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

[Xangsamhua]

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?

Rocky, your posts raise interesting questions.

To me though, as a layman, I see no problem for a layperson to mix Buddhism with Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainism or any other complementary "ism", perhaps not including fundamentalism or dogmatism.

All of the (Indian) "isms" above derive from a Vedic base, and all are attempts to identify truth both as wisdom and the practice that derives from wisdom and nourishes it. For some, the teachings found in the Pali Canon may be comprehensive and more than sufficient. For others there may be truths found in the different strands of wisdom teaching, described from the outside as "religions" (a 19th century concept that identified religion as a "bond" between man and the gods,), but from within as the teachings of the wise. Dharma, after all, does not mean "religion", but "natural law", and Hindus do not speak of their faith as the "Hindu religion" - a western ascription - but as sanatana dharma, "eternal law" or "eternal way".

The boundaries between different wisdom traditions have always been much more porous and interactive than those between the cultural traditions and obligation systems in which each wisdom tradition is embedded. Hence, there may be clear boundaries between Islam, Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity, for example, when they are viewed as exoteric faith systems and institutions, but the mystical and esoteric traditions in each can draw quite freely from the others and may, in fact, at depth be saying much the same thing. We can learn a lot from the Sufi masters and the Hindu sages, as we can from the Tantric yogis and the Christian mystics, in our exploration of the Within and the Beyond. Theravada eschews mysticism, so it has no tradition of this kind, but it has a powerful tradition of communal and individual discipline and of meditation techniques that seem to lead the meditator to at least the threshold of mystical experience, such as that of non-duality.

So the important thing, at least for a layperson, in my view, is not to be intent on practising "pure" Buddhism, but to be making progress toward the "light" of truth and reality, by whatever means (and all faith traditions have the concept of "light" as objective truth and subjective enlightenment). If one's practice as a Theravada Buddhist, for example, can be assisted by the wisdom and practice of the Hindus, the Sufis, or whichever school, should one shun those traditions because they are "outside the fence"?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

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]

My understanding is that the Brahmans, dominant during the life of the Buddha, rigidly believed in a caste system in which the only way to elevate ones status to a higher caste including Deva relms and eventually into the house of Brahman was through Karma and Reincarnation.

All one could do was to live their life as best they could within the limitations of their caste and hope they would eventually achieve a better status in their next life.

Attempting to move into circles outside ones caste was disallowed.

One was considered better off performing their duties within their caste badly than excel in the duties of a role above their caste.

Marrying or consorting outside of ones caste was met with instant death.

Most will view Brahmanism as fantasy and an unproven religion.

In its time, Brahmanism was considered "the way things were".

It also provided order in society.

Attempting to go againsts its rule was an attack on order.

The only way one could escape its grip was to escape into seclusion or to leave its lands.

Perhaps some of the attempts on the Buddhas life had a different basis, but given the environment, could we blame the Buddha from attempting to protect himself?

Edited August 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

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?

Rocky, your posts raise interesting questions.

To me though, as a layman, I see no problem for a layperson to mix Buddhism with Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainism or any other complementary "ism", perhaps not including fundamentalism or dogmatism.

All of the (Indian) "isms" above derive from a Vedic base, and all are attempts to identify truth both as wisdom and the practice that derives from wisdom and nourishes it. For some, the teachings found in the Pali Canon may be comprehensive and more than sufficient. For others there may be truths found in the different strands of wisdom teaching, described from the outside as "religions" (a 19th century concept that identified religion as a "bond" between man and the gods,), but from within as the teachings of the wise. Dharma, after all, does not mean "religion", but "natural law", and Hindus do not speak of their faith as the "Hindu religion" - a western ascription - but as sanatana dharma, "eternal law" or "eternal way".

The boundaries between different wisdom traditions have always been much more porous and interactive than those between the cultural traditions and obligation systems in which each wisdom tradition is embedded. Hence, there may be clear boundaries between Islam, Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity, for example, when they are viewed as exoteric faith systems and institutions, but the mystical and esoteric traditions in each can draw quite freely from the others and may, in fact, at depth be saying much the same thing. We can learn a lot from the Sufi masters and the Hindu sages, as we can from the Tantric yogis and the Christian mystics, in our exploration of the Within and the Beyond. Theravada eschews mysticism, so it has no tradition of this kind, but it has a powerful tradition of communal and individual discipline and of meditation techniques that seem to lead the meditator to at least the threshold of mystical experience, such as that of non-duality.

So the important thing, at least for a layperson, in my view, is not to be intent on practising "pure" Buddhism, but to be making progress toward the "light" of truth and reality, by whatever means (and all faith traditions have the concept of "light" as objective truth and subjective enlightenment). If one's practice as a Theravada Buddhist, for example, can be assisted by the wisdom and practice of the Hindus, the Sufis, or whichever school, should one shun those traditions because they are "outside the fence"?

What I was suggesting was that Buddhism as interpreted or misintepreted by Buddhagosa in the 5th century could a conglomeration of what the Buddha actually taught along with some Brahmanism, Hinduism, and Jainism added.

If the Buddha spoke within the framework and belief of the time, and presented his message whilst lampooning the beliefs of the time, misunderstaning or misinterpeting him would lead one to a different conclusion.

Buddagosas conclusions incorporate much of what was Brahman (hell relms, deva relms, nibhanna the place, mara a real demonic being, ones karmic destiny, reincarnation into many lives, permanent essence which endures, and other metaphysical concepts).

Although Theravada may eschew mysticism it appears to embrace the metaphysical.

Edited August 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

I've added in posts here from another topic to keep all the "moment-to-moment" stuff and supporting arguments in one place.

[Xangsamhua]

Yes, the caste system was well in place in the Buddha's time and the Buddha was radical in rejecting it from his Sangha. To my knowledge this was the first substantial disavowal of the caste system in Indian history since the Aryans introduced it.

Hinduism is still blighted by its connection with caste, even if it is not as rigid as it once was and there are Hindu reformers who call for its cessation. Unfortunately, it seems pretty hard to stop, as it's so embedded in Indian culture.

At the time of the Buddha, too, although caste was not observed within the Sangha, caste obligations and entitlements were still followed by lay disciples.

Re. Brahmanism: I'm afraid I've been remiss perhaps in referring to Brahmanism in its contemporary sense as the belief in Brahman, the divine consciousness that underpins and pervades all phenomena. This, although unprovable (obviously) is not easily dismissed as "fantasy", though one may believe it to be so, as one may any theism, or panentheism, or end-state unconditioned nirvana for that matter. I've used the term Brahmanism on occasion to include non-Hindu believers in Advaita and other non-dualist or dualist teachings in the Vedanta. However, "Brahmanism" is a term usually applied to Indian religion up to about the Buddha's time. After that time, Vedanta became the norm.

[camerata]

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

Out of 350 million Buddhists worldwide, how many would you say are out there rejecting the standard version of rebirth? Focusing on moment-to-moment becoming is different from claiming it is the only way of becoming. I think you'll find more Buddhists are agnostic about this than reject it.

[rockyysdt]

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

Out of 350 million Buddhists worldwide, how many would you say are out there rejecting the standard version of rebirth? Focusing on moment-to-moment becoming is different from claiming it is the only way of becoming. I think you'll find more Buddhists are agnostic about this than reject it.

I would say a considerable number of Buddhists, coming to Buddhism for a variety of personal reasons, are without knowledge of any depth, having been presented with only one view (Buddhagosas interpretations.).

I would also say many Buddhists have come to Buddhism with preconceived ideas of what it is, and then learn as they go. What they learn is influenced by those they've chosen to teach them.

If you have such an audience, empty of any knowledge other than what is provided, followers will absorb what is taught.

For 1,500 years Buddhists have followed the teachings of a particular scholars translations, largely without question, with the exception of the differences associated with the Buddhist schools.

Contemporary (21st century) scholars are only recently presenting different interpretations.

They are causing the new Sanghas, springing up in the West, to investigate and question.

If the majority aren't rejecting the standard version of re birth, wouldn't that be because they haven't heard of the other option?

Isn't it of benefit that modern scholars findings will encourage individuals to personally investigate interpretations of the Buddhas works, just as he advised, rather than accepting what is presented to them?

Do you believe the Buddhas message was of a metaphysical world?

To me, whether there is re birth to other lives, or moment to moment re birth in this life only, will make no difference to the power of the four enobling truths and eightfold path which offer awakening.

Edited August 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

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

Out of 350 million Buddhists worldwide, how many would you say are out there rejecting the standard version of rebirth? Focusing on moment-to-moment becoming is different from claiming it is the only way of becoming. I think you'll find more Buddhists are agnostic about this than reject it.

I would say a considerable number of Buddhists, coming to Buddhism for a variety of personal reasons, are without knowledge of any depth, having been presented with only one view (Buddhagosas interpretations.).

I would also say many Buddhists have come to Buddhism with preconceived ideas of what it is, and then learn as they go. What they learn is influenced by those they've chosen to teach them.

If you have such an audience, empty of any knowledge other than what is provided, followers will absorb what is taught.

For 1,500 years Buddhists have followed the teachings of a particular scholars translations, largely without question, with the exception of the differences associated with the Buddhist schools.

Contemporary (21st century) scholars are only recently presenting different interpretations.

They are causing the new Sanghas, springing up in the West, to investigate and question.

If the majority aren't rejecting the standard version of re birth, wouldn't that be because they haven't heard of the other option?

Isn't it of benefit that modern scholars findings will encourage individuals to personally investigate interpretations of the Buddhas works, just as he advised, rather than accepting what is presented to them?

Do you believe the Buddhas message was of a metaphysical world?

To me, whether there is re birth to other lives, or moment to moment re birth in this life only, will make no difference to the power of the four enobling truths and eightfold path which offer awakening.

Rebirth as a moment-to-moment phenomena was first proposed in the modern era by Buddhadassa, if I am not mistaken. It was radical in it's time, but has recently been called the original teaching of Buddha by a certain scholar of Pali, namely John Peacock. However, most Buddhists, teachers and lay people, have always and still do, understand rebirth, as life-to-life.

I would propose that both descriptions of rebirth have their own truth. Since Buddhism does teach that consciousness is a succession of mind-moments, it is logical to describe each succeeding mind-moment as a kind of rebirth. It is a bit harder to fathom life-to-life rebirth but, it can not be denied, it was part of Buddha's teaching, so we will keep trying to understand that.

The claim that moment-to-moment rebirth is the correct understanding represents an overcommitment to an opinion, in my view.

Our only challenge is to understand the Noble Truths and follow the Eightfold Path, just like Rocky said.

[camerata]

To me, whether there is re birth to other lives, or moment to moment re birth in this life only, will make no difference to the power of the four enobling truths and eightfold path which offer awakening.

Exactly! It makes no difference to the practice. The Buddha's message applies to both the present lifetime and multiple lifetimes.

[rockyysdt]

Exactly! It makes no difference to the practice. The Buddha's message applies to both the present lifetime and multiple lifetimes.

Where is does matter, though, is to those who end up categorizing Buddhism with all the other religions due to metaphysical interpretation.

The other other thing to consider is the affect on ones practice/progress.

Attachment to the view of many lives either in samsara or nibanna inflates the ego due to the imortality aspect

Also it can give one an excuse to hold off practice: "Oh well, just don't create new bad kharma, and you can hasve another crack at it in the next life!".

[Several]

Exactly! It makes no difference to the practice. The Buddha's message applies to both the present lifetime and multiple lifetimes.

Where is does matter, though, is to those who end up categorizing Buddhism with all the other religions due to metaphysical interpretation.

The other other thing to consider is the affect on ones practice/progress.

Attachment to the view of many lives either in samsara or nibanna inflates the ego due to the imortality aspect

Also it can give one an excuse to hold off practice: "Oh well, just don't create new bad kharma, and you can hasve another crack at it in the next life!".

But many people are in miserable circumstances in this life and through making some merit they hope to improve in another. Would you rather tell them "Nah, sorry mate but youse are stuffed."? It isn't what Buddha taught us. I agree that its easier to say better luck next life and carry on however the mood takes you. It is better to follow the precepts. But how many people do you know who will become Arahant in this life through rigorous practice?

Metaphysical aspects are unavoidable. Many stories of the Buddha and his followers describe clairvoyance, clairaudience, bilocation etc as possible side effects of practice. Therefore perfectly natural. It is attachment to them as outcomes of practice that is a problem. People will never ignore these things and there will always be critics but ignoring the metaphysical entirely will cause problems if anything supernatural does happen to you. You will have no idea what is going on and it will do you more harm than good.

The best way we have been advised is the middle way. Accept the possibility of past and future lives but practice hard for the benefit of this one only. Be aware of metaphysical effects but do not seek them.

[rockyysdt]

But many people are in miserable circumstances in this life and through making some merit they hope to improve in another. Would you rather tell them "Nah, sorry mate but youse are stuffed."? It isn't what Buddha taught us. I agree that its easier to say better luck next life and carry on however the mood takes you. It is better to follow the precepts. But how many people do you know who will become Arahant in this life through rigorous practice?

No, but I'd hate to tell them that the metaphysical stuff was a misinterpretation and that they had wasted the only opportunity they had.

The best way we have been advised is the middle way. Accept the possibility of past and future lives but practice hard for the benefit of this one only. Be aware of metaphysical effects but do not seek them.

Precisely.

There are some who are totally attached to the metaphysical as not negotiable.

What I would tell them is to observe their thoughts and intentions.

I understood, that although the pinnacle is grand, practice is a process for ongoing living, not a place to get to.

One practices whilst one is alive.

Edited August 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Yes, the metaphysical aspect is very distracting for the majority of Buddhists. They seem to forget that extra sensory perception is still just perception and so a link in the chain of dependent origination. Seeking predictions about their future when we should be mindful of the present, bizarre magical cures in place of medicine. Tattoos to become bullet-proof when not aggravating the people with guns would suffice. But I feel it swings the other way too. The overly skeptical scientist pronouncing such-and-such isn't so without really knowing is a betrayal of serious inquiry and only based in a need to feel secure in the knowledge they have all the answers. Hardcore science is little better than fundamentalism unfortunately, when if they could admit their limitations perhaps we could keep working towards true understanding together instead of wasting time and energy arguing over who is right when nobody really knows.

Maybe the original question about a rational basis for Kamma isn't a good one. There is an emotional basis or element to its operation. It must effect behaviour and circumstance but thats a metaphysical aspect. Perhaps the only rational aspect of it is its 'you reap what you sow' causality. Maybe it is all in our heads after all. That does not make it any less real.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, the metaphysical aspect is very distracting for the majority of Buddhists. They seem to forget that extra sensory perception is still just perception and so a link in the chain of dependent origination. Seeking predictions about their future when we should be mindful of the present, bizarre magical cures in place of medicine. Tattoos to become bullet-proof when not aggravating the people with guns would suffice. But I feel it swings the other way too. The overly skeptical scientist pronouncing such-and-such isn't so without really knowing is a betrayal of serious inquiry and only based in a need to feel secure in the knowledge they have all the answers. Hardcore science is little better than fundamentalism unfortunately, when if they could admit their limitations perhaps we could keep working towards true understanding together instead of wasting time and energy arguing over who is right when nobody really knows.

Maybe the original question about a rational basis for Kamma isn't a good one. There is an emotional basis or element to its operation. It must effect behaviour and circumstance but thats a metaphysical aspect. Perhaps the only rational aspect of it is its 'you reap what you sow' causality. Maybe it is all in our heads after all. That does not make it any less real.

I was going to start my reply with "l", but this makes me think twice.

Observing myself, I can tend to appear overly attached to the non metaphysical aspects as a reaction or attempt to balance a consensus which appears to be attached to the metaphysical.

I'm keeping an open mind on the metaphysical, but won't be dissapointed if it doesn't pan out.

I'm just keen to promote the possibility and opened mindedness for both.

Edited August 7, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Eye know what you mean

[KeyserSoze01]

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.

Ah, but there is the rub grasshopper. There are those that contend that we are conscious beings first and foremost, even after the demise of the human body, which is viewed as nothing more than a containing to hold our consciousness and soul. This is the entity which is reborn if you have not attained a level of self-awareness, love and "humanity" to progress to the next level. i.e.; Nirvana in the Buddhist faith. If your soul does not attain spiritual enlightenment in one lifetime, you are doomed to keep repeating the process until such time that you have attained spiritual enlightenment.

Reincarnation has been bantered around by various faiths and religious sects over the centuries. Some believe, while others dismiss the concept due to their own belief system. I don't have the answers any more than you, but I know I am happier in my own skin when I do the right thing by others as established in my own value system. Will this get me to the next level when this old body finally wears out? I have no idea.

[huli]

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.

There are those that contend that we are conscious beings first and foremost, even after the demise of the human body, which is viewed as nothing more than a containing to hold our consciousness and soul. This is the entity which is reborn

Those that believe or "contend" this are not Buddhists, or not real Buddhists anyway, although they may well be Christians, Islamists or Jews, to mention some common religions as examples.

Buddha described consciousness quite differently, it merely arises dependent on conditions, primarily having a body to begin with, and when the body dies, consciousness is over. There is no soul or persistent entity. This is a core Buddhist doctrine.

Granted the concept of rebirth and karma (if not to me, to whom?) muddies the waters, but the Buddhist understanding of consciousness and self is not debatable. In my humble opinion.

[leolibby]

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.

There are those that contend that we are conscious beings first and foremost, even after the demise of the human body, which is viewed as nothing more than a containing to hold our consciousness and soul. This is the entity which is reborn

Those that believe or "contend" this are not Buddhists, or not real Buddhists anyway, although they may well be Christians, Islamists or Jews, to mention some common religions as examples.

Buddha described consciousness quite differently, it merely arises dependent on conditions, primarily having a body to begin with, and when the body dies, consciousness is over. There is no soul or persistent entity. This is a core Buddhist doctrine.

Granted the concept of rebirth and karma (if not to me, to whom?) muddies the waters, but the Buddhist understanding of consciousness and self is not debatable. In my humble opinion.

It seems that the Karmic baggage itself reincarnates... almost as if after death, the karma is floating around like cigarette smoke, and it reattaches to some creature upon birth... However, if all that is left after death is karma, and the karma reincarnates like a soul, woudn't it be random who or what's karma anyone has?

[meadish_sweetball]

From two Thai monks, independent of each other, I have been given the explanation that at the moment of conception, as the sperm meets the ovum, the spirits are also hovering there, contending like sperm in order to get in and become the new life. I am not sure from where this idea comes. Does anyone else know?

[rockyysdt]

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.

There are those that contend that we are conscious beings first and foremost, even after the demise of the human body, which is viewed as nothing more than a containing to hold our consciousness and soul. This is the entity which is reborn

Buddha described consciousness quite differently, it merely arises dependent on conditions, primarily having a body to begin with, and when the body dies, consciousness is over. There is no soul or persistent entity. This is a core Buddhist doctrine.

Granted the concept of rebirth and karma (if not to me, to whom?) muddies the waters, but the Buddhist understanding of consciousness and self is not debatable. In my humble opinion.

Yes, or to put it in another where, there is impermanence, duhhka, and non self.

Saying there is a muddying of waters is very apt.

How do you rationalize karma/re-birth into many lives?

[camerata]

Attachment to the view of many lives either in samsara or nibanna inflates the ego due to the imortality aspect

Also it can give one an excuse to hold off practice: "Oh well, just don't create new bad kharma, and you can hasve another crack at it in the next life!".

Again I think you are painting this as an either/or situation - belief in/rejection of anything metaphysical - because that's how it appears to you. But most Westerners seem to be quite content to adopt an agnostic ("I don't know") position because of the lack of available facts. With an agnostic position, one doesn't aim at a fortunate rebirth or give it much thought at all - let alone get a swollen ego. You just do the practice, reap the benefits in this life, and anything else is an added bonus.

I finally found time to listen to the 8 John Peacock talks you mentioned, the 6 on Early Buddhism and the two on Metta. Basically, he starts from the premise that the Buddha didn't teach anything metaphysical, supports it with interpretations that fit and ignores texts that don't. He doesn't offer any hard evidence for his views. He redefines many Pali words, even well-known words like metta and piti, but we don't know what other Pali scholars would say about this.

In fairness to him, a dhamma talk is not a good format for presenting a lot of academic evidence, but that's the way he has chosen to present his views. At the end of the second Metta talk, when he mentions that nibbana is nothing mystical, he says something like: "I wouldn't want to write this up because a lot of people would probably be upset." So that appears to be the reason that he has never set down his ideas in writing, where others could critique them. I think he enjoys giving dhamma talks, he's an excellent speaker and he wants to stay out of the maelstrom that might come his way. The problem with that is we never get to hear any academic critiques of his views.

In picking out only the texts that support his views, he seems to have two overall criteria: that they should be "early texts" and that ideas should appear multiple times throughout the canon. Unfortunately, he doesn't clearly define "early" and he doesn't consistently follow his own criteria. At one point he mentions the Abhidhamma (completed 200 years after the Buddha's death) as an early text, so we don't know what exactly is a "late" text. He says that points raised only once or twice in the canon are probably later interpolations, but he uses one such point himself and says he "feels it is not an interpolation." There are many places in the canon with unambiguous references to multiple lives but he simply doesn't address them.

He says that nibbana is "lots of little awakenings" but offers no proof. He just mentions that he feels that in the description of the Buddha's nibbana "time was compressed." No mention of the many places in the canon where others were suddenly enlightened, often hundreds at a time.

He says that depictions of the Buddha talking to the devas are a joke, meant to show that Buddhism is superior to Brahmanism. But this happens all the way through the canon. How would he explain Ajahn Man teaching the Dhamma to devas and nagas? This could be explained as nimmita, or some other subjective experience, but it is undoubtedly mystical.

He says the in literal rebirth, in the next life "it won't be me." But I doubt many Western Buddhists think of it like that. It's more like a proprietary feeling towards the beings down the line, a feeling of lineage. I know my grandchildren wouldn't be "me," but I'd still have a special interest in their wellbeing.

He says that plenty of people didn't like the Buddha (I have seen evidence for this elsewhere), that there were attempts to assassinate the Buddha, and that the Buddha "was probably poisoned." He doesn't actually say that Brahmins murdered him, but it's clear that's what he means. However, I have seen a perfectly reasonable and scientific explanation for the Buddha's death from a doctor (former Ven Mettanando) and can think of reasons why a murder would have been unlikely. Would the Brahmins dare when the Buddha was a friend of and patronized by powerful kings? Would they bother when he was 80 years old?

He says he doesn't like Buddhaghosa much. He doesn't say anything about him "cobbling together a religion." What he says about BG is that "Theravada as we know it today started with him" and that his explanation of dependent origination (in the Path of Purification) covers three lifetimes. He then quotes Buddhadasa as saying that BG "must have been a closet Hindu" to do that. He doesn't provide any evidence that people understood dependent origination in a different way before BG.

He says that the Buddha's core teachings are the ones that are repeated throughout the canon. However, the idea of metta as a path to liberation seems to occur only once, in the Metta Sutta, an early text. This idea actually originates with a new interpretation of a couple of words in the sutta in Richard Gombrich's lecture Kindness and compassion as means to Nirvana in early Buddhism. What caught my eye, in the translation by "the most learned of modern translators" was yet another unambiguous reference to literal rebirth:

"Towards the whole world one should develop loving thoughts, boundless: upwards, downwards, sideways, without restriction, enmity or rivalry. Standing, walking, sitting or lying, one should be as alert as possible and keep one’s mind on this. They call this divine living in this world. Not taking up ideas, virtuous, with perfect insight, by controlling greed for sensual pleasure one does not return to lie in a womb."

I actually enjoyed the talks (apart from the torture of the long Q&A sessions) and will listen to the others but I think the case for rejecting everything metaphysical in the Buddha's teaching is far from proven because the counter-arguments are simply not addressed. As such, it looks more like personal opinions (which Peacock doesn't deny) formed into a theory and supported by selective text references.

[hookedondhamma]

Attachment to the view of many lives either in samsara or nibanna inflates the ego due to the imortality aspect

Also it can give one an excuse to hold off practice: "Oh well, just don't create new bad kharma, and you can hasve another crack at it in the next life!".

Again I think you are painting this as an either/or situation - belief in/rejection of anything metaphysical - because that's how it appears to you. But most Westerners seem to be quite content to adopt an agnostic ("I don't know") position because of the lack of available facts. With an agnostic position, one doesn't aim at a fortunate rebirth or give it much thought at all - let alone get a swollen ego. You just do the practice, reap the benefits in this life, and anything else is an added bonus.

I finally found time to listen to the 8 John Peacock talks you mentioned, the 6 on Early Buddhism and the two on Metta. Basically, he starts from the premise that the Buddha didn't teach anything metaphysical, supports it with interpretations that fit and ignores texts that don't. He doesn't offer any hard evidence for his views. He redefines many Pali words, even well-known words like metta and piti, but we don't know what other Pali scholars would say about this.

In fairness to him, a dhamma talk is not a good format for presenting a lot of academic evidence, but that's the way he has chosen to present his views. At the end of the second Metta talk, when he mentions that nibbana is nothing mystical, he says something like: "I wouldn't want to write this up because a lot of people would probably be upset." So that appears to be the reason that he has never set down his ideas in writing, where others could critique them. I think he enjoys giving dhamma talks, he's an excellent speaker and he wants to stay out of the maelstrom that might come his way. The problem with that is we never get to hear any academic critiques of his views.

In picking out only the texts that support his views, he seems to have two overall criteria: that they should be "early texts" and that ideas should appear multiple times throughout the canon. Unfortunately, he doesn't clearly define "early" and he doesn't consistently follow his own criteria. At one point he mentions the Abhidhamma (completed 200 years after the Buddha's death) as an early text, so we don't know what exactly is a "late" text. He says that points raised only once or twice in the canon are probably later interpolations, but he uses one such point himself and says he "feels it is not an interpolation." There are many places in the canon with unambiguous references to multiple lives but he simply doesn't address them.

He says that nibbana is "lots of little awakenings" but offers no proof. He just mentions that he feels that in the description of the Buddha's nibbana "time was compressed." No mention of the many places in the canon where others were suddenly enlightened, often hundreds at a time.

He says that depictions of the Buddha talking to the devas are a joke, meant to show that Buddhism is superior to Brahmanism. But this happens all the way through the canon. How would he explain Ajahn Man teaching the Dhamma to devas and nagas? This could be explained as nimmita, or some other subjective experience, but it is undoubtedly mystical.

He says the in literal rebirth, in the next life "it won't be me." But I doubt many Western Buddhists think of it like that. It's more like a proprietary feeling towards the beings down the line, a feeling of lineage. I know my grandchildren wouldn't be "me," but I'd still have a special interest in their wellbeing.

He says that plenty of people didn't like the Buddha (I have seen evidence for this elsewhere), that there were attempts to assassinate the Buddha, and that the Buddha "was probably poisoned." He doesn't actually say that Brahmins murdered him, but it's clear that's what he means. However, I have seen a perfectly reasonable and scientific explanation for the Buddha's death from a doctor (former Ven Mettanando) and can think of reasons why a murder would have been unlikely. Would the Brahmins dare when the Buddha was a friend of and patronized by powerful kings? Would they bother when he was 80 years old?

He says he doesn't like Buddhaghosa much. He doesn't say anything about him "cobbling together a religion." What he says about BG is that "Theravada as we know it today started with him" and that his explanation of dependent origination (in the Path of Purification) covers three lifetimes. He then quotes Buddhadasa as saying that BG "must have been a closet Hindu" to do that. He doesn't provide any evidence that people understood dependent origination in a different way before BG.

He says that the Buddha's core teachings are the ones that are repeated throughout the canon. However, the idea of metta as a path to liberation seems to occur only once, in the Metta Sutta, an early text. This idea actually originates with a new interpretation of a couple of words in the sutta in Richard Gombrich's lecture Kindness and compassion as means to Nirvana in early Buddhism. What caught my eye, in the translation by "the most learned of modern translators" was yet another unambiguous reference to literal rebirth:

"Towards the whole world one should develop loving thoughts, boundless: upwards, downwards, sideways, without restriction, enmity or rivalry. Standing, walking, sitting or lying, one should be as alert as possible and keep one’s mind on this. They call this divine living in this world. Not taking up ideas, virtuous, with perfect insight, by controlling greed for sensual pleasure one does not return to lie in a womb."

I actually enjoyed the talks (apart from the torture of the long Q&A sessions) and will listen to the others but I think the case for rejecting everything metaphysical in the Buddha's teaching is far from proven because the counter-arguments are simply not addressed. As such, it looks more like personal opinions (which Peacock doesn't deny) formed into a theory and supported by selective text references.

Agreed. I think it's great how so many 'westerners' are coming across Buddhism. From living amongst both Westerners and Thais though, I find that it's very refreshing living amongst Thais. There is so much information in SE Asia already (go figure) about Buddhism as it is, and if one manages to find the right person/group of people, the results gained can be rewarding. Not to say the same can be found outside of SE Asia, but too often have I tried to keep my head from bobbing back and forth from hearing a dissertation on as to why this is, why that is. It's that grey area where practice begins and academics ends. One of the reasons I don't venture to far outside of what I've been taught - I just don't want to get hung up on something debated, then moving on to get hung up on something else debated, etc. etc. I do give Peacock credit though for breaking 'outside of the box' (as my friends say here). There are scholarly lectures though, and then there are Dhamma talks.

[leolibby]

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.

Actually, this is not true. When we die, our body heat dissipates according th the 2nd law of thermodynamics. All of the chemical energy, the hydrocarbons, can burn up just like a piece of wood does, or be food for something. Consciousness is not energy. Life is not energy... living beings do have energy in the form of chemical bonds in the proteins and fats that compose their structure.....ALL of that energy comes from the sun via photosynthesis in plants (ie. glucose). There is no energy like a soul... all energy strives to become just simple heat. The closest we can get to an afterlife is if we donate our organs to support another life, or if we realize that the nutrients in our body can nurish other life. I'm going to donate my entire body to science and all my organs to people who need them. I'm gonna make sure they're free too.. and get to people who need them.

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.

I will definitely remember healthcaretaker said it first.

Edited August 17, 2012 by leolibby

[Several]

Not all energy comes from the sun. All the planets are giving off more energy than they receive. There's no current explaination for this in physics, so they ignore it. I'm not sure it is possible to say consciousness is or is not energy. Can a negative proposition be proved scientifically? I know not. You can say that consciousness has an effect, ask Schroedingers cat.

Buddha says there are six senses, the regular five plus mind, and he also seperates senses from sense objects which implies to me that mind itself is acting as a sense organ. So some form of energy must interact with an organ, sound light, touch etc for us to become conscious of it. Then descend through judgements and feelings thereby creating Kamma, as stated in the Dependent Origination resulting in the usual sorrow, lamentation and suffering. And then we go around again. Wheee!

Ahem. Meandering towards the point, I am not convinced anything is disproved about energy. I also feel science should only speak authoritatively about what they can provide incontovertible evidence for. Pre 1996 all scientists were solidly convinced there were no planets orbiting any sun other than ours. It was a 'fact'. Then one guy showed evidence of a planet orbiting Pegasi 51. Hooray. The following morning it is 'a fact' that there are likely to be planets everywhere. And the character who found this first planet had been, up to that point, the number one voice against the possibility of other planets as proposed by two other researchers. A total disgrace of an individual, but the scientific community became instantly blind to this underhanded maneuver in the dazzling light of new discovery.

I like science, but I don't trust scientists. Same as I have belief in Buddhism but not all Buddhists. There are things in the universe that are unknown and unknowable for a human and that makes me happy. As part of this universe it experiences itself through that infinitesimally small part of itself that is me. That seems to include a mixture of Kamma, consciousness and rebirth in my experience.

I hope the, person, who discovered the first new world around Pegasi receives the full measure of his Kamma in one go. I also hope we find a better way of describing energy because its causing too much confusion. And just because I can't find my keys, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

Goodnight!

[camerata]

In the otherwise excellent What The Buddha Taught, Rahula says that when the body dies, "energies do not die with it, but continue to take some other shape or form, which we call another life." I don't think this is in accord with modern science. Life - physical movement and mental activity - is electrical activity fueled by chemical processes dependent on food and oxygen. When the production of fuel stops, so does the electrical activity.

However, given that gravity exists but scientists haven't yet discovered the graviton, I don't think it is too outlandish to suggest there may be something like a cittatron as yet unknown to science that makes telepathy, kamma and rebirth possible. And then there is also String Theory. One has to keep an open mind.

[Xangsamhua]

However, given that gravity exists but scientists haven't yet discovered the graviton, I don't think it is too outlandish to suggest there may be something like a cittatron as yet unknown to science that makes telepathy, kamma and rebirth possible. And then there is also String Theory. One has to keep an open mind.

Brahman? Samantabhadra?

[Several]

Midichlorians.

[rockyysdt]

Sorry for my recent absense Camerata.

It was very pleasing that you were able to listen to John Peacocks talks.

To me, it was a must given the Buddhas instructions to question, learn and experience for oneself.

Would you say, in summary, Johns illustration of Dharma is pretty much aligned with Dharma with the exception of?:

• Relms being a mind thing rather than real.
  
• Moment to moment re birth rather than countless future l ives.
  
• Karma being symbolic of "action - consequence", rather than being an accurate vehicle which dispenses payback or reward for past actions.
  
• Samsara/Nibanna being actions which result in states in this life, rather than a place/state one escapes to when awakened.
  

You mention:

most Westerners seem to be quite content to adopt an agnostic ("I don't know") position because of the lack of available facts. With an agnostic position, one doesn't aim at a fortunate rebirth or give it much thought at all - let alone get a swollen ego.

I was thinking of the other Westerners who have transferred from staunch Christian roots and are now looking for their metaphysical attachment from other quarters.

My view maybe similar to yours in that I travel with an open mind.

John Peacock paints an equally possible Buddhist picture allowing travellors metaphysical/non metaphysical phylosophy with a path/practice capable of taking them to both places if they exist.

One without the other is capable of porducing great attachment.

The possibility of both or either yields a middle path.

In terms of John recording his findings, due to the method of recording and passing on what the Buddha actually taught, one can never be absolutely sure as with mathematics.

At the end of the day, without personal experience one will never know.

Reference to the specific passage illudes me for now, but was along the lines:

Arriving late the Monk was told it was too late and the Sangha Council had agreed on the recording of the Buddhas teachings.

The Monk protested, "But I was with him and this is not what he taught!"

Attachment to the view of many lives either in samsara or nibanna inflates the ego due to the imortality aspect

Also it can give one an excuse to hold off practice: "Oh well, just don't create new bad kharma, and you can hasve another crack at it in the next life!".

Again I think you are painting this as an either/or situation - belief in/rejection of anything metaphysical - because that's how it appears to you. But most Westerners seem to be quite content to adopt an agnostic ("I don't know") position because of the lack of available facts. With an agnostic position, one doesn't aim at a fortunate rebirth or give it much thought at all - let alone get a swollen ego. You just do the practice, reap the benefits in this life, and anything else is an added bonus.

I finally found time to listen to the 8 John Peacock talks you mentioned, the 6 on Early Buddhism and the two on Metta. Basically, he starts from the premise that the Buddha didn't teach anything metaphysical, supports it with interpretations that fit and ignores texts that don't. He doesn't offer any hard evidence for his views. He redefines many Pali words, even well-known words like metta and piti, but we don't know what other Pali scholars would say about this.

In fairness to him, a dhamma talk is not a good format for presenting a lot of academic evidence, but that's the way he has chosen to present his views. At the end of the second Metta talk, when he mentions that nibbana is nothing mystical, he says something like: "I wouldn't want to write this up because a lot of people would probably be upset." So that appears to be the reason that he has never set down his ideas in writing, where others could critique them. I think he enjoys giving dhamma talks, he's an excellent speaker and he wants to stay out of the maelstrom that might come his way. The problem with that is we never get to hear any academic critiques of his views.

In picking out only the texts that support his views, he seems to have two overall criteria: that they should be "early texts" and that ideas should appear multiple times throughout the canon. Unfortunately, he doesn't clearly define "early" and he doesn't consistently follow his own criteria. At one point he mentions the Abhidhamma (completed 200 years after the Buddha's death) as an early text, so we don't know what exactly is a "late" text. He says that points raised only once or twice in the canon are probably later interpolations, but he uses one such point himself and says he "feels it is not an interpolation." There are many places in the canon with unambiguous references to multiple lives but he simply doesn't address them.

He says that nibbana is "lots of little awakenings" but offers no proof. He just mentions that he feels that in the description of the Buddha's nibbana "time was compressed." No mention of the many places in the canon where others were suddenly enlightened, often hundreds at a time.

He says that depictions of the Buddha talking to the devas are a joke, meant to show that Buddhism is superior to Brahmanism. But this happens all the way through the canon. How would he explain Ajahn Man teaching the Dhamma to devas and nagas? This could be explained as nimmita, or some other subjective experience, but it is undoubtedly mystical.

He says the in literal rebirth, in the next life "it won't be me." But I doubt many Western Buddhists think of it like that. It's more like a proprietary feeling towards the beings down the line, a feeling of lineage. I know my grandchildren wouldn't be "me," but I'd still have a special interest in their wellbeing.

He says that plenty of people didn't like the Buddha (I have seen evidence for this elsewhere), that there were attempts to assassinate the Buddha, and that the Buddha "was probably poisoned." He doesn't actually say that Brahmins murdered him, but it's clear that's what he means. However, I have seen a perfectly reasonable and scientific explanation for the Buddha's death from a doctor (former Ven Mettanando) and can think of reasons why a murder would have been unlikely. Would the Brahmins dare when the Buddha was a friend of and patronized by powerful kings? Would they bother when he was 80 years old?

He says he doesn't like Buddhaghosa much. He doesn't say anything about him "cobbling together a religion." What he says about BG is that "Theravada as we know it today started with him" and that his explanation of dependent origination (in the Path of Purification) covers three lifetimes. He then quotes Buddhadasa as saying that BG "must have been a closet Hindu" to do that. He doesn't provide any evidence that people understood dependent origination in a different way before BG.

He says that the Buddha's core teachings are the ones that are repeated throughout the canon. However, the idea of metta as a path to liberation seems to occur only once, in the Metta Sutta, an early text. This idea actually originates with a new interpretation of a couple of words in the sutta in Richard Gombrich's lecture Kindness and compassion as means to Nirvana in early Buddhism. What caught my eye, in the translation by "the most learned of modern translators" was yet another unambiguous reference to literal rebirth:

"Towards the whole world one should develop loving thoughts, boundless: upwards, downwards, sideways, without restriction, enmity or rivalry. Standing, walking, sitting or lying, one should be as alert as possible and keep one’s mind on this. They call this divine living in this world. Not taking up ideas, virtuous, with perfect insight, by controlling greed for sensual pleasure one does not return to lie in a womb."

I actually enjoyed the talks (apart from the torture of the long Q&A sessions) and will listen to the others but I think the case for rejecting everything metaphysical in the Buddha's teaching is far from proven because the counter-arguments are simply not addressed. As such, it looks more like personal opinions (which Peacock doesn't deny) formed into a theory and supported by selective text references.

Edited August 19, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Is it possible that rebirth can be moment to moment and life to life? If beings are like waves in an ocean, each seeming to be seperate but in fact part of the whole, the size, speed, direction changing moment to moment. But when it finally crashes on some shore another wave is created elsewhere, seperate from the first but certain characteristics of its behaviour were determined by the existence of the first wave.

So as an individual rebirth is moment to moment, and as part of everything rebirth is life to life.

[rockyysdt]

Is it possible that rebirth can be moment to moment and life to life? If beings are like waves in an ocean, each seeming to be seperate but in fact part of the whole, the size, speed, direction changing moment to moment. But when it finally crashes on some shore another wave is created elsewhere, seperate from the first but certain characteristics of its behaviour were determined by the existence of the first wave.

So as an individual rebirth is moment to moment, and as part of everything rebirth is life to life.

Moment to moment re birth is definite.

It's the re birth into countless future lives which appears contentious.

There are many suttas in which the Buddha is said to have taught it, but there are also suttas which can be interpreted either way, and others which discount it.

Re Birth into countless future lives has one flaw.

It relies on something which is common with these lives.

Call it what you like, but if it exists, it appears awfully like a soul or spirit, and an endless, timeless, permament enitity.

This goes against the Buddhas teaching of non self.

Nothing inside which is permament, touchable, seeable.

We are taught that the sense of self or "l" is illusory and comes about by the clinging to the five skandhas (feelings, thoughts, and sensations).

The teaching is that what we perceive as "l", "ego", "me", "consciousness" is a by product of the skhandas.

Proponents of re birth into many lives can't get around "soul" (what is common, what awakens (becomes enlightened) and what is no longer re born?

Edited August 20, 2012 by rockyysdt