6 ms·

But without literal rebirth Buddhism doesn't make any sense

by sambapa 3y ago

rhuru 3y ago
Why do you think so ?
- sambapa 3y ago
  If you die and it's over then you are not stuck in samsara
  - cyberpunk 3y ago
    You die every second. Many many times a second. The me that's finishing writing this comment is not the me that started writing it.
    - sambapa 3y ago
      Yeah, but your mindstream is stuck in samsara I think. I'm just a beginner, but there are whole talks about this topic that Buddha gave.
      - cyberpunk 3y ago
        To be honest; I don't even know. The whole rebirth topic has never been a part of my practice. I don't think I've ever even spoken to my teacher about it. Maybe once, and he just waved his hand and said "that's just Indian stuff". My practice is much more about right action and living wholeheartedly, than contemplating eternal souls and rebirth. Everyone is different, though.
  - rhuru 3y ago
    Well, the Samsara and suffering exists when you are alive in that case. The Nirvana applies there as well.
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  If life is suffering, but nothing comes after death, then suicide is a means to escape suffering. But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide, usually for the very supernatural reason that suicide victims would be reborn at some lower level of existence where they are even more miserable. Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.
  - cyberpunk 3y ago
    It's very difficult to have such a discussion when we are trying to group a massive spread of beliefs and practices under one umbrella. I can't speak for any 'Buddhism' besides my own, but mine does not proscribe suicide at all. For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide. We tend to lean towards compassion.
    - sambapa 3y ago
      That's why it is so important to read the man himself. After all it's BUDDHism, not SOMESECTism
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      From your other comments, you seem to subscribe to one of those movements to restore some pure ur-Buddhism separate from its actual historical tradition. As I said up top, I find this dubious and I personally am not interested in discussing that kind of Buddhism. You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.
      - cyberpunk 3y ago
pritambaral 3y ago
It still does. And it's easy too see once you understand the core precepts of Buddhism, that it's not based on rebirth or karma. Those two are just one possible way to see our existence in this universe. Buddha started with the question: what is the cause of suffering? Desire. But desire is nigh unavoidable in life. Every member of society is likely to have many desires. Thus, everyone is likely to have pain, sooner or later. A person with pain is likely to propagate pain to another person, or more. This a major method through which suffering in society as a whole tends to grow. So we need a way to tell members of society to reduce the propagation of harm. Thus, ahimsa, i.e., do no harm. But people aren't just gonna internalise such 'for the greater good' ideas, and especially not when they are in pain. Buddha recognised that people often need a strong faith system to root them to these ideas, instead of relying on pure rationality to prevail all the time. Buddha accepts that we do not really know how the universe works, but this fact does not remove the need for a strong faith system, because humans are imperfect. So — and being a philosopher — Buddha says humans can believe in whatever faith system works for them, as long as the system they choose upholds the core precepts. The cycle of rebirth and karma just happened to be the predominant faith system at his time, and it also happened to fit the requirements, so most of his followers — at the time — had an easy job of adapting. But he also warned against believing such faith systems to be the truth, instructing that people must not blindly take his teachings as authority, and must instead examine everything through their own experience and reason through it. When questioned, what to do if such examination reveals a truth that goes against his teachings, he clarified that one must go with the truth. The authority of scripture was explicitly placed below that of one's own experience and reason. Thus, until proven, the cycle of karma and rebirth is not necessarily true, not is it required to explain that life is suffering and himsa (harm unto) propagates suffering. It's just a convenient way to tie it all together, just as good as any other unproven faith system. If you don't believe me that Buddhism works just as well without karma and rebirth, take a look at Zen Buddhism. Despite being a modern form of Buddhism, it still holds closely to core of ancient Buddhism. And Zen makes no claim for, or against, the concept of Rebirth. It basically goes, "Idk. Does it matter?". According to Zen, who you are in this life, ceases to exist when you die, and that is plainly observable, so why not live the best life while you have it? As you can see, this faith system also works to uphold the core precepts of Buddha. And I don't think he'd disagree with Zen on this matter. In fact, he'd probably be glad that Zen has made awakening accessible to people who had no background in the Hindu ideas of karma and rebirth, and thus would have found it harder to reach a path to awakening if they had to adopt those ideas first.

But without literal rebirth Buddhism doesn't make any sense

rhuru 3y ago

Why do you think so ?

sambapa 3y ago
If you die and it's over then you are not stuck in samsara
- cyberpunk 3y ago
  You die every second. Many many times a second. The me that's finishing writing this comment is not the me that started writing it.
  - sambapa 3y ago
    Yeah, but your mindstream is stuck in samsara I think. I'm just a beginner, but there are whole talks about this topic that Buddha gave.
    - cyberpunk 3y ago
      To be honest; I don't even know. The whole rebirth topic has never been a part of my practice. I don't think I've ever even spoken to my teacher about it. Maybe once, and he just waved his hand and said "that's just Indian stuff". My practice is much more about right action and living wholeheartedly, than contemplating eternal souls and rebirth. Everyone is different, though.
- rhuru 3y ago
  Well, the Samsara and suffering exists when you are alive in that case. The Nirvana applies there as well.
OfSanguineFire 3y ago
If life is suffering, but nothing comes after death, then suicide is a means to escape suffering. But Buddhism has always proscribed suicide, usually for the very supernatural reason that suicide victims would be reborn at some lower level of existence where they are even more miserable. Moreover, if attachment brings suffering, but there is no rebirth, then the insistence on continuing to live is the ultimate attachment. I actually think that this is one possible solution to the Fermi Paradox and supports a pseudo-Buddhist view: eventually civilizations might transcend the biological impulses that keep them attached to life, and then deliberately choose extinction.
- cyberpunk 3y ago
  It's very difficult to have such a discussion when we are trying to group a massive spread of beliefs and practices under one umbrella. I can't speak for any 'Buddhism' besides my own, but mine does not proscribe suicide at all. For some; it is clearly the most compassionate action even assist with suicide. We tend to lean towards compassion.
  - sambapa 3y ago
    That's why it is so important to read the man himself. After all it's BUDDHism, not SOMESECTism
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    From your other comments, you seem to subscribe to one of those movements to restore some pure ur-Buddhism separate from its actual historical tradition. As I said up top, I find this dubious and I personally am not interested in discussing that kind of Buddhism. You say “my practice does this” and “my practice does that” and you are certainly entitled to follow whatever approach you want. However, I think it would be more honest to label the collection of practices you very deliberately chose as something you could be comfortable with from a contemporary skeptical perspective, as something different from Buddhism.
    - cyberpunk 3y ago

pritambaral 3y ago

It still does. And it's easy too see once you understand the core precepts of Buddhism, that it's not based on rebirth or karma. Those two are just one possible way to see our existence in this universe. Buddha started with the question: what is the cause of suffering? Desire. But desire is nigh unavoidable in life. Every member of society is likely to have many desires. Thus, everyone is likely to have pain, sooner or later. A person with pain is likely to propagate pain to another person, or more. This a major method through which suffering in society as a whole tends to grow. So we need a way to tell members of society to reduce the propagation of harm. Thus, ahimsa, i.e., do no harm. But people aren't just gonna internalise such 'for the greater good' ideas, and especially not when they are in pain. Buddha recognised that people often need a strong faith system to root them to these ideas, instead of relying on pure rationality to prevail all the time. Buddha accepts that we do not really know how the universe works, but this fact does not remove the need for a strong faith system, because humans are imperfect. So — and being a philosopher — Buddha says humans can believe in whatever faith system works for them, as long as the system they choose upholds the core precepts. The cycle of rebirth and karma just happened to be the predominant faith system at his time, and it also happened to fit the requirements, so most of his followers — at the time — had an easy job of adapting. But he also warned against believing such faith systems to be the truth, instructing that people must not blindly take his teachings as authority, and must instead examine everything through their own experience and reason through it. When questioned, what to do if such examination reveals a truth that goes against his teachings, he clarified that one must go with the truth. The authority of scripture was explicitly placed below that of one's own experience and reason. Thus, until proven, the cycle of karma and rebirth is not necessarily true, not is it required to explain that life is suffering and himsa (harm unto) propagates suffering. It's just a convenient way to tie it all together, just as good as any other unproven faith system. If you don't believe me that Buddhism works just as well without karma and rebirth, take a look at Zen Buddhism. Despite being a modern form of Buddhism, it still holds closely to core of ancient Buddhism. And Zen makes no claim for, or against, the concept of Rebirth. It basically goes, "Idk. Does it matter?". According to Zen, who you are in this life, ceases to exist when you die, and that is plainly observable, so why not live the best life while you have it? As you can see, this faith system also works to uphold the core precepts of Buddha. And I don't think he'd disagree with Zen on this matter. In fact, he'd probably be glad that Zen has made awakening accessible to people who had no background in the Hindu ideas of karma and rebirth, and thus would have found it harder to reach a path to awakening if they had to adopt those ideas first.