Raitanator wrote:There's lot of discussion whether Dogen accepted migration from samsaric realm to another - here we have a clear proof (imo) that he was quite traditional in his views. Although there are some certain people who claim exact opposite.
What do you guys think?
Greg_the_poet wrote:I saw a youtube video of Brad Warner, and he claims that Dogen never advocated reincarnation, or re-birth, that it wasn't a Buddhist concept and was only grafted on later.
Greg_the_poet wrote:I saw a youtube video of Brad Warner, and he claims that Dogen never advocated reincarnation, or re-birth, that it wasn't a Buddhist concept and was only grafted on later.
Simon E. wrote:Greg_the_poet wrote:I saw a youtube video of Brad Warner, and he claims that Dogen never advocated reincarnation, or re-birth, that it wasn't a Buddhist concept and was only grafted on later.
Mr Warners approach to this issue is as Ngapa Chogyams in the Tibetan tradition. And as is is Ajahn Buddhadasas in the Theravada. It about our basic simplistic understanding of time as linear.
Simon E. wrote:So you may believe.
But if there was universal agreement on that point Huseng then Brad Warner, Ngagpa Chogyam and Ajahn Buddhadasa would not be teaching what they (independently ) teach (or taught ). And they would not have between them have many followers.
Ajahn Buddhadasa in particular is a huge influence.
There are thousands of people in both the East and West who say that without his teaching they would have no interest in Buddhism.
Its "Bon Buddhists " who form a tiny minority. Although you wouldn't think so from the attention they require.
Simon E. wrote:I havent said what I believe. Nor do I think that what I believe is important either to myself or anyone else.
The fact remains that if you place the question on a Soto Zen site, and the OP was specific to Soto and to Dogen then you would find that many Soto "scholars and actual teachers " have a view on the literally nature of Rebirth that might be a surprise to you. Jundo Cohens views are by no means unusual . neither are they of modern origin and most definitely are not restricted to Caucasian teachers.
Incidentally If you suggested on a Theravadin site that Ajahn Buddhadasa was small fish I think that would be a surprise to the Theravada. Even among those who disagree with him recognise him as a pretty big fish in Theravada terms.. Ajahn Chah was a great admirer.

Simon E. wrote:Au Contraire Astus. There is perfect sense to got from those words while not embracing the Three Life model.

Astus wrote:As for Soto Zen, here's the Dedication of Merit verse from the daily practice booklet (PDF):
"With the good karma gathered in this practice, we repay the virtuous toils of our fathers and mothers, that the living may be blessed with joy and long life without dis- tress, and the deceased freed from suffering and born in the pure land. May the four benefactors, sentient beings in the three classes of existence, and those born in the three evil destinies and eight difficulties all be able to repent their transgressions, purify their defects, entirely escape the round of rebirth, and be bom in the pure land."
And there are quite a few other rituals and ceremonies (like funerals) present in Soto Zen that would have no meaning at all without rebirth.
Simon E. wrote:I spent quite a number of years studying dharma...I would hesitate to say in its entirety..![]()
And both the One Lifetime model and Three Lifetime model makes perfect sense to me. With no mental contortions at all, just a knowledge of cultural context and a willingness to go beyond the literal.
If you are interested, and I suspect you wont be...try a little Buddhadasa. Theres lots on line.
pueraeternus wrote:Simon E. wrote:I spent quite a number of years studying dharma...I would hesitate to say in its entirety..![]()
And both the One Lifetime model and Three Lifetime model makes perfect sense to me. With no mental contortions at all, just a knowledge of cultural context and a willingness to go beyond the literal.
If you are interested, and I suspect you wont be...try a little Buddhadasa. Theres lots on line.
I have many years under my belt too, and honestly speaking, I would not hesitate to say that rebirth is critical to understanding the dharma in its entirety. The One Lifetime model is ludicrous in the light of so many other key teachings within Buddhism. And it is not just a literal understanding - it is also common-sensical. Some people think that to accept rebirth is to merely take the sutras literally, but that is untrue. The reason why most Buddhists (scholars, laymen, whatever) accept rebirth is because it makes sense, especially in the light of the dharma as a whole.
Having an interest in Theravadin practices, I have read Buddhadasa. Its ok, but nothing special. To me, his "dhamma language" idea conflates the two truths unwisely.
Everyone is welcome aboard. Whatever model of reality they favour.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests