tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Jul 20, 2015 9:25:43 GMT 1
Very recommendable and to the point: Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche on ``Is There Buddhism Without Rebirth?`` Sunday, July 19th, Berkeley Univ., California: www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9rRUHPoFBYTopic: In classrooms and dharma centers alike, westerners encountering Buddhism for the first time must come to terms with the widespread Buddhist belief in rebirth. For many, death represents the ultimate unknown, the ultimate lesson in impermanence. Why then, they ask themselves, should they believe Buddhism’s answer to this perplexing question, any more than the answers of other religions that teach eternal salvation in heaven or damnation in hell? Does rebirth fall into the category of “cultural trappings,” such as sexist views of women, certain ritual forms, and belief in traditional Indian cosmology—cultural accretions that can be dismissed as extraneous to the “core teachings” of Buddhism? Many westerners view belief in reincarnation as simply irrelevant to their engagement in Buddhism. Yet for centuries, Buddhist texts have been filled with warnings about heretics who deny the existence of rebirth and the ethical ramifications of such views. How are we to understand such warnings? And if we discard all such “cultural trappings” as irrelevant to what is essential about Buddhism, what is left of a religion that teaches the lack of any independent essence? Tamara |
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Jul 22, 2015 1:04:37 GMT 1
The talk as a livestream was only available for up to 24 hours on youtube after it happened. It will soon be made available as a free podcast. Please check back with the following website to see when it’s up: www.siddharthasintent.org/resources/podcasts/ |
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Jul 30, 2015 3:32:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff H on Aug 9, 2015 23:04:23 GMT 1
Thanks for this, Tamara. I've downloaded it and will add it to my drive-time-listening. I'm very interested in the question, but kind of from the other side: I wonder why it's so difficult for westerners to deal with. Rebirth is one of the things that first made the most sense to me about Buddhism. That and absolute causality.
In my mind, it is impossible to prove any belief about what happens when we die (except, of course, that the then useless body decays). And I don't see the need for proofs.
I'm only aware of three post-life possibilities. Materialism says consciousness and life are physio-electro-chemical processes and when we die we're gone and that's all. The religious view I'm most familiar with is that our personal, eternal soul, which was created at our birth, lives on eternally to experience its due reward/punishment. But Buddhism says "no". Consciousness is a separate entity from bodily processes and there's no static, everlasting person. Instead, similarly to materiality being subject to ever-changing physical transformations and reconfigurations, consciousness is perpetually conserved, somewhat like the conservation of energy.
Combined with karma, that idea seems to me to make sense and to be useful in guiding our thoughts and lives. The materialist view makes sense too, but it's not very useful. The religious view never made sense to me even when I was a Christian. You get born (created) into a world of seemingly arbitrary envirornmental and social conditions, then you have only this one manifest lifetime to figure out and totally accept (in the case of Christianity, for example) that the only way to enjoy a positive eternal after-life is to take Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That always bothered me.
|
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Aug 15, 2015 1:14:06 GMT 1
Jeff, it is good to hear from you and to read your remarks on rebirth. I am listening to the podcast a second time now. Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche speaks in a way, which leaves the mind blank many times and I think this is intended, lol I am watching the development of Buddhism in the West since roughly 11 years and am amazed what kind of advanced stage we have reached, especially in the last let`s say two years. The talks are moving beyond plain mindfulness to another stage, where (let`s call it) `wisdom` comes in. Absolutely thrilling and fascinating. Yesterday I discovered a lovely talk between Ani Palmo and Alan Wallace www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNUyOX-yw34 Not only that the most experienced practitioners come together nowadays and hold talks, Alan once used the word `enlightenment` in this talk. Enlightenment as possibility for the (Western) practitioner in here and now. This is the first time I heard a Western practitioner speaking it out and not withholding this precious info out of fears of being misunderstood. Excellent. We are definitely progressing on this planet regarding the understanding of Buddha`s philosophy in the West. Tamara |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff H on Sept 4, 2015 18:23:40 GMT 1
Thanks for the DKR link, Tamara! I think there could be many take-aways from this teaching, but here’s mine.
Rinpoche’s short answer to the title is, no. Proving or disproving rebirth is irrelevant, except for materialists mired in one relative world and struggling to conceptualize themselves in another. Therefore, the real theme is “materialists who think they’re Buddhists”. What is indispensable to Buddhism is the union of relative and ultimate truths; method and wisdom; matter and mind.
From a relative perspective, we infer rebirth by observing the causal path of one mental moment inexorably following another and the fact that body and mind lack a causal relationship. That inference is useful for discerning relatively beneficial thoughts and actions. But “proof” is impossible.
From an ultimate perspective rebirth cannot be established or denied. To quote Shantideva (9:34) “When something and its nonexistence / Both are absent from before the mind, / No other option does the latter have: / It comes to perfect rest, from concepts free.” This perspective cannot be divorced from any Buddhist view of relativity.
The trick is using ultimate truth to inform relative truth. For Rinpoche, materialists can’t do that. Rebirth can’t make sense if this body “really” exists and this mind concretely defines “me”. Challenging the notion of rebirth or seeking proof are wrong ways to approach Buddhism. Rebirth married to emptiness is essential to the expedient teachings of Buddhism. But ultimately it doesn’t exist and materially it doesn’t make sense.
Rinpoche says, “The spiritual is becoming material”, meaning materialist proponents of Buddhism are striving after things like mindfulness the way someone might want a Ferrari. They are focused on results that augment their personal accomplishments within this life. They fail to appreciate the profound paradox of pursing a spiritual path within a material world. In that way he feels there’s no ground for meaningful discussion between Buddhism and materialism.
|
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on Sept 16, 2015 9:05:08 GMT 1
Jeff H wrote: ``In that way he feels there’s no ground for meaningful discussion between Buddhism and materialism.``
And yet this is what DKR does all his life:
Engaging with those who do not understand.
This is the job of a Bodhisattva......
Tamara
|
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Apr 12, 2016 19:11:28 GMT 1
I see Buddhism as advocating a practice, rather than beliefs. As such rebirth is something to be thought about, rather than believed in. Much of the way we think is implicit, including the idea of continuity of self, and impermananence of it is something we struggle to deal with head-on,
and is better unpicked. I see the Buddhist understanding of rebirth as an example of Buddhism in action, taking implicit truths and unpicking them, turning them into a way to understand impermanence. That is the real teaching. The danger of simply dismissing rebirth, is in dismissing many insightful teachings, while failing to realise that the underlying thought structures in our own culture, manifested in our own physics cosmology and 'common sense' have similar unexamined assumptions at their heart.
How we arrived at our current situation in detail is unknowable, and Buddhist scriptures specifically strongly warn against attempting it. But we can use our modern understanding to see some of the complexities. A genetic inheritance that includes animals from sea urchins (backbone) to mudfish (lungs) to cat like primates that lived on fermented flower nectar (alcohol tolerance), to apes that specialised in coping with high temperatures on the savannah (our ability to sweat allowed us to develop larger brains than chimpanzees). We each could not exist with the accretion from not woolly 'populations', but countless entirely subjective lived experiences and the implications of choices made in them. We can see that earthquakes and tsunamis are a cost we pay for the benefit of a radition shield created by the Earths molten iron core and that was probably essential to the emergence of complex life. We have this complex situation, and many costs and pains can be found to be the result of blessings and benefits, that have been unexamined. But our task is not to define, but to redefine our situation. Not how did we get here, but where are we going. Our choices will go on to influence not only countless individuals, but potentially countless new species. Karma is a finger pointing outward, beyond our own little life, towards all that it has depended on, and could be a cause for. We are not islands, we are threads, that dissappear beyond our horizons, and are woven together completely.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2016 19:15:35 GMT 1
Hey Noessentialnature,
That was a really fine and thoughtful post with beautiful language and concise ideas at times: "We are not islands, we are threads, that disappear beyond our horizons, and are woven together completely."--Nice!
I agree with that last line unequivocally, and with a lot of what you have to say. I guess I have a slightly different emphasis on rebirth.
First of all, I think you are implying that rebirth is of greater interest to our practice than as a belief we should hold dogmatically. I agree with this, and I think Mahayana teachings are in agreement, because rebirth belongs to the first of two truths codified by Nagarjuna, namely the mundane or relative truth. This truth is often referred to as interdependence or dependent origination, and it is a relative, not an ultimate truth. In other words, all conditioned experience, including past lives and evolution are illusory, and empty of inherent existence. So we do not need to believe in them the way Christians are asked to believe in some foundational truths in their religion.
The most practical aspect of past births to me is, as a person who is the result of many profound continuities, I can confess negative actions "accumulated since beginningless time," and this aspect of practice, and the understanding that goes with it, works. It has a transformative effect I can sense.
Now perhaps it is important to understand that Buddhism does not teach reincarnation. When we speak of past lives, we are not saying that these were you or that there was a continuity of identity. In fact, many Buddhist teachings say what Buddha apparently said, that it is impossible for any aspect of the ego to survive death of the body.
What Buddhism points to instead, are some relative and ultimate truths. And these we do not need to believe, so much as we need to understand them. Understanding these can deepen our meditation and make the transformation of self and world more powerful in practice.
So amongst these truths are that we, like all phenomena, are interdependent, and we, like all phenomena, are empty. Implicit in many teachings is also the understanding or experience that as much as there is any mind, there is only one mind, infinitely fragmented at lower levels of experience, and unified at higher levels. But even the experience of one mind is empty and impermanent.
What permeates all existence, all time, and all phenomena, is the ultimate nature of phenomena: emptiness. Emptiness in and of itself is not important. What is important is what emptiness implies and what the experience reveals: that all experience, all phenomena, have Buddha potential. In other-words, if you realize a thought, feeling, object or being is empty, it is possible to experience a rapid purification of it, and that reveals and manifests that its true nature--its potential nature, its hidden nature--is clear light, which is the omniscient mind of Buddha.
So in this way the ultimate truth is you are and always have been Buddha. Throughout all of your existence and any existence you are causally connected to--in other words all lives, ever--you are and have always been Buddha. Buddhism represents a means of realizing this, and that process is transformative. The farther you get into this path, the more practical applications you will discover for teachings on rebirth. Not because they are ultimately true, but because in many ways and on many levels they are true, and in many ways and on many levels, they represent practical solutions to samsara.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2016 19:58:15 GMT 1
Certainly there are differences in the assumptions that people who grow up in Tibet make, from those that people who grow up in the West are likely to make, often without noticing, because they are on a meta-level. People who grew up in Tibet do not struggle with the concept of re-birth the way we do. It is part of the meta-message of their culture, an ingrained belief.
But both Tibetans and Americans, and all sentient beings, have the common experience of being a separate individual. In fact, people in the West may be more likely to have a weak ego, with dysfunctional boundaries, due to any number of traumas in childhood.
On both sides, we need to become familiar with all the ways we reify a separate and inherently existing self. A lot of these are learned, and a lot of them are evolved qualities of our instinctual and sense consciousness. In other words, just smelling something implies a self, "I smell," and so on. Any negative emotion automatically reifies the self, as well. Finally, the habit of reifying a separate self is deeply ingrained in language.
All teachings on interdependence begin from the point of view of this common (mundane) experience. One of the things Nargarjuna pointed out is that even if you are a highly realized being, you can be in error. If you believe that realization is going to protect you from harming others, because you can see through certain veils of existence, then you are mistaken. You can still hit pit falls, and hurt others, because the mundane world does not stop or go away merely from our having seen it for what it is.
Another thing he pointed out, is that all Buddha Dharma is taught because of compassion. This is similar to Jesus saying, "I am here to heal the sick, not treat the well." The Dharma is aimed at all beings, and is varied in its presentation.
But I am not saying if you understand emptiness, you do not need teachings on re-birth. Actually, the better I understand emptiness, the more such teachings help me and enhance my practice.
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Apr 17, 2016 21:37:19 GMT 1
So a difference in our points of view that seems evident to me, is in your view of teachings on past lives you are doing what I and many Western students of Buddhism do or have done: avoid or go around them. This involves a degree of rationalization that is a relief to let go of when you can.
You describe life as a web of threads, but your emphasis seems to be on present and future experience. It is much better and more effective when you can include the past, because we in the present are the result of past thoughts, karma and experiences, so the web extends backwards through time as much as it extends forward. If we want to change a little today and a lot tomorrow, then we need to account for the past, even the distant past, because we are bound to it. Buddha teaches this about the web of life, and then teaches how to see the web for what it really is.
|
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on Apr 25, 2016 11:27:07 GMT 1
Hey noessentialnature,
thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I think you are, perhaps, speaking in terms of cognition and perception, here, rather than in terms of confidence?
"...Rebirth is something to be thought about," had me thinking about the Four Thoughts and, to me, they basically describe rebirth. Thinking merely in terms of the freedoms and endowments of this precious human life suggests that something makes it not so bad as it could have been. Given an acceptance of cause and effect, to not believe (however tentatively) in rebirth is to accept as causeless this human life (rather than a dog's or a cockroach's, if one has trouble believing in other realms). Isn't this, essentially, a nihilist view?
Regarding belief and the continuity of mind--from Thinley Norbu's Gypsy Gossip and Other Advice:
|
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Apr 29, 2016 16:40:35 GMT 1
Dan wrote: "...Rebirth is something to be thought about," had me thinking about the Four Thoughts and, to me, they basically describe rebirth. Thinking merely in terms of the freedoms and endowments of this precious human life suggests that something makes it not so bad as it could have been. Given an acceptance of cause and effect, to not believe (however tentatively) in rebirth is to accept as causeless this human life (rather than a dog's or a cockroach's, if one has trouble believing in other realms). Isn't this, essentially, a nihilist view?" Hey Dan, maybe you could expand on this a bit. Can you remind us (me) what the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind are? And then clarify how they "basically describe rebirth"? Also, maybe you can find a list of the "freedoms and endowments of this precious human life." Best not to assume your audience knows (or remembers) more than we do... especially me.  |
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on May 1, 2016 7:36:25 GMT 1
Hey Matt, I suppose saying that they "describe rebirth" is a bit too simple a take on it. It's probably more accurate to say that they kind of illustrate the cyclic nature of samsara. Maybe you remember them as another designation, the four reminders. Anyway, they are: the difficulty of attaining a precious human life (with its freedoms and endowments); impermanence and death; the infallibility of karma (cause and effect); the sufferings samsara. There's a short page on the topic of the four reminders here: nalandatranslation.org/offerings/translations-and-commentaries/four-reminders/This is the list of freedoms and endowments from A View on Buddhism: Remember that right now I have the 8 freedoms: 1. I am not in hell being continuously tortured 2. I am not living as a hungry ghost, always having hunger and thirst 3. I am not an ignorant animal 4. I have some feeling for good and bad 5. I am able to study religion 6. The teachings of the Buddha are now available 7. I have a healthy mind, not crazy 8. I am not a god, only indulging in pleasures Remember that right now I have the 10 endowments: - 5 Personal: 1. I am a human being 2. I have access to the teachings of the Buddha 3. I have all my organs 4. I have not killed my parents or bodhisattvas etc. 5. I have the possibility to choose my life philosophy or religion freely - 5 Circumstantial: 6. A Buddha has come in this era 7. He has taught the Dharma 8. The Dharma is still available in the world 9. People are still practising Dharma 10. Others generally have love in their hearts www.viewonbuddhism.org/Meditations/death_rebirth_meditation.html |
|
dan
Senior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by dan on May 9, 2016 20:27:32 GMT 1
So here's a teaching on the Four Thoughts, given by Lama Sonam at Pema Osel Ling. vimeo.com/140593439And, as the Four Thoughts are considered the common preliminaries in the Vajrayana, here is the page containing most of the teachings on the preliminary practices of the Dudjom Tersar. As of this posting, the oldest teachings are at the bottom of the page, the most recent at the top. vimeo.com/dudjomtersarngondro/videosPema Osel Ling is also running an online Ngondro (preliminary practices) Program for live participation in, assistance with, and questions regarding these practices. Information is available here: www.vajrayana.org/ngondro/ |
|
|
|
Post by noessentialnature on Jun 12, 2016 0:33:43 GMT 1
So a difference in our points of view that seems evident to me, is in your view of teachings on past lives you are doing what I and many Western students of Buddhism do or have done: avoid or go around them. This involves a degree of rationalization that is a relief to let go of when you can. You describe life as a web of threads, but your emphasis seems to be on present and future experience. It is much better and more effective when you can include the past, because we in the present are the result of past thoughts, karma and experiences, so the web extends backwards through time as much as it extends forward. If we want to change a little today and a lot tomorrow, then we need to account for the past, even the distant past, because we are bound to it. Buddha teaches this about the web of life, and then teaches how to see the web for what it really is. As I think I implied, I feel science is generally a better vehicle for understanding the past than Buddhist cosmology. Is that perspective anti-Buddhism? I don't think so, and niether does the Dalai Lama. Buddhist cosmology makes 'mapa mundi', which is to say maps not for navigating a material, but a spiritual world. Buddhist practice is not actually changed by whether rebirth in one or other paticular interpretations is literally true or not, because as you say they belongbto the realm of mundane or relative truth. Hinging an understanding of how to practice Buddhism on rebirth, is like hinging it on whether Buddha stubbed his toe this one time. Did the Buddha do this or that particular thing at a particular time? Doesn't matter, relative, mundane truth either way. Why did he give a teaching? What principles hold across the teachings and are in accord with it? How can I apply this in my own life? These are the areas for fruitful discussion. My philosophical perspective is, actually more extreme than this implies. It's not that I choose to reify modern scientific cosmology over Buddhist cosmology. I think both are useful fictions - in fact a useful fiction is really all we can know about the world which is ultimately, absurd. That is, a place of experiencing the conflict between our absolute desire for meaning and the universes complete inability to supply it. By confronting this ambiguity, we free ourselves to create our own practices of meaning based on internal consistency and usefulness, without dogma, in the knowledge they are ultimately meaningless. Modern scientific cosmology has a clear accountable culture of practice, of seeking and evaluating evidence, and is open to participation and scrutiny. Now, I think there are many good and useful and insightful things about Buddhist cosmology and theology, but it does not share these qualities. Both are I feel ultimately wrestling with our encounter with the absurd, and are often found in actual practice to be wanting in various ways. But as far as examining the material conditions of the past, I think scientific methods offer us the best culture of practice. And as far as examining how best to give meaning to our lives and go forward in this absurd world, I feel that can best be done with a Buddhist culture of practice. If it useful to take up the pespective that rebirth is true, do that. If taking up evolution as true is useful, do that. What assumptions and implied truths have you taken up? Remember to put those down too. They are ultimately meaningless and irrelevant. There is only - |
|
|
|
Post by csee on Aug 1, 2016 5:38:03 GMT 1
In my current mind , every existence regardless living or non-living is every moment travelling in Buddhism and nothing could be outside of Buddhism ......so whether re-birth or not as long as one is still emotion , one will still travelling in this natural process .
|
|
togen
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by togen on Aug 3, 2016 11:46:18 GMT 1
The problem with believing in something like Karma and even undestanding it, is the underlaying issue of intentional action or volition. Does this beleif generate fear? Are actions and words and thoughts generated by your "beleif" or by who you really are? Can any life lived with right action yeild a positive result if it is not based on your true nature but rather your fear of the assured consequences of karma? The underlaying nature of karma is that it gives a good idea of the truth of reality. Until you accept the morality reflected in Karma as a true refection of what is real and become right action rather than just understand the mechanics of right action, it won't matter what you "believe".
|
|
