'''Another importa'nt element is the extreme rarity of being reincarnated as a human person. The Buddha taught in the Chiggala Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 35,63):"""

Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?

It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole.

It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy and rightly self-awakened, arises in the world.

-----

"""If one tried to calculate the probability of obtaining the human state according to this text, and consider the surface of "this great earth" as being just the surface of India, the odds would be once in a timespan of 5 x 1016 years (5 followed by 16 zeros). This is 5 million times the age of the universe. """

more unlikely to become worthy... I get the OP's question, and it's a good one,,, Why play such hopeless odds?

[eggomaniac]

I can't find the essay by Googling and don't know which Thread I Posted it in: it was entitled 'Buddha is proof there is reincarnation'. If I understood the author, he said there was reincarnation in Buddhism and rebirth. He said reincarnation is for low level humans. Rebirth is only after one attains very high, slip stream consciousness and does apply to us.

Why would a Thai Therevadan Buddhist tell me, "No, don't kill that wasp. We come back to live everything we kill." ?

Personally, I have never believed in reincarnation, until 'experiences' in and with Thais got me wondering along those lines. All of the influences with Thais pull that way, so it is comforting to have farangs who set the door against such wayward thinking. I mean if Buddhism does not profess reincarnation, phew, I can get back to my senses.

[phetaroi]

Hi Vince.

The percentage odds l see in this thread refer to achieving enlightenment, not Re Birth.

I thought it was agreed that Re Birth is theoretical, disputable & not essential to the practice of Buddhism.

A lecturing Monk indicated that it's extremely difficult to achieve enlightenment & very few travelers reach this pinnacle, hence my use of odds.

Is this what you were referring to?

The main problem I have here is not that rebirth or reincarnation (or both) may or may not occur. If you say to me, "I believe in rebirth (or reincarnation)," I say fine. But there seems to be somewhat of an assumption here that it is a fact.

We like to say that Buddhism is based on what is observable and verifiable.

Oops, unless one of you has personally witnessed something that the rest of us have not, then rebirth (or reincarnation) has not been verified. Instead, like many other things in Buddhism and all other religions, it's a matter of personal faith.

If you accept Buddhism as a moral code and way of life, without expecting to get a reward for living the philosophy, then you won't be disappointed.

I am simply saying that to believe in reincarnation/rebirth is fine, to accept it as a fact is delusional, and to begin assigning percentages and odds to it happening is folly.

[rockyysdt]

[quote name='phetaroi' date='2010-06-17 18:30' timestamp='1276770635' post='3692943'

The main problem I have here is not that rebirth or reincarnation (or both) may or may not occur. If you say to me, "I believe in rebirth (or reincarnation)," I say fine. But there seems to be somewhat of an assumption here that it is a fact.

We like to say that Buddhism is based on what is observable and verifiable.

Oops, unless one of you has personally witnessed something that the rest of us have not, then rebirth (or reincarnation) has not been verified. Instead, like many other things in Buddhism and all other religions, it's a matter of personal faith.

If you accept Buddhism as a moral code and way of life, without expecting to get a reward for living the philosophy, then you won't be disappointed.

I am simply saying that to believe in reincarnation/rebirth is fine, to accept it as a fact is delusional, and to begin assigning percentages and odds to it happening is folly.

Vince, everyone including myself, have agreed with what you say.

If you read the posts carefully you'll find the only odds given were in achieving Enlightenment not Re Birth???

[fabianfred]

Although achieveing human rebirth is rare and precious it is not like a lucky dip. We do not go back into the sack of lottery numbers at each rebirth. Do not forget the attraction principle of karma...by creating karma with other humans...and by keeping the five precepts..we are creating the cause to get further human rebirth.

Enlightenment...reaching Nibbana in a single lifetime is difficult...but the goal of reaching the safety of Stream-entry is much more attainable...by anyone who is determined to practice vipassana regularly.

One of the requirements to reach Stream-entry is a complete unshakeable faith in the triple-gem/karma and rebirth.

[rockyysdt]

Although achieveing human rebirth is rare and precious it is not like a lucky dip. We do not go back into the sack of lottery numbers at each rebirth. Do not forget the attraction principle of karma...by creating karma with other humans...and by keeping the five precepts..we are creating the cause to get further human rebirth.

Hi Fred.

Many Buddhists, including experienced Monks, don't believe in Re Birth nor reincarnation.

Some have said that the Buddha was speaking of Birth of incidences of Ego within one life when teaching Re Birth.

Many believe that Enlightenment or Nibhanna is not a place but a state of mind in which there are no defilements nor attachment to self.

They say enlightenment is something we can experience in our life but when we die there is no longer such a possibility as we are conditioned and impermanent.

To think more is to be attached to self or ego as there is nothing inside to be Re Born.

The Buddha also said that one should not accept anothers word but experience for oneself.

I don't think anyone exists on this planet who can claim to have experienced Re Birth.

Are your beliefs different?

[rockyysdt]

Although achieveing human rebirth is rare and precious it is not like a lucky dip. We do not go back into the sack of lottery numbers at each rebirth. Do not forget the attraction principle of karma...by creating karma with other humans...and by keeping the five precepts..we are creating the cause to get further human rebirth.

Hi Fred.

Many Buddhists, including experienced Monks, don't believe in Re Birth nor reincarnation.

Some have said that the Buddha was speaking of the Birth of incidences of Ego when teaching Re Birth, something we experience countless times within our lifetime.

Many believe that Enlightenment or Nibhanna is not a place but a state of mind in which there are no defilements nor attachment to self.

They say enlightenment is something we can experience in our life but when we die there is no longer such a possibility as we are conditioned and impermanent.

To think more is to be attached to self or ego as there is nothing inside to be Re Born.

Are your beliefs different?