[Buddha-l] Re: Where does authority for "true" Buddhism come from?

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Jim Peavler wrote:

JP> Sorry, Bub. It simply ain't so. Stating that belief in rebirth is not
JP> a necessary part of Buddhist practice is NOT writing against rebirth.
JP> Writing against rebirth would require a person to say, "To be a  
JP> Buddhist it is necessary to not believe in rebirth," which is  
JP> something quite different.

it is a partial truth or not realistic. There is not person in this
world who don't ask himself about what is death in some time. I agree
that we don't need rebirth to start a Buddhist practice. But when this
question arises, the answer in Buddha is rebirth, not non-rebirth.

In example, there is a Sutra in where Buddha teach to some Brahmins
to meditate in loving-kindness so they can reach Brahma. No more
things. Only He satisfy their doubts. And they were happy and become
their disciples and end of the history

Are you talking of a similar point?

In this case, I agree with you. Buddhism also can be a teaching for
people of other beliefs. However, when any person ask to know if there
is a continuity for his actions and thoughts, even after his death,
the Buddhist answer is very clear. 

Therefore, the Buddhist practice need rebirth depending of the
practice and questions of everyone. It doesn't mean that rebirth 
it's not a substantial part of the Buddhist practice and teaching, and
properly, one cannot say such thing.


JP> Belief systems are not necessary. All that is needed is for a person
JP> to believe it is possible to improve herself, and to try to use the
JP> tools provided by Buddhism. The four truths and the noble path are
JP> enough without the other stuff.

well, What is a belief?. We can arrive to certainty by two ways: using
the sensorial experience and/or with our reason. It is the empirical
knowledge.

Any answer, when she is able to satisfy some of them, it is not a
belief.  With the same procedure, one knows that the first noble truth
it's not a belief. And with the same procedure, one knows that
non-rebirth only can be false and rebirth at least *logical*.

2 + 2 = 5
2 + n = 5

Because wee are intelligent people, we choose the second one.
And it is not a empirical truth neither a belief. It is just a
choosing to satisfy our reason. Such thing is needed in the Buddhist
practice because Buddhism is not an irrational thing.

Of course, if such question never arise, neither arise the problem.
But it is not the point here when it is the thread number 456798156
devoted to rebirth.

Also, with non-rebirth there are problems related with the
contemplation of this world. 


JP> So why the hell am I defending Prof Hayes, I wonder? I guess this
JP> branch of this thread has just got on my nerves. 

also I am defending Prof. Hayes and I don't know why.
Maybe he has some accumulated merits of a previous life.
I don't know.


br,