Your approach is too rationalistic. Apparent contradictions are the bread and butter of Buddhism.
Edit, more context:
The historical Buddha spoke to a crowd of people who took rebirth as a matter of fact because steeped in Hinduism and in folk belief.
But in fact if you read between the lines, rebirth doesn’t agree with the doctrine of anatta (if everything is empty, what is there to be reborn?) and anicca (if nothing is permanent, how can there be anything that survives death?). Moreover, reflection about the future self (hence what happens after death) is deemed as one of the unwise reflections.
This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’
So as you see, scratch beneath the surface and belief in reincarnation (although very common due to familiarity with Hinduism) is not encouraged. But see the idea of rebirth more as a psychological framework (i.e. hell is being possessed by anger, etc.) and much will start to make sense.
Yes except the wording in the Pali Canon is “upon dissolution of the body” which is pretty clear that rebirth is not purely psychological or within the human lifetime. It is after death. Also doesn’t explain the Buddha discussing his previous lives.
Sorry but I have heard this secular apologetics before. The contradiction between Anatta and Rebirth can not be resolved.
Sure, literalism. Many authoritative interpreters (see Buddhagosa) take reincarnation literally.
But other equally authoritative interpreters take a more nuanced position, which I think is more useful.
I think you’re missing the point of what Buddhism is or does if you get hung up on what may or may not have been the historical Buddha’s words, pronounced 2500 years ago and not written down until after about 500 years. But rejecting anatta (which, contrary to rebirth, is universal in Buddhism) because you want to hold to the idea of rebirth seems as unwise as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As to me, I choose to be a pragmatist rather than a literalist. I see the Dharma as a tool for the here and now, and it is indifferent to me whether we’re going to live again or not, in addition to not making sense.
Call me secular, I don’t care. In the end it’s one’s own choice and path.
Right you can do this. Every religion pretty much does. Our founder said a bunch of stuff. We only take the parts that we want.
I am not faulting people for doing this, my point is you can’t claim that what is discarded isn’t part of what was there. Yes, you can be a secular Buddhist but that won’t change at all that the practice of Buddhism for 25 centuries included and still includes literal gods. And I question if you can even call it Buddhism if it doesn’t have rebirth.
Shrug. It’s a bit weird to me. Like latecomers gatekeeping. They been doing their thing for 25 centuries and a bunch of westerners show up and tell them what Buddhism is really really about. With the justification that since the record keeping was bad it can be whatever we say it is. Meanwhile the culture tradition being borrowed from is clear and in disagreement with what Secular Buddhist claims it says.
Mara is not a metaphor to anyone before the year 1950 or so. Mara was a literal god. Same can be said about all their core concepts.
Dude, Dōgen was 12th century Zen master, one of the most revered in Japan. Buddhadasa was a Thai Bhikku, again, one of the most revered in Thailand. And they weren’t sure as you are about rebirth being part of Buddhism. But you want to explain to them what Buddhism is all about.
I mean, you do you, but your westerners gatekeeping schtick is a little off.
Your approach is too rationalistic. Apparent contradictions are the bread and butter of Buddhism.
Edit, more context:
The historical Buddha spoke to a crowd of people who took rebirth as a matter of fact because steeped in Hinduism and in folk belief.
But in fact if you read between the lines, rebirth doesn’t agree with the doctrine of anatta (if everything is empty, what is there to be reborn?) and anicca (if nothing is permanent, how can there be anything that survives death?). Moreover, reflection about the future self (hence what happens after death) is deemed as one of the unwise reflections.
So as you see, scratch beneath the surface and belief in reincarnation (although very common due to familiarity with Hinduism) is not encouraged. But see the idea of rebirth more as a psychological framework (i.e. hell is being possessed by anger, etc.) and much will start to make sense.
Yes except the wording in the Pali Canon is “upon dissolution of the body” which is pretty clear that rebirth is not purely psychological or within the human lifetime. It is after death. Also doesn’t explain the Buddha discussing his previous lives.
Sorry but I have heard this secular apologetics before. The contradiction between Anatta and Rebirth can not be resolved.
Sure, literalism. Many authoritative interpreters (see Buddhagosa) take reincarnation literally.
But other equally authoritative interpreters take a more nuanced position, which I think is more useful.
I think you’re missing the point of what Buddhism is or does if you get hung up on what may or may not have been the historical Buddha’s words, pronounced 2500 years ago and not written down until after about 500 years. But rejecting anatta (which, contrary to rebirth, is universal in Buddhism) because you want to hold to the idea of rebirth seems as unwise as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As to me, I choose to be a pragmatist rather than a literalist. I see the Dharma as a tool for the here and now, and it is indifferent to me whether we’re going to live again or not, in addition to not making sense.
Call me secular, I don’t care. In the end it’s one’s own choice and path.
Good luck.
Right you can do this. Every religion pretty much does. Our founder said a bunch of stuff. We only take the parts that we want.
I am not faulting people for doing this, my point is you can’t claim that what is discarded isn’t part of what was there. Yes, you can be a secular Buddhist but that won’t change at all that the practice of Buddhism for 25 centuries included and still includes literal gods. And I question if you can even call it Buddhism if it doesn’t have rebirth.
Shrug. It’s a bit weird to me. Like latecomers gatekeeping. They been doing their thing for 25 centuries and a bunch of westerners show up and tell them what Buddhism is really really about. With the justification that since the record keeping was bad it can be whatever we say it is. Meanwhile the culture tradition being borrowed from is clear and in disagreement with what Secular Buddhist claims it says.
Mara is not a metaphor to anyone before the year 1950 or so. Mara was a literal god. Same can be said about all their core concepts.
Dude, Dōgen was 12th century Zen master, one of the most revered in Japan. Buddhadasa was a Thai Bhikku, again, one of the most revered in Thailand. And they weren’t sure as you are about rebirth being part of Buddhism. But you want to explain to them what Buddhism is all about.
I mean, you do you, but your westerners gatekeeping schtick is a little off.
Just expert shopping
Just the founder of the Soto school of Zen