[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Joy wrote:

JV> See, that is what rebirth does to Buddhism. "There is not need of
JV> a soul to talk about rebirth". Something is born, dies and is born
JV> again, but it can't be a "soul". Of course, one can then come up
JV> with very plausible explanations and this paradox can produce some
JV> very creative solutions, but there is no escaping that in the idea
JV> of rebirth something is born, dies and is born again.

well, it can be truth. But that creativity it's not bad. If we stress
these questions finally we will find dependent origination and
more considerations about the nature of -self and time.

Although note there is a trap when we are limiting this investigation
to the borders of what we are interpreting of our perceived Reality.
Sorry for giving the next poor example: when we try to be focused in
this same instant of perception of our Reality, in the more isolated
picture provided by our eyes that we can be able to catch, then here
maybe we can be aware that there is something eternal (devoid of time)
between the arising of our concatenated thoughts.
In that same moment, there is not space for rebirth or non-rebirth
but the reality is what is. Further explanations are pure creativity,
in the same way that a crystal produces thousand colors when we put it
in front a source of light. So our mind is like that. The value of any
spectacle of thoughts arising inside our mind remains in the strength
to drive us to the source of them. But unfortunately no mix of colors
becomes transparent. 


JV> All the sophistication and amendments came later; the basic idea
JV> was and  is much simpler. Since Buddhism came basically into
JV> beings as a  reaction, it constitutionally speaking can't separate
JV> itself from  that to what it reacted. Even when it took a more
JV> positive  approach with empti*ness*, tattva, Buddha Nature, the
JV> positive  stuff that was put forward still needed to be grounded
JV> in the  initial negative or critical approach. There is so much
JV> history in  every Buddhist idea because of the need of authority,
JV> transmission etc. 

that's truth. And not only in Buddhism but in most of religions the
beings arises as some reaction while we keep bonds or doors with some
pristine state. We were expelled of some paradise, we are here because
orders of some gods, we are a product of actions of previous beings,
etc.. 

In this sense, I agree with what Richard Hayes said in other message.
In Buddhism we are lucky of not being forced to be restricted to some
mythological system. And probably it has to do with that negative
approach of Buddhism that you comments.
There is not doubt any person can be awakened without having any
concern about this matter. In fact I think it would be better at all.
However, when the question arises, then we start a philosophical
investigation with logical difficulties in keeping coherence.
Coherence is not needed to respect an untouchable doctrinal system but
for the efficacy as a philosophical mean. Regarding this coherence
is when at least I think non-rebirth is a wrong thing.

Maybe in some future will appear a serious development able to
suppress this question in a brilliant way for practical purposes, so
everybody would understand there is not need to waste our time with
this. However, it cannot mean the substitution with non-rebirth.
I agree this problem is a bad business regarding difficulties and the
poor benefits in practical terms. Some messages ago there is a cite of
a Sutta, in where same Buddha avoid this matter in practical terms to
surpass obsession. Then it shows it can be the wiser option.


best regards,