The Buddha Didn'T Just Believe In Rebirth, He Argued For It

[Xangsamhua]

You say we sacrifice ourselves for a future which is not us.....Ok the being in my future existence will not be Fred, but there will be a connection from me to that being and and suffering or pleasure felt will be by the future 'me'.

We are very constrained by the language we have to use...trying to describe the indescribable

I'm sorry to be nitpicking, Fred, but I've been thinking a bit again lately about the relationship between language and reality (what the world really consists of and what actually happens).

You suggest that the indescribable cannot be described, and that is obviously true. But what is indescribable? The examples I'm aware of include feelings ("I can't describe the love I feel for you"), aesthetic responses ("this music means a lot to me; it carries me away; it gives me a sense of ... etc" - the music is not being described, only its effect on the mind and senses of the listener); and religious propositions ("The relationship between the multiplicity and unity of members of the Holy Trinity can't be described - it's a Mystery of the Church").

The latter example is not so much indescribable as inexplicable because the Trinity is not a coherent concept, but what was left over after other equally unsatisfactory concepts were rejected. The two former examples, however, suggest that directly felt responses - non-conceptual and not mediated by language - may be indescribable. In fact, for the lover to try and describe his feelings for his beloved in a clinical fashion would likely turn the relationship sour right there.

But let's take something like rebirth. There have been many attempts to describe what it is in terms of how it is caused, what kinds of results occur and even the process (Bardo) by which that which is to be reborn must be nurtured in the process between death and rebirth. There have also been attempts to describe what it is that contains the seeds that are to be carried forward (alaya vijnana). The problem is that these processes are not so much "described" as "inferred". Hence, as detailed as they may be and as explicative/explanatory as they may be they are not universally accepted, as they can't actually be described. So they remain as explanations for the faithful and hypotheses for everyone else.

So then, is it true that there are things that language can't describe, or is it just that for some things there isn't enough information that would make description possible? I think that those phenomena of affect, sound, sight etc that produce a subjective and private response without the mediation of language are clearly indescribable other than by recourse to analogy or explanation. However, a religious mystery may be indescribable because it doesn't actually make sense. We can only try to justify it by resorting to logical contradictions or things that don't correspond to what we otherwise know to be the case. To stay with 5th century Christian philosophy - the outcome of a couple of hundred years of theological contention and conflicts of interest - the Chalcedonian formula which pronounced that Jesus was both fully God and fully Man at the same time (even on the Cross) is clearly absurd, and recognized as such by the theologians who assented to it (as one of a number of compromises between powerful patriarchates). They could only say that it was a Mystery that required faith.

For any coherent concept, however, it seems to me that language is very capable. It stretches to include new and difficult concepts. They may create a problem for a while if we try to use language that suited more primitive notions, but if the demand remains the language will extend and adapt to meet it. So, to take, for example, the idea of infinity, one that Buddhists generally profess to adhere to, our problem in "describing" or talking about it is not a problem of language - the language is perfectly clear - but one of experience. We don't have experience of infinity, only of cause and effect over a clearly finite lifetime. We also have a problem of imagination - too much and too little. We imagine that existence implies non-existence, that each thing has an opposite and the opposite of something is nothing; so we ask about the universe, "Why is there something and not nothing?". But that projects onto the infinite our finite experience. If we see a building, we can assume that at some point there was no building on that site, and we'd be right. That is our experience. But there's absolutely no reason to assume that at some point there was no universe - that before the Singularity there was ..."nothing".

Although Wittgenstein famously said, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world", he was not saying that there's more world than my language can conceive of and talk about, even if not directly "describe", but that there is nothing that presents itself as real or possibly real and that is logical, coherent and credible and that can't be either described or explained in language. When Buddhists argue, therefore, like Christians, that key tenets of their faith are beyond the capacity of language to describe or explain, I think they may need to re-examine these tenets. Fortunately, Buddhism is not really a dogmatic religion, and the Buddha's instruction/invitation to us to be lamps unto ourselves, although not an invitation to play ducks and drakes with Dhamma, gives us a licence to review, reconsider and revise.

[fabianfred]

:blink:

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

enough practice will bring all the answers you need...

I believe Rockyysdt is hindered by doubt which makes practice very difficult and blocks advancement to stream-entry...

somethings just cannot be known or understood by intellectual thinking....but only by experiential knowledge gained from practice....wisdom.

(not trying to imply I am any wiser or more advanced than you guys by the way... )

[Xangsamhua]

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

You're probably right, Fred. :jap:

I think I'll take a rest for a while.

There's some exciting stuff to think about though.

[rockyysdt]

:blink:

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

enough practice will bring all the answers you need...

I believe Rockyysdt is hindered by doubt which makes practice very difficult and blocks advancement to stream-entry...

somethings just cannot be known or understood by intellectual thinking....but only by experiential knowledge gained from practice....wisdom.

(not trying to imply I am any wiser or more advanced than you guys by the way... )

My mindfulness tells me that I can be pretty dogmatic and intense.

My current biggest weakness is my negative self talk which has kept me from regular practice.

I'm also mindful that my posts can read adversarial but this is never my intention.

I send you metta and hope some of the issues I raise are worthy of consideration.

It's been said before that practice is not enough.

It must be supported with Dhamma, and hence my interest in the validity of correct translation of the Buddhas works into English.

If our ego, self, I (current consciousness) may only have one crack at it, I'd hate to devote a lifetime into a practice which turned out to be incorrect.

No doubt there is much doubt in my psyche along with every other hindrance imaginable.

Acknowledging this allows me to begin to progress.

Edited October 3, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Mirth]

Definitely! Tried reading this thread and it read like religious professors debating. Life is simple, it's short and simple.

Take a lifetime similiar to a day, you wake up, eat, go to work, have social life after work and go back to sleep. If one gets into a fight today, they will suffer the pains and aches of the fight when they awake the next day. Do a favor for someone today, that favor will be returned the next day or some other days.

Equanimity, something that all religion preach or teach. Be mindful of our fellow humans by perfecting ourselves with compassion and morality. Whatever else doesn't matter cos if one walks and talks in the right path, others will follow.

:blink:

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

[Xangsamhua]

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

You're probably right, Fred. :jap:

I think I'll take a rest for a while.

There's some exciting stuff to think about though.

OK, I've had a rest now, and will be too busy on school tours for the next three weeks to contribute much.

However, I don't think it is possible to "think too much", unless one's thinking is bizarre or dangerous or the cause of excessive stress (in itself a sign that the thinking is not of the right sort). We have brains, so we think. There are times we may try to suspend thought or put it to one side, but surely no one suggests that should be our constant default mode, at least for those of us who still engage with the world.

Indeed, what does it mean to tell someone they think too much? Does it mean that if you don't think like me, but I can't grapple with your ideas, then you "think too much"? Or does it mean that I am the arbiter of what is too much or too little thought about matters? Does it mean that the one who thinks little is on a superior path to that of the one who thinks much?

In a spirit of goodwill, I'll interpret the judgement to mean that there are things that can't be attained by thinking about them, but I've already suggested that if the questions are coherent and verifiable then the answers are attainable. If one doesn't know the answers or if the questions are unverifiable then it may seem a good move to suggest that the questioner is thinking about and questioning things that either (i) the critic doesn't know enough about and can't answer, or (ii) no one can answer because the question is either incoherent ("Why is there something and not nothing?") or unanswerable (what is it that is reborn?) except as a doctrine of faith.

Buddhism is not just about being passive and going with the flow. It's more than being grateful to be alive and trying to be a good person. The Buddha made a number of claims about the nature of reality and the meaning of life. He was happy to proclaim, to contest and to clarify when needed. I assume the Buddha thought just the right amount - not too much or too little, but who among us can tell what is the right amount, how much is too much or too little?

If this Buddhism forum is to be just about method - breathing, posture, focusing technique - it'll be too limited. If it's simply a platform on which to present the teachings of learned monks and ex-monks (via Access to Insight, Tricycle, Shambala Sun, etc.), then it fails to give a voice to the lay sangha, which would be a shame. If it's just about the cultural and emblematic aspects of Thai Buddhism that is valuable, but limited. I don't know what others think, but without wanting to put readers off by wordy and esoteric postings (mea culpa), I think there's no harm in getting one's teeth into the implications of the Buddha's teachings. After all, Buddhism is for the main part, a rational faith and to access truth by reasoning means that decisions have to be made about things that are claimed and choices made between one point of view and another. And we have the minds to do that. Sitting back in complacent certainty or passive acceptance of conventional views is not the answer.

[rockyysdt]

Precisely Xangsamhua.

We have the triple gem, The Buddha, the Dharma, & the Sangha.

I've heard it said many times, simply practicing meditation and mindfulness is not enough.

The Dharma is critical.

If the dharma has been mistranslated, then following blindly without thought, could commit one to hollow practice.

The result could be committing oneself to a religion with its doctrines and practices.

• Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
• nor upon tradition,
• nor upon rumor,
• nor upon what is in a scripture,
• nor upon surmise,
• nor upon an axiom,
• nor upon specious reasoning,
• nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
• nor upon another's seeming ability,
• nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher."
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

I think you guys think too much.... :jap:

You're probably right, Fred. :jap:

I think I'll take a rest for a while.

There's some exciting stuff to think about though.

OK, I've had a rest now, and will be too busy on school tours for the next three weeks to contribute much.

However, I don't think it is possible to "think too much", unless one's thinking is bizarre or dangerous or the cause of excessive stress (in itself a sign that the thinking is not of the right sort). We have brains, so we think. There are times we may try to suspend thought or put it to one side, but surely no one suggests that should be our constant default mode, at least for those of us who still engage with the world.

Indeed, what does it mean to tell someone they think too much? Does it mean that if you don't think like me, but I can't grapple with your ideas, then you "think too much"? Or does it mean that I am the arbiter of what is too much or too little thought about matters? Does it mean that the one who thinks little is on a superior path to that of the one who thinks much?

In a spirit of goodwill, I'll interpret the judgement to mean that there are things that can't be attained by thinking about them, but I've already suggested that if the questions are coherent and verifiable then the answers are attainable. If one doesn't know the answers or if the questions are unverifiable then it may seem a good move to suggest that the questioner is thinking about and questioning things that either (i) the critic doesn't know enough about and can't answer, or (ii) no one can answer because the question is either incoherent ("Why is there something and not nothing?") or unanswerable (what is it that is reborn?) except as a doctrine of faith.

Buddhism is not just about being passive and going with the flow. It's more than being grateful to be alive and trying to be a good person. The Buddha made a number of claims about the nature of reality and the meaning of life. He was happy to proclaim, to contest and to clarify when needed. I assume the Buddha thought just the right amount - not too much or too little, but who among us can tell what is the right amount, how much is too much or too little?

If this Buddhism forum is to be just about method - breathing, posture, focusing technique - it'll be too limited. If it's simply a platform on which to present the teachings of learned monks and ex-monks (via Access to Insight, Tricycle, Shambala Sun, etc.), then it fails to give a voice to the lay sangha, which would be a shame. If it's just about the cultural and emblematic aspects of Thai Buddhism that is valuable, but limited. I don't know what others think, but without wanting to put readers off by wordy and esoteric postings (mea culpa), I think there's no harm in getting one's teeth into the implications of the Buddha's teachings. After all, Buddhism is for the main part, a rational faith and to access truth by reasoning means that decisions have to be made about things that are claimed and choices made between one point of view and another. And we have the minds to do that. Sitting back in complacent certainty or passive acceptance of conventional views is not the answer.

[Mirth]

No disrespect actually but you really think too much. In an academic point of view, you have pointed out valid and very good reasons but in religious point, you still think too much.

Religion is just about faith and nothing else. The practise of the said faith comforts the practitioner and that's it. It doesn't mean that anyone is following blindly cos they are following their own faith in the religion they so chooses. Some things just can't be answered which is why we have words like miracles or coincidences. If we insists on delving into it searching for an answer to everything, our minds would be in a state of constant flux which would then be against the doctrines of buddhism, which is to ease the mind. It's like the middle path, pull the string too hard, it will break. If the string is too loose, it won't play.

Indeed, what does it mean to tell someone they think too much? Does it mean that if you don't think like me, but I can't grapple with your ideas, then you "think too much"? Or does it mean that I am the arbiter of what is too much or too little thought about matters? Does it mean that the one who thinks little is on a superior path to that of the one who thinks much?

In a spirit of goodwill, I'll interpret the judgement to mean that there are things that can't be attained by thinking about them, but I've already suggested that if the questions are coherent and verifiable then the answers are attainable. If one doesn't know the answers or if the questions are unverifiable then it may seem a good move to suggest that the questioner is thinking about and questioning things that either (i) the critic doesn't know enough about and can't answer, or (ii) no one can answer because the question is either incoherent ("Why is there something and not nothing?") or unanswerable (what is it that is reborn?) except as a doctrine of faith.

Buddhism is not just about being passive and going with the flow. It's more than being grateful to be alive and trying to be a good person. The Buddha made a number of claims about the nature of reality and the meaning of life. He was happy to proclaim, to contest and to clarify when needed. I assume the Buddha thought just the right amount - not too much or too little, but who among us can tell what is the right amount, how much is too much or too little?

[rockyysdt]

No disrespect actually but you really think too much. In an academic point of view, you have pointed out valid and very good reasons but in religious point, you still think too much.

Religion is just about faith and nothing else. The practise of the said faith comforts the practitioner and that's it. It doesn't mean that anyone is following blindly cos they are following their own faith in the religion they so chooses. Some things just can't be answered which is why we have words like miracles or coincidences. If we insists on delving into it searching for an answer to everything, our minds would be in a state of constant flux which would then be against the doctrines of buddhism, which is to ease the mind. It's like the middle path, pull the string too hard, it will break. If the string is too loose, it won't play.

Yes Mirth, if Buddhism is simply a religion, then what you say is correct.

Many of the interpretations/translations did just that.

A number of interpretations resulted in the creation of a religion, with its piety, pure faith, doctrine, and meta physical beliefs.

The reinterpretations of the Buddhas works, in their entirety reveals a practice, grounded in the present, in which we awaken to reveal our full potential as humans, free from aversion, delusion, & greed, in this life.

Who is correct?

The 5th century scholar who cobbled together interpretions 500 years after the death of Siddharta Gautama, not to mention further translations into English over the centuries, or a fresh look through scholarly eyes at all the early works of Siddharta Gautama and the era during which he lived.

One fact we can't dismiss, many of the interpretations are open to question and may be considerably off the mark.

For a start, we don't become enlightened. This is a 19th century word which doesn't even begin to capture what the Buddha taught and gives the illusion that once you achieve this state you permanently move into a state/place forever.

Edited October 9, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The reinterpretations of the Buddhas works, in their entirety reveals a practice, grounded in the present, in which we awaken to reveal our full potential as humans, free from aversion, delusion, & greed, in this life.

Who is correct?

The 5th century scholar who cobbled together interpretations 500 years after the death of Siddharta Gautama, not to mention further translations into English over the centuries, or a fresh look through scholarly eyes at all the early works of Siddharta Gautama and the era during which he lived.

One fact we can't dismiss, many of the interpretations are open to question and may be considerably off the mark.

On reflection, my journey over the last six months has brought me into the audience of two independent travelers who teach the same message.

That birth, death and re birth is a moment to moment thing, and not something involving many future/past lives with the aim of liberation from this cycle rendering one enlightened for eternity.

The first, a Monk with 25 years of experience in the Theravadin tradition, and 45 years of meditation, currently practices anapanasiti in a Forest setting.

The second, an Oxford University Master, majoring in dozens of languages, including Pali & Sanskrit, and with decades of experience as a Monk both in Tibetan & Theravadin traditions.

I crossed their paths by chance.

Edited October 11, 2011 by rockyysdt

[yellow1red1]

Isn't the bigger question, - whether or not it is or is not rebirth , or is or is not reincarnation, it is of small matter? like trying to decide what color is excretement.

Nearly 7 billion detestable life forms have been born and are living on a planet built for 1 or 2 billion.

With a build that is so stupid to overpopulate with destroyers, why fool that there is some grand design or magic design?

Obviously, there isn't!

Do you get it? the whole thing is stoopid, why dream there is some magic architecture. if there is architecture it's stoopid.

just LOOK around,

somalia pirates,, child pornographers, corrupt bankers, religious fanatics, America. abortions, reds and yellows and so ON. too MANY births, full stop.

birth, period ,,, 6 billion mistakes!!! UNbirth would make some SENSE compared to rebirth!

[if the Chinese hadn't put in that one child BIRTH rule,,, man oh MAN, where would we be?]

then

[rockyysdt]

In many respects l agree with you.

I'm very much into empathy and metta.

The first thing you can do is to offer atleast 10% of your income into a worthy charity.

Those who practice (Buddhist) are more likely to be mindful of their impact on others and the planet.

What do you suggest?

Isn't the bigger question, - whether or not it is or is not rebirth , or is or is not reincarnation, it is of small matter? like trying to decide what color is excretement.

Nearly 7 billion detestable life forms have been born and are living on a planet built for 1 or 2 billion.

With a build that is so stupid to overpopulate with destroyers, why fool that there is some grand design or magic design?

Obviously, there isn't!

Do you get it? the whole thing is stoopid, why dream there is some magic architecture. if there is architecture it's stoopid.

just LOOK around,

somalia pirates,, child pornographers, corrupt bankers, religious fanatics, America. abortions, reds and yellows and so ON. too MANY births, full stop.

birth, period ,,, 6 billion mistakes!!! UNbirth would make some SENSE compared to rebirth!

[if the Chinese hadn't put in that one child BIRTH rule,,, man oh MAN, where would we be?]

then