[Buddha-l] rebirth

[Joy Vriens]

Mike Austin wrote:
> In message <43DDB593.3050804 at nerim.net>, Joy Vriens 
> <joy.vriens at nerim.net> writes
>> Mike Austin wrote:
>>
>>> Hmm. Then one wonders what constitutes a teaching of the Buddha, for 
>>> the  Buddha used concepts that tend to the truth.  Nowhere could his 
>>> words be  taken as 'the truth' as they stand. So is rebirth any 
>>> different from the  other 'teachings' in this respect?
>>
>> If at the time of the Buddha a wanderer would meet a bikkhu and ask 
>> him about the Buddha's teaching, I can't imagine  the bikkhu would 
>> have mentioned that the Buddha taught rebirth, gods, probably not even 
>> samsara-karma-moksha... Whatever such bikkhu would say was the 
>> Buddha's teaching, must have been the Buddha's teaching. And whatever 
>> was the Buddha's teaching in that sense, was probably far less 
>> spectacular and far more recognisable to us than "rebirth" etc.
> 
> You make an arbitrary distinction here between 'teaching' and 'concepts' 
> that are part of that teaching.  I was suggesting that the teaching uses 
> concepts to convey the 'truth',  but is not actually the 'truth.'

I am not sure that the Buddha were teaching anything related to truth or 
that would convey truth.

Digression: the English language has this wonderful particularity to use 
plural verb forms for words like "the Police". I am thinking of applying 
the same rule for "the Buddha". Otherwise I don't know how to deal with 
notions like "the teaching" or "the Buddha's teaching" since there are 
so many different teachings that are considered the Buddha's.

I don't know what was "the" teaching of the Buddha, I don't know what 
was the Buddha's intention. One of the intentions obviously is to get 
rid of worry (dukkha). But I don't see why absence of worry and truth 
are necessarily connected. One thing the Buddha have repeatedly said is 
that the forms and methods of their teachings, their use of words and 
concepts is merely in service of that objective.

> Thus, 
> the concept of 'rebirth' would be no less  than the concept of 'dukkha', 
> for example.

Yes, for me there is no difference between the concept of 'rebirth', as 
originally intended and worry. It is one of the many forms of worry.

Another digression. I remember when I first heard of rebirth and started 
playing with the idea, it was a form of hope for me. So death wasn't the 
end of it all. I could come back, sure with more or less suffering, but 
that was not very different from my current situation. It made me feel 
more relaxed. I had more time and more than one chance. If I missed one 
there would be many others, especially if I missed them. I was thus 
totally missing the intention of the rebirth "teaching" and I wonder for 
how many other Westerners this is also the case.

> Of course, one could be more hidden that another - i.e. one 
> may require more closer investigation.

Although the Budda also advised not to investigate worry (the man with 
the arrow). Is there anything we know (which is not understand) better 
and more intimately?

> Both rejection and belief 
> can be equally effective in closing down the enquiring mind.

I agree.

>> If a hypothetical "the truth" is not recognised as such by others, 
>> then what good is it, or what is true about it?

> A map is not the place where one wishes to go - nor can it be recognised 
> as the place where one wishes to go - but it is nevertheless useful.

Ok, so "the truth" is only the map of the Truth. I would rather speak of 
goal than of truth. It's only depending on a set objective that the goal 
can be true, a goal is not true in and by itself.

>> I think the Buddha used concepts, methods that would help others to 
>> achieve detachment, but I am not sure he would have called it truth.

  > I am suggesting that his teachings might be defined as 'that which 
tends
> towards the truth'.  

See above.

Joy