I really do agree that the practice is the thing in Buddhism. I always found it interesting that Zen and Tibetan Buddhism both became popular in the West since they are so different in the way under discussion. When I was quite interested in Buddhism years ago I sort of shied away from both, I just found Theravada style much more compelling. I thought koans were silly and I didn’t like the lama dynasty crap in Tibetan. I seem to remember reading how the discovery of Tibetan Buddhism was a bit of a double shock to the outside Buddhist world. As in “Wow, they have preserved the oldest copies of the Pali Canon all these years” and “Wow, what an abomination!” with their far more literal views on re-birth.
Right-your desires “drag you down” each and every passing moment. The mistake is in thinking that “rebirth” is something that I have to wait for in the “future”. Don’t get this confused with the transformation necessary to attain enlightenment-that is a sort of rebirth, but in the upward direction.
The question then becomes: can anyone attain buddha-hood/nature in just one lifetime, if we assume no prior lifetimes, you start as a zygote, there was nothing before (not even Nothing)?
Highly unlikely, in my view. Luckily, many lifetimes precede us: just visit any graveyard. As it is, we all inherit influences from the past: culture is intrinsic to the human condition.
The Buddha grappled with some knotty philosophical issues, as well as the reality that an understanding of them was necessary but not sufficient to relieve our burdens. A rigorous treatment of the self would have started with something like this, but 99% of his audience wouldn’t have cared and the remainder wouldn’t have proceeded much closer to enlightenment, as the Buddha conceived it. At any rate, it’s not surprising that Buddhism would develop a multitiered practice.
I lack a thorough understanding of Buddhism. But AFAIK, one can meaningfully attend Buddhist services, meditate and accept the 4 holy truths as elaborated upon by other Theravada texts, without believing in a permanent self or even in one that hops in full form from one body to another. In contrast, it is difficult to pray if you believe that God does not exist.
Sure! BTW, almost all Buddhist sects have offshoots that cater to Westerners with much less supernatural elements. Tibetan Buddhism has Shambhala, for example. I’ve watched some lectures by Pema Chodron and she’s wonderful.
Not so much your desires dragging you down but how you act upon them and how you view them. Acting on desires creates karma or karma itself means action. Also, desires can create anxiety, dissatisfaction, disappointment, etc. That’s dukka which is more than simply suffering. I agree that rebirth is happening constantly. Enlightenment? Well, I like to be goal-less. That’s why I gravitated to Soto Zen as opposed to Rinzai.
Some people think the buddha nature is already there, we just can’t see it. I remember something about dust on a mirror and you need to clean it off to see your true self. I suppose you could reach enlightenment in your life. Rinzai buddhists certainly try hard for it. They also stress having series of kenshos or mini-enlightenments that are transient but eventually stick around. Epiphany moments.
Soto zen is just the opposite. Attaining enlightenment is not even stressed because then you start focusing on yourself which doesn’t exist. The part of the Genjo Koan, at least how I understand it, is that enlightenment is not a huge event. Nothing changes. It just is what it is.
The 4 Noble Truths are the only thing that I saw that all the sects agree upon. The text of the 8-fold path is common but there is obviously huge debate on what is right speech, right livelihood, etc. and whether it should pertain to everyone or just monks and so on.
Actually, that’s not quite how the conversation went.
If you had responded to my initial statement about Theravada Buddhism with the line above, this entire thread would not exist.
But you did not, and I understand why you now want to slightly rewrite history to give yourself a reasonable position.
Also notice that the question you declared definitively settled: that there’s no difference between rebirth and reincarnation – has somehow escaped further discussion.
According to my understanding of this thread, you aren’t required to have supernatural beliefs in order to be a Buddhist in a Theravada tradition. See posts 98, 100, 105 and 106. I have studied Buddhism, but my knowledge is less than extensive though.
Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly how it went. Any confusion is on your part, not mine.
Theravada Buddhism does not require any supernatural beliefs, so I don’t know what you think your point is.
There is no difference. You are simply confused, and don’t understand most of what you are reading. There is no reason for further dicussion. Those words have no distinction in Pali.
No cite, no dice. I cited sevaral different Pali words that are used for the concept, shredding your claim that rebirth and reincarnation are the same thing because they are the same Pali word.
You have not cited a single thing to support that claim, and have done a reasonably good job at trying to set the tone that for this discussion, cites show the lack of knowledge, and only practice has any credibility.
Without the purpose of relieving suffering through ending the cycle of Samsara, there is no particular point to following the eightfold path.
It is much the same as if an athiest were to follow one of the devotional branches of Hinduism, that prescribes repeating the name of Krishna, because it settles the mind and feels good.
You can do it, sure, but it is really no better than doing something else that has a similar effect.
The way to relieve, end, rebirth is right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, according to the Fourth Noble Truth.
The point is to relive suffering immediately, in this life. Rebirth (while accepted by most devotees, I think) isn’t necessary, and focusing on it would certainly come under the heading of “distracting”, IMO. There’s a problem here with conflating Saṃsāra-as-rebirth-cycle with Saṃsāra-as-current-experience. It can have both meanings, but one can focus on one or the other in practice, even to the exclusion of the other. I think Saṃsāra finds an analogue in the Islamic notion of Jihad - it could mean holy war, sure, but it could also just mean the daily struggle to make your way in the world as a righteous Muslim.
I’m not denying that Saṃsāra-as-cycle is the usual (Therevada, at least) Buddhist view (so I’m in agreement with **Bricker **there), but it’s entirely possible to construct a consistent Buddhist worldview that doesn’t include it, and still follows the Middle Way as it’s laid down in the Pali Canon (and so be reasonably thought part of the Therevada school as opposed to another).(So I guess I agree with DtC there).
The Pali canon is pretty explicit on the meaning of the cycle (see the suttas quoted upthread), and it’s understood as meaning that by the vast majority of Theravada devotees.
I have no doubt that Buddhism is expansive enough a philosophy to embrace non-supernatural interpretations, just as many if not most religious/philosophical traditions - Taoism, Shamanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism all have non-supernatural adherents. Even Islam, of some Western Sufi schools, is more pantheistic (and, ultimately, atheistic) than otherwise.
However, in all cases, the non-supernatural (while possible) wasn’t the original. That is, I think, because when the original was created the distinction between the supernatural and non-supernatural wasn’t evident to their creators - who simply took the supernatural for granted.
The philosophy of the Buddha was such. He wasn’t particularly interested in theorizing about origins and the afterlife (the anecdote about being a medico on a battlefield, removing an arrow - the job is to relieve suffering, take out the arrow, not wonder where it came from). He took the world as being basically what was commonly believed by Indians of his time - complete with gods, rebirth, demons, the whole nine yards. Which was woven into his philosophy (I particularly liked the part where being a god was actually a bad idea - so much more bound to the world of illusion if you have such powers!).
Certainly, one can redefine terms and arrange matters to suit a Western audience that does not wish to believe the whole set of background assumptions on which Buddhism is predicated upon, but what you get is something rather different from the original Theravada Buddhism. Mind you, the same road was already traveled by some Mahayana strands (while some became much more akin to devotional religions like Chistianity).