This Can Only Reaffirm That Re Birth Is A Moment To Moment Event & Nothing To Do With Future Lives.

[rockyysdt]

I listened to a lecture recently on the subject "No Self" and can only concur that re birth can't possibly involve future lives.

Non Self.

Nothing solid, fixed or inherent that lasts.

We are a series of processes.

There is no separate entity from this flow of experience.

Who we are today is different from who we were 20 years ago.

Nothing can be pointed to that we can say this is "me".

Due to its nature the ego thinks that it always will be.

Our sense of self traditionally helps us to look after our carcass (body).

Charlotte Jocobeck:

A life of no self is centered on no particular thing, but on all things (unattached), so the characteristics of a self cannot appear.

To be no self is to be joy, because it opposes nothing.

No self is beneficial to everything.

Suzuki Roshi:

What we call "I" is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and exhale.

There is no soul which is separate, solid, and unique which goes on.

No essential substance.

There is no permanent essence or sub strata (although some traditions cling to this).

The five skandas (aggregates) is the raw material from which we create a sense of self.

There is no soul, or atman or metaphysical self which can be found.

Clinging to any doctrines of self leads to dukkha (suffering).

Buddhagosa:

There is suffering, but none who suffers.

There is doing, although there is no doer.

Liberation exists, but no liberated person.

Although there is a path, there is no goer.

In Theravada Buddhism there is an idea that we, and any aspect of ourselves is empty of an enduring, stable, autonomous self or soul.

Deva to the Buddhas:

I've been walking forever and cannot find the end of the world.

I've been walking hither and tither to find the end of the world and still cannot find it.

The end of the world of Dukkha and suffering.

The Buddha replied:

You will not find the end of Dukkha by traveling.

Only by being in this fathom long carcass (body).

The origin of the world and the end of the world is to be found in this fathom long carcass. No where else.

This fathom long carcass, endowed with its eyes, its ears, its nose and everything else, is where it is to be found.

From all this can we say, that after our body dies there is Nirvana/Nibbana but no experiencer?

Can we also say that Nirvana/Nibbana is for the living (freedom from dukkha, awakened, without attachment, no self, no ego), but once the body dies the world ends, there is nothing?

Edited February 4, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Some will say: "How can I call myself a Buddhist if I don't subscribe to re birth into many future lives (due to the fruit/forces of unresolved kharma) and the end of this cycle into an eternal state of Nirvana/Nibbana".

I don't have all the answers, but if one reads all the Suttas, particularly early works, one will find just as many if not more teachings from the Buddha which don't support such things.

The Buddha's personality was spoken of as being a friendly light hearted character who ridiculed much of the thinking of the time (Brahmanism) through metaphor and hidden sarcasm.

During a time when those who openly opposed the religious order of the day could be condemned to death, the Buddha had to tread wearily.

In fact there were several attempts on his life during his lifetime.

Those who wanted to hear certain things were catered for by his metaphoric speech, but if one looks closely at the original suttas through scholarly (correct translation) eyes one might discover the Buddhas true teachings.

What does all this mean?

Have western Christians traded their religion for another promising eternal life through re birth & eventually bliss in Nirvana?

Have those, frightened of their mortality, come on board to soothe their egos?

Do those who travel the path with incorrect view (clinging) miss the point, and fail to experience the gossamer thin state of "no self" which will yield awakening.

Will they consequently die before achieving the pinnacle?

Is the goal of aiming for stream entry and enlightenment in seven lifetimes an egotistic trap which will ensure failure?

Edited February 4, 2012 by rockyysdt

[IMA_FARANG]

Oh dear, is this the old "rebirth" debate again in another form?

Well. I don't know the answer....I;m NOT a Buddha anyhow.

But, in my opinion, there is no CONCIOUS SELF that is somehow reborn.....no Ego or Soul that is existing now in life and is reborn after death....a thing that you can conciously know while still alive (i.e. before death).

Beyond that....anything else...I just don't know the answer to the question, "Is there a rebirth of some kind other than a rebirth of a fully concious human "soul"?

And on the concept of "Not Self"....it not mean there is no "Self"....just (my opiniom again) that my "Self" is a perception of mine...an illusion generated by my mind. However, that fact doesn't mean that the illusion of "Self" doesn't seem to be very real to me....even though I can understand it is only an illusion.

But, back to rebirth...the answer for me is...I just don't know the answer.

[Traxster]

It can probably be said that you 'live on' in the memories of those you leave behind

and if that moves you..great !,

but apart from that,

You are born

you live

you die

that's it.......end of story.

[camerata]

AFAIK, Theravada has never proposed that there is a soul or anything enduring that is reborn (quite the opposite, in fact). It proposes that one "mind-moment" conditions the next and that the last mind-moment of one being conditions the first mind-moment of another - in other words, a stream of existence rather than a self-aware conciousness that is "reborn."

It just happens to be a lot easier to talk about "rebirth" than a "stream of existence linking multiple beings," especially in morality tales such as the Jatakas.

Two of the three knowledges (tevijja) the Buddha gained when he attained nibbana were related to "rebirth":

"He remembers many prior existences pubbe-nivāsānussati, such as one birth, two, three, four and five births; 10; 100, 1000; hundred thousand births; remembers many expansions and dissolutions of universes: 'There I was this, such name I had ... and vanishing from there I entered into existence somewhere else ... and vanishing from there I again reappeared here.' Thus he remembers, always together with all the details and peculiarities many former existences."

"With the divine eye dibba-cakkhu = yathā-kammūpaga-ñāna or cutūpapāta-ñāna, the pure one, he sees beings vanishing and reappearing, low and noble ones, beautiful and ugly ones, he sees how beings are reappearing according to their actions (see: kamma) 'These beings, indeed, followed evil ways in bodily actions, words and thoughts, insulted the noble ones, held evil & wrong views, and according to their evil views they acted. At the dissolution of their body, after death, they have appeared in the lower worlds, in painful states of existence, in the world of suffering, even in hell. Those other beings, however, who are endowed with good behaviour, have appeared in happy state of existence, even in a divine world."

http://what-buddha-s...%B1%C3%B1%C4%81

In Indian Buddhism, A.K.Warder, who made use of all the early non-Canonical texts and did his own translation, asks the question, "Did the Buddha really believe in these other realms?" and his answer is something like, "Apparently, he did, but his audience would have understood that they also had a psychological dimension."

[Xangsamhua]

And on the concept of "Not Self"....it does not mean there is no "Self"....just (my opinion again) that my "Self" is a perception of mine...an illusion generated by my mind.

Master Dogen said: To study Buddha Dharma is to study the self. And to study the self is to forget the self. (Genjokoan)

But forgetting or letting go of the self implies that there is a self to be forgotten or discarded. Selfless self is a paradox we can chew over for eons, but is it worth it?

[Xangsamhua]

It can probably be said that you 'live on' in the memories of those you leave behind

and if that moves you..great !,

I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. (Woody Allen)

Woody Allen wants continuity and bounded/definable identity (both conditions for each other). A "stream of existence linking multiple beings" would not satisfy that wish, and I suspect would not satisfy any of us.

"Rebirth", like "Nibbana/Nirvana" is a "mystery" in the conventional religious sense and the two make a religion of Buddhist philosophy. They also both limit and magnify the Buddha as a human or divine figure. If he believed in these things because they were core beliefs in his cultural inheritance then he was fully human. If he knew they were true because of his enlightenment experience then he was "divine", or at least super-human. To believe the latter is an act of faith, based on confidence in the Buddha, but like all unfalsifiable declarations, faith-based propositions are always open to question.

[camerata]

Selfless self is a paradox we can chew over for eons, but is it worth it?

I think it's only the English words that make it seem like a paradox. My understanding is that the Buddhist atta is an illusion, and it makes perfect sense to talk about an illusion without substance.

In modern terms I think the atta is a mental construction (contructed by external influences) that operates like an iceberg, with the tip in the concious mind and the bulk of it in the subconcious. It does not transmigrate. Fully realizing anatta involves understanding how the construct operates in the subconcious, at which point it disintegrates ("Oh, architect, I see you now!") and nibbana is attained. After this, I assume (from some of Ajahn Chah's remarks) that an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone. It's like a return to the moment of birth, but with intellectual capacity and memory as a bonus. The post-nibbana individual biological entity and its mental processes can still be thought of as a "self" but it is not atta in the Buddhist sense.

[rockyysdt]

Selfless self is a paradox we can chew over for eons, but is it worth it?

I think it's only the English words that make it seem like a paradox. My understanding is that the Buddhist atta is an illusion, and it makes perfect sense to talk about an illusion without substance.

In modern terms I think the atta is a mental construction (contructed by external influences) that operates like an iceberg, with the tip in the concious mind and the bulk of it in the subconcious. It does not transmigrate. Fully realizing anatta involves understanding how the construct operates in the subconcious, at which point it disintegrates ("Oh, architect, I see you now!") and nibbana is attained. After this, I assume (from some of Ajahn Chah's remarks) that an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone. It's like a return to the moment of birth, but with intellectual capacity and memory as a bonus. The post-nibbana individual biological entity and its mental processes can still be thought of as a "self" but it is not atta in the Buddhist sense.

Anatta (non self), is the awakened, free from greed, aversion & delusion.

The Buddha taught that mind cannot exist without body & body cannot exist without mind.

Doesn't the word atta or atman refer to a self or soul or something which the ego grasps?

Something which the Buddha taught against.

Quote: all these, according to Buddhism, are mere names for certain combinations of material and mental processes, and apart from them they have no real existence.

Aren't we (unawakened) simply "anatta" stained with ego/attachment, rather than "atta" (soul) which does not exist?

Edited February 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

AFAIK, Theravada has never proposed that there is a soul or anything enduring that is reborn (quite the opposite, in fact). It proposes that one "mind-moment" conditions the next and that the last mind-moment of one being conditions the first mind-moment of another - in other words, a stream of existence rather than a self-aware conciousness that is "reborn."

It just happens to be a lot easier to talk about "rebirth" than a "stream of existence linking multiple beings," especially in morality tales such as the Jatakas.

Two of the three knowledges (tevijja) the Buddha gained when he attained nibbana were related to "rebirth":

"He remembers many prior existences pubbe-nivāsānussati, such as one birth, two, three, four and five births; 10; 100, 1000; hundred thousand births; remembers many expansions and dissolutions of universes: 'There I was this, such name I had ... and vanishing from there I entered into existence somewhere else ... and vanishing from there I again reappeared here.' Thus he remembers, always together with all the details and peculiarities many former existences."

"With the divine eye dibba-cakkhu = yathā-kammūpaga-ñāna or cutūpapāta-ñāna, the pure one, he sees beings vanishing and reappearing, low and noble ones, beautiful and ugly ones, he sees how beings are reappearing according to their actions (see: kamma) 'These beings, indeed, followed evil ways in bodily actions, words and thoughts, insulted the noble ones, held evil & wrong views, and according to their evil views they acted. At the dissolution of their body, after death, they have appeared in the lower worlds, in painful states of existence, in the world of suffering, even in hell. Those other beings, however, who are endowed with good behaviour, have appeared in happy state of existence, even in a divine world."

http://what-buddha-s...%B1%C3%B1%C4%81

In Indian Buddhism, A.K.Warder, who made use of all the early non-Canonical texts and did his own translation, asks the question, "Did the Buddha really believe in these other realms?" and his answer is something like, "Apparently, he did, but his audience would have understood that they also had a psychological dimension."

Thanks camerata.

All the links lead to a dictionary.

Do these belong to specific suttas which the Buddha actually taught and are they early works, or was a lot of it added by Brahmanists after the Buddhas death?

For example The Eight Noble Truths were padded out to the Ten Noble Truths at some stage by somebody leading to confusion by some Buddhists.

Edited February 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Selfless self is a paradox we can chew over for eons, but is it worth it?

I think it's only the English words that make it seem like a paradox. My understanding is that the Buddhist atta is an illusion, and it makes perfect sense to talk about an illusion without substance.

In modern terms I think the atta is a mental construction (contructed by external influences) that operates like an iceberg, with the tip in the concious mind and the bulk of it in the subconcious. It does not transmigrate. Fully realizing anatta involves understanding how the construct operates in the subconcious, at which point it disintegrates ("Oh, architect, I see you now!") and nibbana is attained. After this, I assume (from some of Ajahn Chah's remarks) that an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone. It's like a return to the moment of birth, but with intellectual capacity and memory as a bonus. The post-nibbana individual biological entity and its mental processes can still be thought of as a "self" but it is not atta in the Buddhist sense.

Anatta (non self), is the awakened, free from greed, aversion & delusion.

The Buddha taught that mind cannot exist without body & body cannot exist without mind.

Doesn't the word atta or atman refer to a self or soul or something which the ego grasps?

Something which the Buddha taught against.

Quote: all these, according to Buddhism, are mere names for certain combinations of material and mental processes, and apart from them they have no real existence.

Aren't we (unawakened) simply "anatta" stained with ego/attachment, rather than "atta" (soul) which does not exist?

In other words we are "anatta" (non self with the illusion of a self, consciousness, soul, enduring sub strata, as we are process and memory recall), with the stain of clinging, greed aversion & delusion which fuels an ego.

Atta is an enduring entity (eventually resides with Atman) which the Buddha taught does not really exist.

Nothing exists outside this fathom long carcass.

Edited February 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Selfless self is a paradox we can chew over for eons, but is it worth it?

I think it's only the English words that make it seem like a paradox. My understanding is that the Buddhist atta is an illusion, and it makes perfect sense to talk about an illusion without substance.

In modern terms I think the atta is a mental construction (contructed by external influences) that operates like an iceberg, with the tip in the concious mind and the bulk of it in the subconcious. It does not transmigrate. Fully realizing anatta involves understanding how the construct operates in the subconcious, at which point it disintegrates ("Oh, architect, I see you now!") and nibbana is attained. After this, I assume (from some of Ajahn Chah's remarks) that an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone. It's like a return to the moment of birth, but with intellectual capacity and memory as a bonus. The post-nibbana individual biological entity and its mental processes can still be thought of as a "self" but it is not atta in the Buddhist sense.

Whew .... since reading this I've read Rocky's later posts and it's all getting a bit heady, but I have been thinking about Camerata's clarification, so will comment on it. Maybe on Rocky's later.

First, thanks Camerata. Your comments do clear the air a bit, if I understand them correctly.

We have atta, an illusion of "self". We think of "self" as an integrated, continuing being with which we identify through the five skhandhas, form through to consciousness, but although we are aware of consciousness, representation and memory, the "self", atta, in fact has no discrete, separate existence.

The realization that atta is illusory leads us to acceptance of anatta: that there is no illusory self. However, something exists, as we definitely exist, and though it can't be identified with atta, it is something, though not anything that exists independently of everything else. Like the new-born child, it is both an active and a derived form of existence. It is at the interstice of cause and effect. It is mainly conditioned but has all the potential for acting on the world. In the case of the enlightened being, it has the benefits of accrued intellect and experience. This something that continues through rebirth and has the potential to attain Nibbana/Nirvana may be thought of as "self", but is an authentic state of awareness, not the illusory one we call atta. In this state of awareness ".... an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone." (Camerata)

All is clear up to the quoted sentence. It's that last sentence though that evades me. I don't know how you can eliminate separateness and retain an individual existence of which one has intellectual knowledge. The elimination of separateness by absorption implies that there is no individual, there is just the infinite universe. There is either nothing or everything.

I didn't set out to attack anyone's understanding of rebirth or nirvana, but just to unpack the clarification. However, in doing so I seem to have come (back?) to a position of skepticism. So be it, I'm still willing to accept the idea of nirvana, or even rebirth, as helpful though tentative. I just think it's very hard to talk about them while discarding the notion of a sustained individual entity that is both acted upon and is active in relation to the universe. It seems to be something like a soul or atman. Maybe my thinking is more Brahman than Buddhist in this regard. But really, does it matter, when our priority should be "to walk on the green earth, dwelling deeply in the present moment and feeling truly alive.” (TNH)

[camerata]

In the case of the enlightened being, it has the benefits of accrued intellect and experience. This something that continues through rebirth and has the potential to attain Nibbana/Nirvana may be thought of as "self",

I don't think I was clear enough with the baby analogy. All I meant was that an arahant still has mental processes which could be considered a "self" by an observer. He retains his "personality" for the most part (according to Sumedho), which could also be labeled a "self." But I didn't mean to imply that they are reborn.

but is an authentic state of awareness, not the illusory one we call atta. In this state of awareness ".... an intellectual knowledge of one's individual existence is retained, but otherwise the conceptual separateness between the individual and the universe is gone." (Camerata)

All is clear up to the quoted sentence. It's that last sentence though that evades me. I don't know how you can eliminate separateness and retain an individual existence of which one has intellectual knowledge. The elimination of separateness by absorption implies that there is no individual, there is just the infinite universe. There is either nothing or everything.

Well, not according to Ajahn Chah (and I'm not sure absorption is the best word here). He points out that if an arahant couldn't conceptualize himself as an individual entity he wouldn't be able to function in the real world (actually, he'd be kind of like a baby). For the same reason, an arahant wouldn't need to go around referring to himself in the third person all the time - even though the Buddha did it. An arahant can use either 'dhamma talk' or 'conventional talk' as he pleases.

The way I see it, "What is reborn?" is the wrong question to ask. The real mystery is how exactly one mind-moment "conditions" the next, allowing the stream of existence to continue. It's hard to imagine without some kind of memory-mechanism. A few years ago I read something by a well-known monk suggesting that String Theory might one day provide the answer.

[sabaijai]

Aj Buddhadasa liked to remind his readers/listeners that the essence of self/non-self existence was emptiness.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha196.htm

[rockyysdt]

Aj Buddhadasa liked to remind his readers/listeners that the essence of self/non-self existence was emptiness.

http://www.budsas.or...ud/ebdha196.htm

Excellent link S J.

I'll save it and take the time to study it.

[khaowong1]

Heady stuff here and I'm smart enough not to jump in. BUT, I pretty much go along with camerta on this subject of rebirth.

[fabianfred]

All this talk about whether rebirth is real or not is just so much hot air.

We can look for evidence to comfort ourselves that our own beliefs are correct, but really it doesn't matter.

We can get absolute proof......to be known only to ourselves...but cannot show these proofs to others,

Paccatam veditabo vinyuhiti ....to be know only by oneself.....

Once we reach the goal we shall know....for ourselves.

Just do the practice and you will know.

Until we ourselves are in a position of safety we can do little to help others.

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

[rockyysdt]

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

We cannot force our views upon others, but we systematically force our views upon ourselves.

All this talk about whether rebirth is real or not is just so much hot air.

We can look for evidence to comfort ourselves that our own beliefs are correct, but really it doesn't matter.

We can get absolute proof......to be known only to ourselves...but cannot show these proofs to others,

Paccatam veditabo vinyuhiti ....to be know only by oneself.....

Once we reach the goal we shall know....for ourselves.

Just do the practice and you will know.

Until we ourselves are in a position of safety we can do little to help others.

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

Yes Fred.

It can be considered a waste of time debating something that can only be experienced.

Through dedicated practice the veil will fall away.

What I'm really interested in is the need to practice what the Buddha actually taught.

There are revelations of Dharma suggesting many follow something different.

A lifes dedication with false practice would be catastrophic.

There will be no absolute proof revealed if one doesn't practice true teaching.

What I'm seeing is actual practice focused on ego and bereft compassion for others.

Further, placing on hold some of ones effort with the promise of several goes at the prize (stream entry) a good but dangerous excuse.

Few have attempted to directly answer any of the concerns/revelations I've put forward.

What can be said.

Living ones life as if it's the last has the potential to deepen ones practice.

Should there be a "Buddhist Heaven" awaiting Awakening to be revealed, then let that be a bonus.

To practice inappropriately for a lifetime might lead to a precious opportunity wasted and damnation the result.

Edited February 19, 2012 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

Two days before my mother passed away (89 years) she asked me: Now I go. Where it's good to go, up (heaven) or down (hell)?

First I didn't understand and I answered:up.You have a better view from the heaven.

Answer: No, I dont't want to look down. I want to die happily.

My son and Dr. Martin Seeger helped me for the journal publication after my mother passed away.

Living and well being.

Dying happily.

Tan P.A. Payutto

[4evermaat]

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

We cannot force our views upon others, but we systematically force our views upon ourselves.

All this talk about whether rebirth is real or not is just so much hot air.

We can look for evidence to comfort ourselves that our own beliefs are correct, but really it doesn't matter.

We can get absolute proof......to be known only to ourselves...but cannot show these proofs to others,

Paccatam veditabo vinyuhiti ....to be know only by oneself.....

Once we reach the goal we shall know....for ourselves.

Just do the practice and you will know.

Until we ourselves are in a position of safety we can do little to help others.

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

Yes Fred.

It can be considered a waste of time debating something that can only be experienced.

Through dedicated practice the veil will fall away.

What I'm really interested in is the need to practice what the Buddha actually taught.

There are revelations of Dharma suggesting many follow something different.

A lifes dedication with false practice would be catastrophic.

There will be no absolute proof revealed if one doesn't practice true teaching.

What I'm seeing is actual practice focused on ego and bereft compassion for others.

Further, placing on hold some of ones effort with the promise of several goes at the prize (stream entry) a good but dangerous excuse.

Few have attempted to directly answer any of the concerns/revelations I've put forward.

What can be said.

Living ones life as if it's the last has the potential to deepen ones practice.

Should there be a "Buddhist Heaven" awaiting Awakening to be revealed, then let that be a bonus.

To practice inappropriately for a lifetime might lead to a precious opportunity wasted and damnation the result.

Fred and a few others have hit it on the head. The seeking out of a teacher or some exotic method that will somehow guarantee enlightenment is just another egoic stall tactic. Some authors do better than others at explaining their own experiences; usually the best authors use the least amount of superstition combined with some practical method in which to duplicate their experience. When our attention is in the past or worried about the future, we miss what is happening right now. Our lives are happening right now. So wouldn't the best way to do this be to live your life out fully, whatever that means to you?

Therein lies the problem. Do we really want to wake up? Or looking for a more comfortable bed to lay in? Sounds like an easy question, but what do our actions say?

Now if the end goal is to search for some teachings of some dead guy, then so be it. For some students, the seeking/searching in itself is the reward [somehow].

[poanoi]

Only one way to find out isn't it ?

[IMA_FARANG]

All this talk about whether rebirth is real or not is just so much hot air.

We can look for evidence to comfort ourselves that our own beliefs are correct, but really it doesn't matter.

We can get absolute proof......to be known only to ourselves...but cannot show these proofs to others,

Paccatam veditabo vinyuhiti ....to be know only by oneself.....

Once we reach the goal we shall know....for ourselves.

Just do the practice and you will know.

Until we ourselves are in a position of safety we can do little to help others.

We cannot force our views upon others...they have to decide for themselves.

-----------------

Excellent fred:

I'm a Zen practioner...so we might have to "agree to disagree" on some points.

But from a Zen viewpoint all that is "a finger pointing at the moon reflected on a still quiet pond".

The pointing finger is not the moon, the relection is not the moon, the still pond is not the moon....and so on.

Likewise, the illusion of Self is also an illusion.

There is a deeper reality behind all those illusions...and maybe even beyond that.

Or as the Zen master Linji said, "Let the seeker of the Way; that true "leaver from home" find that thing who is the puller of all the strings".

And no I DON'T mean a "God".

But that is just a personal view and not anything more.

[Xangsamhua]

There is a deeper reality behind all those illusions...and maybe even beyond that.

Or as the Zen master Linji said, "Let the seeker of the Way; that true "leaver from home" find that thing who is the puller of all the strings".

And no I DON'T mean a "God".

So what do you mean, IMA? What is "that thing who is the puller of the strings"?

[camerata]

Let's try and keep the "moment-to-moment rebirth only" argument in this thread so it doesn't infect a lot of other topics. And let's have some solid evidence to back up the claims on either side. Otherwise it's all just views.

[healthcaretaker]

Let's try and keep the "moment-to-moment rebirth only" argument in this thread so it doesn't infect a lot of other topics. And let's have some solid evidence to back up the claims on either side. Otherwise it's all just views.

I think I explained before.

Rebirth is best explained in a scientific way, it's not religious or Buddhist. It's just that the Buddhism or Buddha "discovered" it first. The Buddha never "invented" it. I can believe in rebirth but I may not understand it or I am not Buddhist. Rebirth is best explained using the energy theory that it can not be destroyed or created; but it can be transformed from one form to another form. Life is an energy.

Another most important theory in Buddhism is the "KARMA" (meaning action). Science explained the law of action and reaction; every action has the same reaction; same as explained by Buddhism on karma.

These 2 theories are the most important and outstanding of both science and Buddhism; and they are similar; except that Buddhism is 2000 over years ahead of science. The Buddha said Buddhism will last only 5000 years. It's exactly mid-way now. In another 2500 years, it's neither called science or Buddhism. It becomes common knowledge.

No one explained it in a way I did and I did it exclusively for Thai Visa forum; not anywhere else.

I don't ask for much. I just hope that in years to come; when my theory(for the above if I can call it theory) is widely known and if you are still alive(unlikely); I just wish that you remember someone here named "healthcaretaker" wrote about it first.

[camerata]

By "evidence" I meant textual evidence from the Pali Canon supporting or contradicting the OP's proposal that "rebirth can't possibly involve future lives."

For example, from the Jhana Sutta:

"Again, there is the case where an individual... enters the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. At the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in conjunction with the devas of the Pure Abodes. This rebirth is not in common with run-of-the-mill people."

The expression, "at the break-up of the body, after death" is used in several suttas and is far from ambiguous.

[Xangsamhua]

The reason for this was that anyone who stood up in defiance of Brahmanism was in danger of being killed.

Also, by fitting into prevailing belief it was easier to promote his messages.

Are you sure about this, Rocky?

My understanding is that there was a great diversity of teaching in northern India at that time, including atheism and agnosticism. The Axial Age, into which the Buddha's life and times fitted snugly, was one in which new thinking flourished.

[rockyysdt]

Are you sure about this, Rocky?

My understanding is that there was a great diversity of teaching in northern India at that time, including atheism and agnosticism. The Axial Age, into which the Buddha's life and times fitted snugly, was one in which new thinking flourished.

I understand there were 4 attempts at the Buddhas life.

The higher caste in Brahminical society were all powerful.

Openly preach against them was a serious matter.

Even marrying outside of ones caste or taking on a role outside ones caste was met with death.

This issue is pivotal to the direction each of us must take in terms of what the Buddha was teaching.

Was he teaching a path to the metaphysical, or was he teaching a practice allowing one to break free of the shackles of greed aversion and delusion in this life?

Do we take his works literally or was he being cagy in the way he presented his teaching?

We often read about how Thai people practice a form of Buddhism which is mixed with Animism?

Could many of us being practising a form of Buddhism which is mixed with Brahmanism, Hindusim & Jainism?

Do we hang our hats on a person who 1500 years ago interpreted the Buddhas works, or should we take a second look at the interpretations of contemporary scholars who piant a different picture?

For me, the focus will be on the practice with no attachment to the metaphysical.

It will be lovely to be pleasantly rewarded with eternal existence in Nibanna, free of Duhkka, but I'll keep an open mind.

Edited August 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Are you sure about this, Rocky?

My understanding is that there was a great diversity of teaching in northern India at that time, including atheism and agnosticism. The Axial Age, into which the Buddha's life and times fitted snugly, was one in which new thinking flourished.

I understand there were 4 attempts at the Buddhas life.

The higher caste in Brahminical society were all powerful.

The four attempts are ascribed to Devadatta in the Siddhartha-Gautama legend.

This is not reliable history. Devadatta was the bad boy in the legend, the Judas. You had to have one in traditional stories about saints' and heroes' lives (together with foreseen and miraculous births, precocious childhoods, etc). However, the continuing existence of Devadatta's sangha for some hundreds of years after the Buddha's death suggests that he wasn't quite the villain described in the Pali tradition.

From Wikipedia's article on Devadatta:

According to Andrew Skilton, modern scholarship generally agrees that the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is the oldest extant Buddhist Vinaya.^[1] The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya is significant for its differing accounts from those of other schools. The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya mentions the figure of Devadatta, but the description and attributes of this figure are entirely different from those in the vinayas of sects from the Sthavira branch.^[2] In fact, there is no overlap in the characterizations of Devadatta between the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya and the other five extant vinayas which all come from the Sthavira branch. This has led some scholars to conclude that the story of Devadatta was a legend produced by the Sthaviras after they split from the Mahāsāṃghikas in the 4th century BCE.^[2]André Bareau has discovered that the earliest vinaya material common to all sects simply depicts Devadatta as a Buddhist saint who wishes for the monks to live a rigorous lifestyle.^[3]

Faxian and other Chinese pilgrims who travelled to India in the early centuries of the current era recorded the continued existence of "Gotamaka" buddhists, followers of Devadatta. Gotamaka are also referred to in Pali texts of the second and fifth centuries of the current era. The followers of Devadatta are recorded to have honored all the Buddhas previous to Śākyamuni, but not Śākyamuni. According to Faxian, Xuanzang and Yijing's writings, some people practised in a similar way and with the same books as common Buddhists, but followed the similar tapas and performed rituals to the past three buddhas and not Śākyamuni Buddha. Many followers of that sect listened to the lessons in theNālandā with the others, but it is believed by many that they were not students of Devadatta. However, there are still those who say they follow Devadatta today at Bodh Gaya.^[4]

^{Regarding the Brahmans, they were only powerful as long as they were protected by the Kshatriyas. The latter had the weaponry and the warrior skills and the power that went with them. The later Buddhas, including Sakyamuni, were Kshatriyas. Earlier ones were Brahmans. I'm not sure what this is telling us.}

[rockyysdt]

One thing all Buddhists agree on is that kammic potential follows us through successive lifetimes. We have a kammic inheritance.

Aren't Buddhists divided on the subject of re birth "moment to moment" vs re birth "many lives?

Karmic potential follows each successive instance of moment.