Are Karma and Rebirth Real?

[Indrajala]

But on that score, my reading is "fallacious" only relatively, from your point of view.

Not really because Buddhist traditions for the last twenty-five centuries, Mahāyāna included, have all regarded rebirth as a phenomenon that sentient beings all undergo as a result of their afflictions.

We don't really need to debate that fact. If you want to argue otherwise, you're just advocating a revisionist opinion not based on tradition or canon.

But there is no difference between samsara and nirvana, absolutely none. But teach me, what are these implications you say I don't understand?

If you haven't actualized such a profound principle, then you're an ordinary common being like the rest of us and the horrors and pains of saṃsāra are real enough to cause extreme mental agony.

There is a difference between noble and common beings. The former don't suffer. The latter do.

So, in principle saṃsāra and nirvāṇa might be non-dual, but for common people on the ground such a principle is only abstract and intellectually understood at best. That means if someone accuses you on false charges or physically harms you, you still continue to suffer mentally regardless of how much intellectual understanding of emptiness you have.

[Loka]

Not really because Buddhist traditions for the last twenty-five centuries, Mahāyāna included, have all regarded rebirth as a phenomenon that sentient beings all undergo as a result of their afflictions.

We don't really need to debate that fact. If you want to argue otherwise, you're just advocating a revisionist opinion not based on tradition or canon.

Hi again. No I don’t want to argue. I was only stating our differing takes on the evidence. As long as we hold to different “facts” there’s really no argument to be made.

But is what I’m saying not based on the canon or the tradition? Certainly, you’re representing majority opinion, but can you really be so categorical, considering the long and varied history of Buddhist writings and practice? And what about the Kalama Sutta? The Buddha affirms the duty of everyone who hears the dharma to form their own judgements based on their own experience, and on the good opinion of the wise. That good opinion, as I read it, was not touching on doctrinal points but on what was wholesome and of benefit.

Just a point of clarification: I hope I didn’t mix up “provisional” and “conventional”; by provisional I meant provisional as opposed to ultimate teachings, for example, Hinayana/Mahayana. “Conventional” refers to empirical reality, which as you say dissolves under analysis. For you rebirth is part of that empirical reality, conventionally real; for me it’s a useful metaphor, which I myself use quite readily but don’t take literally. That’s why I call it upaya or pious fraud: it’s neither ultimately real, conventionally real or simply unreal (like the son of a barren women). It has its own category. But then I’m a fan of literature and metaphor carries more weight with me than with most.

If you haven't actualized such a profound principle, then you're an ordinary common being like the rest of us and the horrors and pains of saṃsāra are real enough to cause extreme mental agony.

There is a difference between noble and common beings. The former don't suffer. The latter do.

So, in principle saṃsāra and nirvāṇa might be non-dual, but for common people on the ground such a principle is only abstract and intellectually understood at best. That means if someone accuses you on false charges or physically harms you, you still continue to suffer mentally regardless of how much intellectual understanding of emptiness you have.

But this is a whole Buddhist can of worms, isn’t it? Gradual verses sudden enlightenment, etc. If I’m already there, why should I bother, etc. And all those pompous non-dualists running around pretending they’re not really there! There’s no way I want to enter into that discussion. It’s almost a question of spiritual tact, isn’t it? And no doubt I’m a bit tactless. And far far far from actualizing anything. So point taken.

With metta, Michael.

[Indrajala]

Hi again. No I don’t want to argue. I was only stating our differing takes on the evidence. As long as we hold to different “facts” there’s really no argument to be made.

There is no basis in the canon for what you're advocating. From the start it was said a bodhisattva's career as such took three incalculable aeons of time. That means, literally, being reborn immeasurable times in order to achieve buddhahood, all the while gaining supermundane abilities and multiple emanations. That all assumes rebirth as conventionally real.

What you're suggesting is just your own opinion and has little to do with Mahāyāna scriptures.

Certainly, you’re representing majority opinion, but can you really be so categorical, considering the long and varied history of Buddhist writings and practice? And what about the Kalama Sutta? The Buddha affirms the duty of everyone who hears the dharma to form their own judgements based on their own experience, and on the good opinion of the wise. That good opinion, as I read it, was not touching on doctrinal points but on what was wholesome and of benefit.

You missed the Pubbakotthaka Sutta:

"Lord, it's not that I take it on conviction in the Blessed One that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."

"Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Unless you're enlightened, you gotta take a lot on faith and base your own opinions on those of wiser folks. Deference to superiors is necessary for beginners. Normally that means deference to scripture or beings with some level of extraordinary attainment.

For you rebirth is part of that empirical reality, conventionally real; for me it’s a useful metaphor, which I myself use quite readily but don’t take literally. That’s why I call it upaya or pious fraud: it’s neither ultimately real, conventionally real or simply unreal (like the son of a barren women). It has its own category. But then I’m a fan of literature and metaphor carries more weight with me than with most.

Rebirth isn't a metaphor though. It isn't treated as such in all the Buddhist literature I've read. Conventional reality is as ordinary beings perceive it. That doesn't mean you get out of rebirth.

You can treat it as such, but that's just your opinion and it won't hold any weight in a Buddhist discussion. What you're suggesting here is really a common trend among westerners who can't swallow rebirth and karma, and then go on to revise things to suit themselves. This is why in Asia westerners are not taken too seriously when it comes to Buddhism.

[Loka]

You can treat it as such, but that's just your opinion and it won't hold any weight in a Buddhist discussion. What you're suggesting here is really a common trend among westerners who can't swallow rebirth and karma, and then go on to revise things to suit themselves. This is why in Asia westerners are not taken too seriously when it comes to Buddhism.

Wow. I must have offended, so now you offend me. I’m no longer a fellow sentient being but a “westerner” (actually now that I type it out and say quickly three times in my head it sounds really exotic).

To be fair, you no doubt sense that for my part I can’t take seriously miraculous and really unnecessary notions like literal belief in karma and rebirth, to say nothing of supermundane abilities, multiple emanations and a bodhisattva career through eons of time. For me, these things are no more plausible than the virgin birth of Jesus, the Resurrection and Young Earth Theory.

It’s ironic you call me a “westerner” when in your dogmatism you appear to have far more in common with western religionists than I do.

East or west, I find your whole tribe perplexing. Why make up the miraculous, except in the interests of good fiction, when the miraculous is all around (do you find horror, injustice, stupidity? then do something about it). Your veils of tears, your samsaras are indeed illusions. To paraphrase the gospel of Thomas: the Kingdom of Heaven is spread across the Earth and you do not see it.


Or how about from the Vimalakirti, chapter 7:

Then, the goddess said to the venerable Shariputra, "Reverend Shariputra, why do you shake these flowers?"
Shariputra replied, "Goddess, these flowers are not proper for religious persons and so we are
trying to shake them off."
The goddess said, "Do not say that, reverend Shariputra. Why? These flowers are proper
indeed! Why? Such flowers have neither constructual thought nor discrimination. But the
elder Shariputra has both constructual thought and discrimination.

But anyway I'm done. There will be no further posts from me. Best of luck.

[zamotcr]

If I don't believe in karma nor rebirth, why would I be buddhist?
I mean, it doesn't make sense, this two doctrines are foundations of the teaching. Without rebirth there is no samsara. Without karma there is no rebirth...

[gregkavarnos]

Hi again. No I don’t want to argue. I was only stating our differing takes on the evidence. As long as we hold to different “facts” there’s really no argument to be made.

Let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt. What then are the "facts", or the evidence, that points to the absence of rebirth. If rebirth does not apply, then what does?