User talk:Joshua Jonathan: Difference between revisions

JJ, things RW wrote during his recent topic-ban appeal were strange. The Dalai Lama wrote a book titled The Four Noble Truths. It was published by Harper Collins in 1997 ISBN 0722535503. On page 51, he wrote,

Quote: "So in Buddhism there is an understanding that so long as we are subject to the process of rebirth, all other forms of suffering are natural consequences of that initial starting point. We could characterize our life as being within the cycle of birth and death, and sandwiched in between these two, as it were, are the various sufferings related to illness and ageing."

The Dalai Lama goes on to explain that even pleasurable experiences ultimately bring suffering, all joyful experiences are tainted... as long as we are unenlightened. The premises of re-birth, re-death, samsara, dukkha and cyclic existence are central to Buddhism and other Indic theologies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: it's funny you bring this up now. I was about to ask if you've ever read something from Buddhadasa, a Tai monk who argued that rebirth is not Buddhistic. He argues that anatta/sunyatta is central to Buddhist thought, and incompatible with rebirth. Rebirth, in his understanding, is the constant rebirth of "I" and "mine" in this very life. I think he's got a good point, a very good point; a point which is actually understood by most Buddhists throughout the world, and which relates to the practical approach of Buddhism: self-restraint through insight, meditation, and loving-kundness. See Buddhadasa (1985a) [1961], "The essential points of the Buddhist teachings", Heart-wood from the Bo tree, and Buddhadas, Anatta and rebirth, for an introduction. It's intruguing. @JimRenge: this might be of interest to you too.

NB: I went through one previous "discussion" with Robert; his point there, which I'd already happily forgotten, was that he thought that rebirth is a western interpretation of Buddhism, which is wrong, of course. But there may be merit in the idea that rebirth is a Buddhist addition to Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also T. A. P. Aryaratne, The Philosophy of Anatta: A Reconstruction of the Real Teaching of Gotama. And there is more: Lynn A. Silva (1979), The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity, aslo mentions Aryaratne (p.55), and refers (p.53-55) to J.G. Jennings (1947), The Vedantic Buddhism of the Buddha, Oxford University Press. And there is I. Hattori chapter 2.pdf - Shodhganga], p.67 ff (search for link at Google; it's blacklisted):

The theory of Anatta doctrine and the doctrine of transmigration ultimately end in mutual contradiction. (p.67)

Hattori also refers to Jennings, Silva, and Aryaratne, and a T. Watuji (p.68), quoted as stating:

W e can find the theory of transmigration in the Nikayas. But we reaUze that this theory is found not in the texts which teach about anatta, skandhas, and paticcasamuppada, but in the texts which have a mythical characteristic.

Hattori then states:

He concludes that the theory of transmigration was adapted by Early Buddhism for the purpose of fighting against the hedonism, pleasure-loving people, who ignore the idea of cause and effect.
Jennings holds a somewhat similar opinion to that of Watuji. His opinion is that the traditional idea of rebirth, which is completely incompatible with the doctrine of anatta was later accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism. He, for that reason, rejects all passages in the Nikayas referring to rebirth as later additions.

There's work to do! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patchanee Malikhao and Jan Servaes (2015), The Journalist as Change Agent, p.52-54, in: Shelton A. Gunaratne, Mark Pearson, Sugath Senarath (2015), Mindful Journalism and News Ethics in the Digital Era: A Buddhist Approach, explain Buddhadasa, but also refer to Phra Brahmagunabhorn (aka Bhikku P.A. Payutto):

They both refuted the interpretation of the PS Model as the cycle of past, present and future life or re-becoming.

They refer to Jackson (2003), Buddhadasa. Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand, p.90-91. See also Payutto and Buddhadasa themselves. @Javierfv1212: you seem to know more about this?

Ironically, RW often referred to Payutto as an author who stressed the authenticity of the Pali canon... Could it be that this is the (a) source of his ideas on Buddhism and rebirth? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JJ: Indeed. You are touching upon what has been one of the central debates within Buddhism since ancient times, as well as one of those that has been a source of disagreements between the Buddhists, Hindus, Jains and some extinct Indic traditions from about the second half of the 1st-millennium BCE through about the 12th-century prior to the theo-political shock thereafter. One set of questions that all of them attempted to answer, rationalize and explain over 1,500 years: Is there rebirth? why (in the axiological sense, most came up with the karma theories, exception: Charvakas)? how (this is the crux of one of their disagreements)? what is reborn (another source of their disagreements)? when with timeline between death and rebirth (Jains came up with the most interesting elaborate answers)? where (leading to the samsara theories, Jains and Buddhists came up with the quite sophisticated models over time)? Buddhist answers to these questions tried to integrate in their anatta "no-self, no-soul" premise, which Jains and Hindus wholeheartedly disagreed with for they both rejected anatta and they both relied on the premise of atta/atman/jiva.

Nagasena, the 2nd-century BCE Buddhist scholar, explained how rebirth occurs using the "two candles" and "one lits up the other without ever touching" example. Those who claim rebirth is only found in mythical tales such as Jataka are mistaken or misinformed or creatively reinterpreting, per mainstream scholarly sources. Suttas do mention "repeated births and repeated deaths" and equivalent terms (punarmrtyu, punarbhava, etc). See the various interpretive translations, for example, here, here, here, here (pp 133-134, or from p 130 for context) etc.

Every few centuries, including some modern-era movements in Thailand and Japan, has revisited these questions... so obvious and forceful they are to those who reflect on the core Buddhist premises, then ponder what it implies/means. Many accept these Buddhist premises as given, internally consistent and satisfactory. Some of those Buddhists who revisit these questions bring back "self/soul" concepts, some deny rebirth or anatta or one of the central premises of Buddhism. One set of modernistic writers and interpreters of Buddhism suggest Hindus/Jains copied the Buddhists in "rebirth and ethical theories surrounding it, etc", while another set blames typically the former with statements such as "[rebirth theory was] accommodated by Buddhists under pressure from Hinduism". The direct evidence, either way, is missing or very weak, but inferentially plausible and inferentially implausible! So, the lovely arguments go, round and round. Cyclic existence of ideas, questions, answers, understanding, misunderstanding,.... pretty much everything!

I do not want to preach to the quire here, but for RW-alikes and those newbie talk page stalkers reading this I note: in wikipedia, we must stick with what the mainstream peer-reviewed scholarship state, avoid fringe views, and include a neutral mention of the minority/other sides to the extent these views have been published in a manner that meet our RS guidelines. Sorry, JJ, this answer is longer than I would like. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ps) See this, this and this too, just the foreword of the first if you are short of time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you are back Ms Sarah Welch. Joshua, I think Buddhadhasa´s view on rebirth is indeed interesting. He argues that the sutras have two levels of meaning. "While at the hermeneutic level of phasa khon [everyday language] the Buddha's words are taken literally, phasa tham phasa tham [Dhamma language], reveals the hidden meaning of the Buddha's words." (...) "The demythologized view of Buddhadasa is that birth (jati) means the moment-by moment birth or rebirth of an egoistic sense of "I" and "mine" through the twelvefold links of causation in the process of dependent coarising." (Odin, Steve (2011). Review: Buddhadāsa: Theravada Buddhism and Modernist Reform in Thailand by Peter A. Jackson, Philosophy East and West 61 (1), 221-231. See p 223-224)

Buddhadhasas view of rebirth became popular among educated Thais in the seventies.(Gosling, David (1975). The Scientific and Religious Beliefs of Thai Scientists and Their Inter-relationship, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 4 (1), 1-18. /p.10) I don´t think demythologized interpretations are new. Pali sutras mention six realms of rebirth. In Tiantai doctrine, these six realms, plus four higher realms, "are not courses into which one may be reborn, but realms of consciousness, all of which entail each other." (Bowring, Richard (2008). The religious traditions of Japan, 500-1600 (Paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 123. ISBN 9780521851190.) JimRenge (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you! I'd also been thinking about the realms of rebirth; once and a while I meet a hungry ghost someone craving for love and affection, whose thirst is unstilable... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Marissa Abruzzini, Do All Zen Buddhists Believe in Rebirth?, SevenPonds (blog).
• Brad Warner, The Myth of Rebirth, Hardcore Zen (blog)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JJ and JimRenge: Interesting comparison of Buddhadasa to "neo-Vedantic" thought. This source (p. 230, note 3, Donald Swearer (1989)) states, "A western critic might justifiably argue that Buddhadasa's view is uniquely Buddhistic, but the Theravada criticism that Buddhadasa takes a syncretic, "neo-Vedantic" position seems to be misplaced". Swearer has studied and written much about ācariya Buddhadasa's views since about 1960 and is a reliable source (p. 2). I hesitate in adding the Vedantic comparisons, for now, because we must check how mainstream scholarly this is and then carefully reflect on the context. Interesting note there JimRenge, thank you for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]