Would You Still Practice If Rebirth Does Not Exist?

[rockyysdt]

Yes, but it concerned society's perception of females becoming renunciants as well as the potential for it causing problems within the Sangha. The Buddha never said females couldn't become arahants.

No but didn't he make it far more difficult for them, especially with the foresight he would have had as an Enlightened being.

[camerata]

Yes, but it concerned society's perception of females becoming renunciants as well as the potential for it causing problems within the Sangha. The Buddha never said females couldn't become arahants.

No but didn't he make it far more difficult for them, especially with the foresight he would have had as an Enlightened being.

I've never read that the Buddha made it difficult for females to become arahants. Why would he? All he did was make them inferior in status to bhikkhus in the Sangha.

[fabianfred]

I don't know why some posters think that it is virtually impossible to reach nirvana...

I am aware that some monks like to make it seem as if nirvana is something only for monks...and many Thais have this mistaken view.

Sometimes women ask the monks if they can reach nirvana and the monks say....yes...just make lots of merit...then get reborn as a male..then you can become a monk.......load of rubbish!!!

One of my teachers is a Thai lady, a mother and housewife...and I am sure she is Arahant...

I did some quick research on a thread involving Bikkhuni's in which there was doubt that there is even 5 Arahants alive today in Thailands Theravada Sangha.

This minuscule figure is the fruit of approx 500,000 ordained Thai Monks (google), all sworn to follow the Buddha's Dhamma. I wouls say that relatively few are actually practicing upon the path with nirvana as their goal

I would tend to think that there is more than five arahants in Thailand right now..... but going by the number of temples teaching vipassana I am sure that there are thousands of stream-enterers, all of which will attain to arahant within a very few lives

It gives you an idea of the rarity of enlightenment.

The success rate must be even slimmer for the non ordained who must fulfill commitments to family & work.

actually many lay people are more devout than monks when it comes to practice of vipassana.... which can be practiced during daily work and not just in formal sitting or walking sessions.

Perhaps nirvana is a very difficult thing to achieve in a single lifetime....far better to aim for Stream-entry...a much more attainable goal.....with nirvana assured within a maximum of seven more lives.

With life so random & ones desires & choices so many, l can't see how you can be so sure.

Behavior in another Re Birth could send you back to the bottom.

The poignant concern is, who will be Re Born & who will be enlightened.

Aren't we all Impermanent & Conditioned & there is nothing inside to become enlightened? why would you think this?? Everything still not in nirvana is impermanent and conditioned....but we do have a something which takes rebirth and is led throught the chain of existences by our karma

Do not forget that just by being a follower of the Buddha... and determined to practice upon the eightfold path with Nirvana as my goal puts me in a very small minority compared to all of the human realm. To make the extra effort to practice vipassana and leave the ordinary pleasures in life behind whilst I do so puts me in an even smaller percentage at the top of the pyramid....so I am in with a very good chance to get to stream-entry.

[fabianfred]

Yes, but it concerned society's perception of females becoming renunciants as well as the potential for it causing problems within the Sangha. The Buddha never said females couldn't become arahants.

No but didn't he make it far more difficult for them, especially with the foresight he would have had as an Enlightened being.

I've never read that the Buddha made it difficult for females to become arahants. Why would he? All he did was make them inferior in status to bhikkhus in the Sangha.

He was reluctant to ordain them because it might shorten the life of the dhamma....they being a great distraction to monks.

Females cannot be Buddhas or Boddhisatvas (in the Theravada definition of boddhisatvas)...but they can certainly attain to arahant.

[phetaroi]

Do not forget that just by being a follower of the Buddha... and determined to practice upon the eightfold path with Nirvana as my goal puts me in a very small minority compared to all of the human realm. To make the extra effort to practice vipassana and leave the ordinary pleasures in life behind whilst I do so puts me in an even smaller percentage at the top of the pyramid....so I am in with a very good chance to get to stream-entry.

1. You have fallen into the trap that so many people do in so many different religions. You believe your religion is the only RIGHT religion and that that sets you apart as being something special. And then you see yourself within that religious group as being even more special because you have the RIGHT beliefs within that RIGHT religion.

2. This is tantamount to an overly inflated ego, and I would think that is something Buddha would have preached against.

[phetaroi]

He was reluctant to ordain them because it might shorten the life of the dhamma....they being a great distraction to monks.

Females cannot be Buddhas or Boddhisatvas (in the Theravada definition of boddhisatvas)...but they can certainly attain to arahant.

Most posters will say something along the lines of, "In my opinion..." or "I think". Since you state the above as FACT, could you support your position with references to where exactly your facts are stated in the Dhamma. BTW, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like you to corroborate your statement of fact.

[camerata]

Do not forget that just by being a follower of the Buddha... and determined to practice upon the eightfold path with Nirvana as my goal puts me in a very small minority compared to all of the human realm. To make the extra effort to practice vipassana and leave the ordinary pleasures in life behind whilst I do so puts me in an even smaller percentage at the top of the pyramid....so I am in with a very good chance to get to stream-entry.

Ajahn Brahm said something along similar lines in one of his talks. He told the audience that just by being there, listening to a Dhamma talk and meditating, they are already in an advantageous position for attaining the goal.

Rocky, I think if we were to take the probable number of arahants as a percentage of the number of monks seriously striving to attain arahantship or stream entry, the ratio would look pretty reasonable, all considered.

[camerata]

Aren't we all Impermanent & Conditioned & there is nothing inside to become enlightened?

Where in the scriptures does it say anything remotely like this? It's just a view that doesn't reflect what the Buddha taught. The problem is that anatta is difficult to understand:

"One who, however, has fully penetrated the selflessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nibbaana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.

Nibbaana is, but not the man that enters it.

The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

Further:

No doer of the deeds is found,

No being that may reap their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on!

This is the only right view."

from Vipassana Dhura.

[rockyysdt]

Aren't we all Impermanent & Conditioned & there is nothing inside to become enlightened?

Where in the scriptures does it say anything remotely like this? It's just a view that doesn't reflect what the Buddha taught. The problem is that anatta is difficult to understand:

"One who, however, has fully penetrated the selflessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nibbaana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection. In the Visuddhimagga it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.

Nibbaana is, but not the man that enters it.

The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

Further:

No doer of the deeds is found,

No being that may reap their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on!

This is the only right view."

from Vipassana Dhura.

Then is what you're saying: "The ego is Impermanenent & Conditoned but there is something inside which can become enlightened"?

.

Humans often describe this as a soul or spirit but it's been said many times there is no such thing??

Isn't no doer, no travellor, no seer, no sufferer the same as nobody, no one, or nothing?

[camerata]

Then is what you're saying: "The ego is Impermanenent & Conditoned but there is something inside which can become enlightened"?

"Impermanent" doesn't mean something doesn't exist, it can mean it is constantly changing.

The Buddha said that "you" can attain enlightenment, but he didn't precisely define what "you" is, AFAIK. If you demand an explanation of who/what you are, you'll never get anywhere because "you" is constantly changing. Nibbana is unconditioned, so the fact that your mind is conditioned at present is irrelevant. At the moment of enlightenment, "you" in the conventional sense cease to exist. Anatta doesn't mean "there's nothing inside," it means the self isn't what you normally take it to be. Ajahn Amaro has a good MP3 talk on this.

Instead of trying to find contradictions in what the Buddha taught based on what others have told you, maybe you should just make a decision to focus on what you can do and what applies in this life. It's a lot easier that way.

[fabianfred]

Do not forget that just by being a follower of the Buddha... and determined to practice upon the eightfold path with Nirvana as my goal puts me in a very small minority compared to all of the human realm. To make the extra effort to practice vipassana and leave the ordinary pleasures in life behind whilst I do so puts me in an even smaller percentage at the top of the pyramid....so I am in with a very good chance to get to stream-entry.

1. You have fallen into the trap that so many people do in so many different religions. You believe your religion is the only RIGHT religion and that that sets you apart as being something special. And then you see yourself within that religious group as being even more special because you have the RIGHT beliefs within that RIGHT religion.

2. This is tantamount to an overly inflated ego, and I would think that is something Buddha would have preached against.

Please do not put words in my mouth... I have never stated that mine is the only true belief or that I am special.

I am not special...but I am lucky..to have met buddhism and to be in a place where there are many opportunities to practice.

Once somebody asked the Buddha if following other teachers could get one to Nirvana.... and he replied ..yes.... if their teachings included the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path....which I suspect that no others do....

[fabianfred]

He was reluctant to ordain them because it might shorten the life of the dhamma....they being a great distraction to monks.

Females cannot be Buddhas or Boddhisatvas (in the Theravada definition of boddhisatvas)...but they can certainly attain to arahant.

Most posters will say something along the lines of, "In my opinion..." or "I think". Since you state the above as FACT, could you support your position with references to where exactly your facts are stated in the Dhamma. BTW, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would like you to corroborate your statement of fact.

Herein, our Bodhisatta spent four incalculables and a hundred thousand aeons making his resolution under twenty-four Buddhas comencing with Dipankara. No Buddha other than the present perfectly Enlightened One appeared after the Blessed One Kassapa. In this manner the Bodhisatta received his reassurance under the twenty-four Buddhas beginning with Dipankara.

Thus those beings who are endowed with all the factors and are assured of their Enlightenment uring their long sojourn in the cycle of of becoming consisting of many hundreds of crores of aeons.

Are not born in Avici, nor in the Lokantarika hells, nor are they subject to hunger and thirst in births as departed beings (hugry ghosts) who are consumed by fire and given to constant craving;

Though born in the evil state as animals they do not become tiny creatures. When born among men, they are never born blind.

They will not be deficient in hearing, nor will they be dumb nor paralytic. They will not be born as women, nor in the categories of hermaphrodites and eunuchs.

Those men who are assured of their Enlightenment are not thus overwhelmed. They are delivered of the heinous crimes; and their conduct is pure in all spheres.

They do not recourse to perverse views and they have an insight into the workings of kamma. Though they dwell in the heavens they will not be born in the non-conscious states.

There is no cause for them to born in the Pure Abodes. Bent on renunciation, these virtuous men who are detached from reiterated existence wander for the well-being of the world, fulfilling all their Perfections.

[Adiccavamso]

I think it was from a thread dealing with Bikkhuni's or more precisely womens ranking in the Thai Theravada Sangha.

Here's a couple of quotes for you:

"A great many nuns have left testimony that they attained enlightenment [in the Therigatha]; and the tradition that no woman could become a Buddha is not in the Canon."

- Richard Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism

"When Somaa, a female arahant, was rebuked by Maara the Evil One, saying that womankind with very little intelligence cannot attain that state which is to be attained with great effort by seers and sages, Somaa replied that womanhood is no impediment for the realization of truth to one who is endowed with intelligence and concentration."

- Access to Insight

Yes, absolutely right. A good reference is Cabezon, J., 1985, Buddhism, Sexuality and Gender, State Universoity of New York Press, USA

[IMA_FARANG]

Would I still practice if there was no "rebirth".

Yes I would. For one thing, on a pure practical basis, I used to be a very angry person...I found the way to overcome that (useless and irrelavant) anger through my study of Buddhisim. For that reason alone my practice was well worth it.

Now in my personal view, I do not concern myself about such questions as if a "rebirth" exists or not. I'm focusing on understanding "myself" (whatever that is) and my relationship to the "world" (whatever that is). Such things as "rebirth" and even "nirvana/nibbana" don't concern me any longer.

So for me, in my personal awakening, I'll just go on concentrating on what I am and how I live. I'll leave the rest to others as their concern.

As Robert Frost said in one of his poems:

"My object in living is to unite....Vocation and Avocation"

(By which I think he meant Vocation as that which a person really does, and Avocation as that which a person claims to believe.)

I would like that.

[eggomaniac]

Do not forget that just by being a follower of the Buddha... and determined to practice upon the eightfold path with Nirvana as my goal puts me in a very small minority compared to all of the human realm. To make the extra effort to practice vipassana and leave the ordinary pleasures in life behind whilst I do so puts me in an even smaller percentage at the top of the pyramid....so I am in with a very good chance to get to stream-entry.

1. You have fallen into the trap that so many people do in so many different religions. You believe your religion is the only RIGHT religion and that that sets you apart as being something special. And then you see yourself within that religious group as being even more special because you have the RIGHT beliefs within that RIGHT religion.

2. This is tantamount to an overly inflated ego, and I would think that is something Buddha would have preached against.

Please do not put words in my mouth... I have never stated that mine is the only true belief or that I am special.

I am not special...but I am lucky..to have met buddhism and to be in a place where there are many opportunities to practice.

Once somebody asked the Buddha if following other teachers could get one to Nirvana.... and he replied ..yes.... if their teachings included the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path....which I suspect that no others do....

1. Come on Fred, the way, I see it, Vince paraphrased you and did not 'put words in your mouth'. However, stick to your guns! [or is it non guns?]

Have you 'fallen into the trap' or, by astuteness and luck, found THE very hidden bridge over troubled waters? Are you in the "very small percentile at the top of the pyramid" or not? [Maybe Buddhism doesn't classify that as "special", but to the rest of the World it sounds fairly hunky dory, eh] Are all of the other religions that don't teach the 4 by 8 Path not leading their followers to Nirvana, or are they?

2. If somebody won a Gold Medal at the Olympics and said they won a Gold Medal at the Olympics, I wouldn't say that was 'tantamount to having an overly inflated ego'. If, [if is the biggest word in the dictionary] your claims are true, then you are 'discerning truth', not falsely bragging. <[to paraphrase Vince]

[rockyysdt]

Would I still practice if there was no "rebirth".

Yes I would. For one thing, on a pure practical basis, I used to be a very angry person...I found the way to overcome that (useless and irrelavant) anger through my study of Buddhisim. For that reason alone my practice was well worth it.

After a recent retreat & a little further down a path of practice I must say my experience is similar.

More often I can view my minds inclination towards, arrogance, impatience, & anger in my interactions.

With gentle detachment (recognizing the specialness of all who exist) l disarm the situation with respect and a smile.

I also see others unaware of their attachment to hatred & anger, and thankful l'm moving to new places.

Still, chats regarding the higher goals can be fun & informative.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't give any thought to rebirth. I see karma as applying solely to this life. To apply it to rebirth is a purely metaphysical position without any empirical basis.

The Buddha took it on because the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history. As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it. He was also an inspiring teacher who had to teach within a conceptual framework that his listeners understood and could apply to the cessation of suffering.

Rebirth via the mechanism of Karma, in my view, is pre-modern Buddhism. Evolved Buddhism does not need it and it is not helpful in avoiding suffering, attaining happiness and doing what one can to bring happiness to others.

[fabianfred]

I don't give any thought to rebirth. I see karma as applying solely to this life. To apply it to rebirth is a purely metaphysical position without any empirical basis.

The Buddha took it on because the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history. As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it. He was also an inspiring teacher who had to teach within a conceptual framework that his listeners understood and could apply to the cessation of suffering.

Rebirth via the mechanism of Karma, in my view, is pre-modern Buddhism. Evolved Buddhism does not need it and it is not helpful in avoiding suffering, attaining happiness and doing what one can to bring happiness to others.

Wow! ...this whole post looks like it came from a really modern thinking skeptical person who I would say is definately not a Buddhist but enjoys sitting on the fence and throwing spanners into the works to see what happens.... IMHO

"the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history" ..... just a product? ....this really cheapens his whole life and effort to get into that position. IMHO.

"As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it" ..... before he became the Buddha he was much more than just a normal man... a Boddhisatva...and after he was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to. It is not possible for us to understand the qualities of nirvana until we reach it ourselves... but to deny its existence or value just because we havn't reached it is just our ego talking.

"Evolved Buddhism does not need it.." implying that ones own opinion is evolved and therefore superior to the old beliefs.... or that simply being old and outdated they have to be less correct, that we modern people are superior in knowledge to the ancients?? superior in inflating our egos perhaps.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't give any thought to rebirth. I see karma as applying solely to this life. To apply it to rebirth is a purely metaphysical position without any empirical basis.

The Buddha took it on because the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history. As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it. He was also an inspiring teacher who had to teach within a conceptual framework that his listeners understood and could apply to the cessation of suffering.

Rebirth via the mechanism of Karma, in my view, is pre-modern Buddhism. Evolved Buddhism does not need it and it is not helpful in avoiding suffering, attaining happiness and doing what one can to bring happiness to others.

Wow! ...this whole post looks like it came from a really modern thinking skeptical person who I would say is definately not a Buddhist but enjoys sitting on the fence and throwing spanners into the works to see what happens.... IMHO

"the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history" ..... just a product? ....this really cheapens his whole life and effort to get into that position. IMHO.

"As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it" ..... before he became the Buddha he was much more than just a normal man... a Boddhisatva...and after he was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to. It is not possible for us to understand the qualities of nirvana until we reach it ourselves... but to deny its existence or value just because we havn't reached it is just our ego talking.

"Evolved Buddhism does not need it.." implying that ones own opinion is evolved and therefore superior to the old beliefs.... or that simply being old and outdated they have to be less correct, that we modern people are superior in knowledge to the ancients?? superior in inflating our egos perhaps.

Fred, don't take it too seriously. We're not in church!

My posts are not meant to be mischievous, though I predicted this one might be a bit provocative and the reference to "evolved Buddhism" is obviously question-begging. However, the extent to which Buddhism can and should adapt and evolve is a legitimate one and I think I'm more of a revisionist than a traditionalist. I think it's OK to raise these questions in a forum, and it's perfectly OK for you to take a strong opposing position.

I think you are quite right to criticize the statement that "the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history" if it implies that he was only that (I didn't use the word "just"). He was clearly exceptional - more than just exceptional, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Presenting a point of view or holding an opinion is bound up with ego, I suppose. However, if one is not attached to the opinion or point of view, if it is seen as tentative and impermanent, the danger of ego domination can be avoided, can't it? We are advised to adopt right view, not no view at all, and not a view based solely on authority after all.

[phetaroi]

Wow! ...this whole post looks like it came from a really modern thinking skeptical person who I would say is definately not a Buddhist but enjoys sitting on the fence and throwing spanners into the works to see what happens.... IMHO

"the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history" ..... just a product? ....this really cheapens his whole life and effort to get into that position. IMHO.

"As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it" ..... before he became the Buddha he was much more than just a normal man... a Boddhisatva...and after he was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to. It is not possible for us to understand the qualities of nirvana until we reach it ourselves... but to deny its existence or value just because we havn't reached it is just our ego talking.

"Evolved Buddhism does not need it.." implying that ones own opinion is evolved and therefore superior to the old beliefs.... or that simply being old and outdated they have to be less correct, that we modern people are superior in knowledge to the ancients?? superior in inflating our egos perhaps.

There is no more dangerous mix of behaviors in a man than when one is both a fundamentalist and a judgmentalist.

It is not up to you to judge who is Buddhist and who is not Buddhist. It is insulting. It is demeaning. And to put oneself in that position is, to quote you, just your "ego talking".

So, Buddha was not a product of his time? I am aware of no man in human history that was not, to some degree, a product of his own time.

It is impossible to "cheapen" Buddha's life when his wisdom and teachings -- even though a product of a man -- shines through thousands of years of history. It is not difficult at all to have ultimate respect for Buddha (and for that matter Christ) without the "magic" part of the story.

Perhaps Buddha was a Boddhisatva. But that's your religious FAITH talking. You cannot provide one scintilla of factual evidence for that belief.

"He was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to." Your factual evidence for that hyperbole?

Saying "IMHO" does note equal a humble opinion. That's an ego playing games.

I would never question that you are a Buddhist. But I will question your thinking as a Buddhist.

[B Fuddled]

"The Buddha was asked by a wanderer what happens after death. In response the Buddha posed a series of questions. First he asked,"If there is a future life, how would you live?" The questioner answered, "If there are future lives, I would want to be mindful in order to sow seeds for future wisdom. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion, because they bring happiness now and because they sow the seeds for abundance in the future." "Just so," said the Buddha. Then he went on: "And if there are no future lives, how would you live?" The questioner reflected and then answered in the same way: "If this were my only life, I would also want to live with mindfulness, so as not to miss anything. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion because they bring happiness here and now and because I will not be able to keep anything in the end." "Just so," aknowledged the Buddha. Eliciting the same answer to those two questions, the Buddha demonstrated that living wisely does not depend on belief in an afterlife."

The wise Heart by Jack Kornfield

[fabianfred]

Most of what the Buddha taught... can only be known to ourselves by practice....and it is not possible to show proofs to another.

Paccatam veditabo vinnuhiti

[eggomaniac]

Wow! ...this whole post looks like it came from a really modern thinking skeptical person who I would say is definately not a Buddhist but enjoys sitting on the fence and throwing spanners into the works to see what happens.... IMHO

"the Buddha was a product of his time and place in history" ..... just a product? ....this really cheapens his whole life and effort to get into that position. IMHO.

"As a man he was not omniscient, just awakened to the truth about suffering and the means of avoiding it" ..... before he became the Buddha he was much more than just a normal man... a Boddhisatva...and after he was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to. It is not possible for us to understand the qualities of nirvana until we reach it ourselves... but to deny its existence or value just because we havn't reached it is just our ego talking.

"Evolved Buddhism does not need it.." implying that ones own opinion is evolved and therefore superior to the old beliefs.... or that simply being old and outdated they have to be less correct, that we modern people are superior in knowledge to the ancients?? superior in inflating our egos perhaps.

There is no more dangerous mix of behaviors in a man than when one is both a fundamentalist and a judgmentalist.

It is not up to you to judge who is Buddhist and who is not Buddhist. It is insulting. It is demeaning. And to put oneself in that position is, to quote you, just your "ego talking".

So, Buddha was not a product of his time? I am aware of no man in human history that was not, to some degree, a product of his own time.

It is impossible to "cheapen" Buddha's life when his wisdom and teachings -- even though a product of a man -- shines through thousands of years of history. It is not difficult at all to have ultimate respect for Buddha (and for that matter Christ) without the "magic" part of the story.

Perhaps Buddha was a Boddhisatva. But that's your religious FAITH talking. You cannot provide one scintilla of factual evidence for that belief.

"He was without match anywhere and could know anything he wished to." Your factual evidence for that hyperbole?

Saying "IMHO" does note equal a humble opinion. That's an ego playing games.

I would never question that you are a Buddhist. But I will question your thinking as a Buddhist.

I don't know about that; a semanticist who is also a scolder could out notch a fundamentalist & judgementalist, if there were any around that is.

Why don't you try to perceive the meanings portrayed by well intentioned Posters, intstead of slapping people with their words?

In your 'goodbye' speech you even admitted you got on everyone's nerves. Is this the place for it?

I can count 10 times the useful and educational thoughts that Fred has contributed over yours.

If everything Fred is saying is true, or trying to say, then you are flaming a good teacher.

And if he is way off the mark your 'rebuttals' still aint beautiful!

Why do you have to? Some of your stuff should be PMed, at least.

If I was given a ticket to 'discuss' Buddhism with Fred, and a few others, I would take it, yours I would trade in for Disneyland.

=====================

oh and my daddy had a smaller ego than your daddy!

[eggomaniac]

"The Buddha was asked by a wanderer what happens after death. In response the Buddha posed a series of questions. First he asked,"If there is a future life, how would you live?" The questioner answered, "If there are future lives, I would want to be mindful in order to sow seeds for future wisdom. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion, because they bring happiness now and because they sow the seeds for abundance in the future." "Just so," said the Buddha. Then he went on: "And if there are no future lives, how would you live?" The questioner reflected and then answered in the same way: "If this were my only life, I would also want to live with mindfulness, so as not to miss anything. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion because they bring happiness here and now and because I will not be able to keep anything in the end." "Just so," aknowledged the Buddha. Eliciting the same answer to those two questions, the Buddha demonstrated that living wisely does not depend on belief in an afterlife."

The wise Heart by Jack Kornfield

Based on recent experience, I have to ask; did Buddha say this or Jack? I really hope it wasn't Buddha because it comes off as someone trying to be oh so wise. It's lame and it doesn't even answer the question. If someone doesn't know the answer to something, and they profess honesty is one of the Precepts, then they should say, "I don't know the answer to that question."

[eggomaniac]

"The Buddha was asked by a wanderer what happens after death. In response the Buddha posed a series of questions. First he asked,"If there is a future life, how would you live?" The questioner answered, "If there are future lives, I would want to be mindful in order to sow seeds for future wisdom. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion, because they bring happiness now and because they sow the seeds for abundance in the future." "Just so," said the Buddha. Then he went on: "And if there are no future lives, how would you live?" The questioner reflected and then answered in the same way: "If this were my only life, I would also want to live with mindfulness, so as not to miss anything. And I would want to live with generosity and compassion because they bring happiness here and now and because I will not be able to keep anything in the end." "Just so," aknowledged the Buddha. Eliciting the same answer to those two questions, the Buddha demonstrated that living wisely does not depend on belief in an afterlife."

The wise Heart by Jack Kornfield

Once the Buddha was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, "Sir, wht happens to the Enlightened One after death? Where does he go? The Buddha said "Wanderer, make a fire from the sticks that are lying around here." So he did and he lit the fire. Then the Buddha said, "Now throw some more sticks on to it. He did, and the Buddha asked "What’s happening?" Vacchagotta answered, Oh, the fire’s going well." The Buddha said, "Now stop throwing sticks on it." And after a while the fire went out. The Buddha said to him, "What happened to the fire?" "The fire’s gone out, Sir." The Buddha said, "Well, where did it go? Did it go forward? Backward? Right? Left? Up or down?" The wanderer said, "No it didn’t. It just went out." The Buddha said, "That’s right. That’s exactly what happens to the Enlightened One after death."

(

*

)

When no more sticks are thrown on the fire of passionate desire, of craving, of wanting, then the fire goes out. Since there is no karma being created by such a master, there is nothing that needs to be reborn.