Rebirth and morality.

[Indrajala]

In present day Buddhist discussions both on the internet and in the real world the topic of rebirth often arises.

Now, I will say this is not necessarily a discussion limited to English speaking parties. I know Japanese Zen priests who by their own admission deny rebirth. On Japanese forums likewise I see a lot of denial. My opinion is that modern Japan is actually by default materialist.

So, basically, this kind of denial exists outside western variations of Buddhism as well.

Now, the one thing I wonder is what the effect of this will be. Materialism, which denies the possibility of rebirth of an individual, is evidently influencing Buddhists. You can have people saying, "I'm a Buddhist, but I don't believe in rebirth."

I think this is really just the default mentality of most modern day societies dictating the direction a person will take in their beliefs. Even if you're "religious", you're likely to possess a materialist reality-world picture owing to the fact that your society and education officially sees such a picture as the most real and appropriate to hold. Rebirth is a belief. Post-mortem oblivion is a fact.

But if you really think that at death you become nothing and thus there will be no experience of anything at all ever again, that also means you will not be subject to the consequences of the life you lived. In short, if there is just oblivion at death, then whether you cultivate saintliness or just indulge in material pleasures all day long is irrelevant because the end result is the same: nothingness.

I mean even in ancient India there were materialists who had the same idea. Take for example this quote from the Sarva-darsana-samgraha:

That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects,
is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain—
such is the reasoning of fools.
The kernels of the paddy, rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest,
would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

So, as they say, just live it up as you only live once.

But from the Buddhist perspective you're actually accountable for your actions post-mortem. You will experience the results of your actions in future lives. Just as you plan for your retirement not wanting to live poorly in the future to come, so to one plans for future lives and makes proper plans and refrains from doing anything that would jeopardize future well being. You wouldn't take all your life savings and toss them away at the casino in an afternoon. Likewise from the Buddhist perspective you wouldn't jeopardize your ability to cultivate yourself in future lives. You need to retain the ability to cultivate yourself towards liberation. The only other alternative is samsara and that is unacceptable.

But if all there is is nothingness at death, whether you lead a moral life or immoral life is irrelevant. I'm not proposing all materialists are immoral, but merely that with such a view in mind there really is no actual real vested interest for oneself in morality. Immoral or moral, the result is the same and any potential consequences from either course of action is the same: oblivion.

Without rebirth the whole system of Buddhist ethics falls apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "Buddhist thought" that would reject rebirth. There is no Buddhism without rebirth. The whole idea of liberation is predicated on the idea of cyclic existence from which one must find liberation from.

If actual morality is tossed out the window, then the Buddhist systems that will emerge will be inherently unstable and subject to rapid decay. Buddhism in many places could quickly fade away if the necessity of real morality is quietly set aside. I'm actually witnessing this here in Japan. Japanese Buddhism in general is rapidly in decay owing to the fact that morality and ethics are treated quite softly and often ignored.

Thus why I think we really need to stress rebirth and system of ethics predicated on rebirth if we are to see the Buddhadharma continue to exist in this world.

[muni]

When Buddhism is investigating (important) the words in analytical way only, we easy can get lost in our own imaginations by the limits of intellectual fabrications. We can be exploring recipes for insight whole life long and meanwhile our obscurations can roll in each direction and harm our environement and all beings.

To understand rebirth one gets clarity by going beyond the cloudlike quality of our empty fabrications, to see how we paint a fictitious world by them in the heat of rejections and acceptions as we are the knower.

Desire, dullness, pride, arrogance, envy are synomyms of ignorance, which is grasping to a me, to wrong and bad and so on. What more we need for "rebirth" in subject-object devision?

Grasping to clouds. Purification to see our grasping to own imagination which is in dependence with materialistic clinging as well.

Even the more subtle grasping by hankering after a truth lays in fictitious quality.
When no morality is coming naturally (through teaching...) in our stream of being, what is the difference with us and intellectual criminals?

As long as space remains,
as long as sentient beings endure,
so may "I" too remain
and dispel the miseries of the world.

I need no label of Buddhist. _/\_

The whole chatter i shared is pointing generally to imagination through obscurations by which we cannot apply right attitude and so morality in daily life is based on selfish action by misperception. Also to recognize the fictitious samsaric concepts going to speech and action of same quality.

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche said to be very careful and think on next life.

[Astus]

I'm all in for rebirth. But actually it is not necessarily true that without an afterlife there is no morality. It is called (secular) humanism. Socialism and communism are further improvements of materialist philosophy working on the welfare of the society.

[Dexing]

Even if you're "religious", you're likely to possess a materialist reality-world picture owing to the fact that your society and education officially sees such a picture as the most real and appropriate to hold. Rebirth is a belief. Post-mortem oblivion is a fact.

So they don't realize that post-mortem oblivion is also a belief?

The only fact might be that no one knows what's going to happen after death. Any belief or best guess probably won't change the fact, whatever it might be.

So regardless, I would just be careful what you say and what you do.

[Astus]

What stops people from understanding that there is rebirth is that they believe there is only this body made of the four elements and don't look at their mind. When it becomes clear that mind is non-material it comes logically from causality that it doesn't die with the body but takes another birth.

[m0rl0ck]

In present day Buddhist discussions both on the internet and in the real world the topic of rebirth often arises.

Now, I will say this is not necessarily a discussion limited to English speaking parties. I know Japanese Zen priests who by their own admission deny rebirth. On Japanese forums likewise I see a lot of denial. My opinion is that modern Japan is actually by default materialist.

So, basically, this kind of denial exists outside western variations of Buddhism as well.

Now, the one thing I wonder is what the effect of this will be. Materialism, which denies the possibility of rebirth of an individual, is evidently influencing Buddhists. You can have people saying, "I'm a Buddhist, but I don't believe in rebirth."

I think this is really just the default mentality of most modern day societies dictating the direction a person will take in their beliefs. Even if you're "religious", you're likely to possess a materialist reality-world picture owing to the fact that your society and education officially sees such a picture as the most real and appropriate to hold. Rebirth is a belief. Post-mortem oblivion is a fact.

But if you really think that at death you become nothing and thus there will be no experience of anything at all ever again, that also means you will not be subject to the consequences of the life you lived. In short, if there is just oblivion at death, then whether you cultivate saintliness or just indulge in material pleasures all day long is irrelevant because the end result is the same: nothingness.

I mean even in ancient India there were materialists who had the same idea. Take for example this quote from the Sarva-darsana-samgraha:

That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects,
is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain—
such is the reasoning of fools.
The kernels of the paddy, rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest,
would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?

While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on butter though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

So, as they say, just live it up as you only live once.

But from the Buddhist perspective you're actually accountable for your actions post-mortem. You will experience the results of your actions in future lives. Just as you plan for your retirement not wanting to live poorly in the future to come, so to one plans for future lives and makes proper plans and refrains from doing anything that would jeopardize future well being. You wouldn't take all your life savings and toss them away at the casino in an afternoon. Likewise from the Buddhist perspective you wouldn't jeopardize your ability to cultivate yourself in future lives. You need to retain the ability to cultivate yourself towards liberation. The only other alternative is samsara and that is unacceptable.

But if all there is is nothingness at death, whether you lead a moral life or immoral life is irrelevant. I'm not proposing all materialists are immoral, but merely that with such a view in mind there really is no actual real vested interest for oneself in morality. Immoral or moral, the result is the same and any potential consequences from either course of action is the same: oblivion.

Without rebirth the whole system of Buddhist ethics falls apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "Buddhist thought" that would reject rebirth. There is no Buddhism without rebirth. The whole idea of liberation is predicated on the idea of cyclic existence from which one must find liberation from.

If actual morality is tossed out the window, then the Buddhist systems that will emerge will be inherently unstable and subject to rapid decay. Buddhism in many places could quickly fade away if the necessity of real morality is quietly set aside. I'm actually witnessing this here in Japan. Japanese Buddhism in general is rapidly in decay owing to the fact that morality and ethics are treated quite softly and often ignored.

Thus why I think we really need to stress rebirth and system of ethics predicated on rebirth if we are to see the Buddhadharma continue to exist in this world.

There is no buddhist judgement day and your personality and ego will not survive death. "You" as you conceive yourself to be are a temporary conceptual mistake of perspective that will cease operating at death. The consequences of your actions will survive, indeed, but you, just like the rest of us, are not getting out of this world alive. Your sense of self identity will evaporate at death as well, so what ever the consequences of your actions, there will be no identifiable "you" there to experience them. Imo if ones plan is to not get enlightened in this lifetime, that person should find a hobby that has positive consequences for the rest of humanity, because their ego identity will never survive to see another lifetime and reap the benefit of all the merit they are creating ( except in the sense that conditions for humanty in general are improved).

For those childish enough to need a threat of punishment to behave, there are always the hells, buddhist and xian. Mythological or not i know for some they can be powerful motivators. For the rest of us there is compassion i guess, to the degree that one can see oneself in others.

Buddhist ethics doesnt fall apart without some sort of judgement day enforced by karma either. Buddhist ethics is based on the idea of compassion, an innate trait, a quality of the buddha nature (or if it isnt it should be). If you base buddhist ethics on the threat of some future judgement and punishment we are no better than the xians imo.

[Indrajala]

I need no label of Buddhist. _/\_

You also have the liberty of responding with a rational and meaningful reply rather than fuzzy ambiguous thoughts.

[Indrajala]

I'm all in for rebirth. But actually it is not necessarily true that without an afterlife there is no morality. It is called (secular) humanism. Socialism and communism are further improvements of materialist philosophy working on the welfare of the society.

Communism didn't really work out so well for either China or Russia -- or elsewhere for that matter. The suppression and elimination of religion, which is a part of Marxist thought, attempts to rid society of something that naturally occurs within it given sanction or not.

I argue that without some kind of consequence to be experienced post-mortem for the actions in this life, there can be no genuine morality. There is no stake in it for the individual who believes at death they become nothing and thus become unable to experience the consequences, both positive and negative, of their actions in life.

[Indrajala]

Even if you're "religious", you're likely to possess a materialist reality-world picture owing to the fact that your society and education officially sees such a picture as the most real and appropriate to hold. Rebirth is a belief. Post-mortem oblivion is a fact.

So they don't realize that post-mortem oblivion is also a belief?

The only fact might be that no one knows what's going to happen after death. Any belief or best guess probably won't change the fact, whatever it might be.

So regardless, I would just be careful what you say and what you do.

Buddha and many other enlightened masters of old and present assert rebirth is real. Some also remark that they have recollection of past lives. There are also plenty of cases where children have accurate memories of past lives.

Rebirth is real.

[m0rl0ck]

:namaste:

When Buddhism is investigating (important) the words in analytical way only, we easy can get lost in our own imaginations by the limits of intellectual fabrications. We can be exploring recipes for insight whole life long and meanwhile our obscurations can roll in each direction and harm our environement and all beings.

To understand rebirth one gets clarity by going beyond the cloudlike quality of our empty fabrications, to see how we paint a fictitious world by them in the heat of rejections and acceptions as we are the knower.

Desire, dullness, pride, arrogance, envy are synomyms of ignorance, which is grasping to a me, to wrong and bad and so on. What more we need for "rebirth" in subject-object devision?

Grasping to clouds. Purification to see our grasping to own imagination which is in dependence with materialistic clinging as well.

Even the more subtle grasping by hankering after a truth lays in fictitious quality.
When no morality is coming naturally (through teaching...) in our stream of being, what is the difference with us and intellectual criminals?

As long as space remains,
as long as sentient beings endure,
so may "I" too remain
and dispel the miseries of the world.

I need no label of Buddhist. _/\_

Wow beautiful stuff Thank you

You seem to have a talent for simplifiying this stuff in a few sentences and making my posts look absolutely idiotic. Once again thank you

[Indrajala]

There is no buddhist judgement day and your personality and ego will not survive death. "You" as you conceive yourself to be are a temporary conceptual mistake of perspective that will cease operating at death. The consequences of your actions will survive, indeed, but you, just like the rest of us, are not getting out of this world alive. Your sense of self identity will evaporate at death as well, so what ever the consequences of your actions, there will be no identifiable "you" there to experience them. Imo if ones plan is to not get enlightened in this lifetime, that person should find a hobby that has positive consequences for the rest of humanity, because their ego identity will never survive to see another lifetime and reap the benefit of all the merit they are creating ( except in the sense that conditions for humanty in general are improved).

Buddha spoke clearly of a individual reappearing in the world. People are reborn. Moreover, with recollection of past lives being quite possible in the Buddhist model, we can infer that an individual continuity or sentient being is indeed individuated though still relative.

A person remembers their own past lives, and not the lives of other persons. There is continuity though no absolute identity. There is individuation though relativity remains constant.

For those childish enough to need a threat of punishment to behave, there are always the hells, buddhist and xian. Mythological or not i know for some they can be powerful motivators. For the rest of us there is compassion i guess, to the degree that one can see oneself in others.

Funny because Buddha elaborated at length the hells and the potential to fall into them and the lower realms. You would call the Buddha childish?

Buddhist ethics doesnt fall apart without some sort of judgement day enforced by karma either. Buddhist ethics is based on the idea of compassion, an innate trait, a quality of the buddha nature (or if it isnt it should be). If you base buddhist ethics on the threat of some future judgement and punishment we are no better than the xians imo.

Good thing that is just your opinion.

[m0rl0ck]

I need no label of Buddhist. _/\_

You also have the liberty of responding with a rational and meaningful reply rather than fuzzy ambiguous thoughts.

May i interpret, and Muni step in if i go astray.

I beleive M's major points in that post were:

1. Our individual identities are inextricable and inseperable from the larger context of sentient beings as a whole.

2. Talking about rebirth in a debate like this may not be as fruitful as it could be, because most of the action in that sphere takes place behind the blinding cloud of subject - object distinctions.

3. Buddhist morality and ethics arises from the inside, from buddha nature, rather than being imposed from the outside.

The above is my intrepretation of M's post so M if i have done your views an injustice, correct me.

EDIT: Duh attributed the whole thing to the wrong poster, my apologies for the mistake, now corrected.

[m0rl0ck]

Funny because Buddha elaborated at length the hells and the potential to fall into them and the lower realms. You would call the Buddha childish?

No, i would call the idea of materially existent hells skillful means.

[Luke]

Even if you're "religious", you're likely to possess a materialist reality-world picture owing to the fact that your society and education officially sees such a picture as the most real and appropriate to hold. Rebirth is a belief. Post-mortem oblivion is a fact.

Well, I don't know about that. There are those creationist Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible (the universe was created in exactly seven Earth days, etc.). They probably believe that going to heaven or hell after death is a fact and consider science and the ideas of other religions to be mere "beliefs." There are surprisingly many people like this in the US.

However, I don't think having a scientific view of the material world is always bad thing. Buddhist engineers need to know the same things that non-Buddhist engineers need to know. Furthermore, it's thanks to electrical engineers that there are microphones which Buddhist teachers can use to speak to large audiences. And it's thanks to mechanical engineers that Buddhist teachers have cars and planes in which they can travel to their audiences around the world.

Without rebirth the whole system of Buddhist ethics falls apart. This is one reason why I cannot accept "Buddhist thought" that would reject rebirth. There is no Buddhism without rebirth. The whole idea of liberation is predicated on the idea of cyclic existence from which one must find liberation from.

Yes, I couldn't agree more! However, I can completely understand when modern people are skeptical of rebirth. I think we need to feel compassion for them and provide them with good reasons for its existence and not fall into the trap of simply looking down at them. I admit that even though I had been reading about Buddhism for a long time, it was only in the past couple of years that I began to believe in rebirth. Sometimes people just need time to think things through.

If actual morality is tossed out the window, then the Buddhist systems that will emerge will be inherently unstable and subject to rapid decay. Buddhism in many places could quickly fade away if the necessity of real morality is quietly set aside. I'm actually witnessing this here in Japan. Japanese Buddhism in general is rapidly in decay owing to the fact that morality and ethics are treated quite softly and often ignored.

How about Shingon? Do you feel that's decaying, too? Shingon seems to me to be more centralized and strictly traditional than other other Japanese Buddhist schools. If I remember correctly, a person has to ordain as a priest even to practice it.

Thus why I think we really need to stress rebirth and system of ethics predicated on rebirth if we are to see the Buddhadharma continue to exist in this world.

Yes, karma and rebirth are at the very heart of Buddhism.

What stops people from understanding that there is rebirth is that they believe there is only this body made of the four elements and don't look at their mind. When it becomes clear that mind is non-material it comes logically from causality that it doesn't die with the body but takes another birth.

Whoa! This is your best post ever!

[Lazy_eye]

When it becomes clear that mind is non-material...

That, I agree, is the main sticking point.

LE

[Indrajala]

Funny because Buddha elaborated at length the hells and the potential to fall into them and the lower realms. You would call the Buddha childish?

No, i would call the idea of materially existent hells skillful means.

I'll take the Buddha's word over yours.

[Indrajala]

How about Shingon? Do you feel that's decaying, too? Shingon seems to me to be more centralized and strictly traditional than other other Japanese Buddhist schools. If I remember correctly, a person has to ordain as a priest even to practice it.

I can't comment on Shingon in any great detail, though overall the number of Buddhist priests has been in decline in Japan and on top of that people who give a damn are likewise rapidly declining.

When the leadership fails to take their behaviour seriously the general people on the street will wonder why bother supporting these organizations if everyone in it is like anyone else? Married, meat eating, drinking, fornicating, etc... would you feel happy to support such people? In contrast to that, how about celibate, vegetarian, completely dry and almost penniless monks and nuns who spend their days engaged in the dharma?

Unfortunately the trend in Japanese Buddhism is fossilization. It is mostly just going through the motions, doing the appropriate rituals, playing the part of a holy man and getting paid (usually well) for it. There are still serious practitioners, yes, but I mostly see the opposite.

[m0rl0ck]

When it becomes clear that mind is non-material it comes logically from causality that it doesn't die with the body but takes another birth.

In the "Sheaves of Reeds Discourse" (Nalakalapiyo Sutta, SN 12.67), Ven. Sariputta uses this famous analogy to explain the interdependency of consciousness and name-&-form:

"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form...."[28]

So it would look from the above that mind and body are interdependent to such a degree that if one goes so does the other. So whats left? Souls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na

[Indrajala]

When it becomes clear that mind is non-material it comes logically from causality that it doesn't die with the body but takes another birth.

In the "Sheaves of Reeds Discourse" (Nalakalapiyo Sutta, SN 12.67), Ven. Sariputta uses this famous analogy to explain the interdependency of consciousness and name-&-form:

"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form...."[28]

So it would look from the above that mind and body are interdependent to such a degree that if one goes so does the other. So whats left? Souls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na

You should look up the twelve links of dependent origination.

Ignorance -> Action -> Consciousness -> Name and Form -> Six Sources, etc...

Consciousness arises before it's descent into one of the realms of rebirth.

[m0rl0ck]

When it becomes clear that mind is non-material it comes logically from causality that it doesn't die with the body but takes another birth.

In the "Sheaves of Reeds Discourse" (Nalakalapiyo Sutta, SN 12.67), Ven. Sariputta uses this famous analogy to explain the interdependency of consciousness and name-&-form:

"It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form....
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form...."[28]

So it would look from the above that mind and body are interdependent to such a degree that if one goes so does the other. So whats left? Souls?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vij%C3%B1%C4%81na

You should look up the twelve links of dependent origination.

Ignorance -> Action -> Consciousness -> Name and Form -> Six Sources, etc...

Consciousness arises before it's descent into one of the realms of rebirth.

Consciousness is not your ego mind. Your ego mind is a fiction that arises on the meeting of consciousness and name and form. Imo discussions like this are just a symptom of the egos grasping after permanence. (tho i have to admit that discussions like this are hellacious great fun, ty for starting the thread )