In Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, there is a debate with the Charvakas (ancient materialists) about the existence or non-existence of past and future lives. In the commentary, Rinpoche compares and contrasts the Charvakas tenets with modern day scientists who would deny the conventional existence of past or future lives. Rinpoche accuses modern scientists with the phrase "divorcing the view and the action" and advises that this is a saying among masters to describe something considered very dangerous: As Rinpoche implies that this phrase is commonly used by masters to describe something very dangerous I am wondering if there are other examples of masters using this phrase and why it is considered so dangerous. Can anyone find Sutra/Treatise/Commentary/Anecdote of other masters using this phrase? I'm also wondering if it is appropriate to describe modern Secular Buddhists who also deny the conventional existence of past or future lives as holding the same view as modern scientists and subject to this same phrase? If so, why is this so dangerous and what is meant by "divorcing the view and the action?" What is the translation of this phrase in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan to the extent that there are examples of masters using this phrase in a similar way in any of these languages?

'Reification' is making something real, bringing something into being or making something concrete. The Pali suttas say about the relationship between consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment: > *Discernment (wisdom; panna) & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the > other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one > discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns. MN > 43* Is the Enlightenment or Wisdom of a Buddha a Reification?

What is 'secular Buddhism', and what does it say about Nirvana?

I would like to know if the secular buddhism could be considered a religion. I have started to study about it a while ago and I think it's make much sense to me, could I consider me a buddhist, even though I don't believe in some of traditional buddhism beliefs?

In my reading of the suttas in the Pali canon, I've only found one story that's an example of someone experiencing the results of deeds committed in the life they are currently living, in that same lifetime. The example I've found is in MN 86 , and in one of the poems of elder monks: Aṅgulimāla's story, in which after he's become an arahant he is still treated roughly by people who know his past murderous actions. Are there any other examples like that? The Buddha talks many times in generalities about how if you behave in such-and-such a way, you'll end up with corresponding results in the future, but I'm wondering about specific all-this-life examples.

I have yet to read the entire Pali canon, but I've read a lot of it. It is a source I trust is fairly accurate. I'm still looking for an anecdote from the Buddha's life where he tells a non-believer to start believing in rebirth. Confining answers to the suttas, I'd appreciate pointers to any specific statements he made.

I was looking for some good Buddha Quote and I find this very interesting. ' **Be light of yourself**. But I found two versions of this in google as 1. Appo Deepo Bhava 2. Atta dīpo bhava Which one is the correct wording? I would like to get the proper Pali wordings for the phrase " **Be light to yourself**". thank you

I have a limited understanding of Buddhism, but let me first explain my perspective. More traditionally, Buddhism is concerned with achieving enlightenment and ending the rebirth process. From a more modern perspective, Buddhism is primarily concerned with ending suffering. I realize that it is much more nuanced than this, but I am speaking in gross generalities. This question really only applies to the working, modern interpretation of Buddhism. If the goal is to end suffering, why don't Buddhists simply kill themselves? I suppose this pertains to how they see themselves after death. If they believe in some shade of "nothingness" after death, I would think all Buddhists would commit suicide. I apologize for this question being so broad. I also understand that different sects of Buddhism will probably have different answers. I am mostly curious as to what modern, practicing Buddhists believe--particularly those that reconcile Buddhism with modern science. This question is really a segue for me to understand the existential beliefs of Buddhism. I can read about the teachings of Buddhism, but I do not understand the "why" behind it all. If I can understand why Buddhists do not commit suicide, I hope to gain a greater understanding into how they view the meaning of life.

Does Buddhism, other than Amidism, describe or explain entities like Amida, or any other "other power," or intra-psychic, in yer mind, other. I did not mean to consider whether Buddhism is theistic or not.

I take it that an important claim of secular Buddhism is that the Buddha never actually taught literal rebirth. What happens during parinibbāna according to secular Buddhism? How is it different from any other death? If there is no difference, how do secular Buddhists explain the very existence of this term? Can any death be called parinibbāna?

When I was young I was told by a booklet that if I found a better religion, I can follow that one. I liked the idea of God centered, open-sourced religion back then so it was what kept me loyal and the reason I found out that there was more to know beyond it. Where else can a seeker go but yonder past a certain point?

We come to understand the groundwork of Buddhism, along with traditional beliefs/traditions based on what the mind may declare, what tradition may teach, what the sutra may declare. Beyond the Tripitaka, is not much of what we rely on for Buddhism outside the scope of true enlightenment? In short, in today's world doesn't secular Buddhism better fit reality?

Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me. Some examples I've noticed- The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc. But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones. These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time. I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it. Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't. Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts. I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it. In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic.

I wonder what critique other self-identified Secular Buddhists on this forum would have of this new interview with self-proclaimed Secular Buddhist author Robert Wright. 1. What are the specific doctrines that are discarded as "supernatural?" Now, for some questions for non self-identified Secular Buddhists: 2. Any sutra references or teachings for the "cognitive bias that fascinates me" part where he talks about the "fundamental attribution error?" 3. Towards the end of the interview the interlocutors discuss what Buddhism has to say about Tribalism/Racism. Is Buddhism a prescription for overcoming Tribalism/Racism as they say? Cheers!

I'm just starting the study of Buddhism and I'm really interested in the whole philosophy of Buddhism. Can someone please suggest some books for beginners ? Thank you.

I recently saw a remark that implied that Stephen Batchelor no longer meditates or at least not very regularly. If true, this seems important. Batchelor is prominent, even central, in the contemporary, so-called Secular Buddhism movement. He has a long history of different phases of belief and practice, from Tibetan, to Zen, to a form of agnostic/secular "Buddhism" that he has almost come to define on his own. Can anyone supply a pointer to that assertion or related material? I did not capture it at the time.

How would Secular Buddhists and other Buddhists who reject rebirth, interpret the following suttas, which describe: 1. An ocean of tears? 2. Everyone being someone we have know in the past? --- From Assu Sutta (SN15.3) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable > beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, > though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are > transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is > greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this > long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in > the four great oceans?" > > "As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is > the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering > this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in > the four great oceans." > > "Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand > the Dhamma taught by me. > > "This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & > wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined > with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not > the water in the four great oceans. > > "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The > tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & > wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined > with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are > greater than the water in the four great oceans. > > "Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the > death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... > the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with > regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have > shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering > this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is > displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than > the water in the four great oceans. > > "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A > beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance > and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have > you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, > swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all > fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be > released." I think that rebirth scenarios are usually explained as different states of mind e.g. animalistic state of mind for animal rebirth -- but how could tears the size of an ocean and everyone being someone that we have known in the past, be explained in this way? This sutta seem to make sense only if rebirth was actually true. --- Similarly from Mata Sutta (SN15.14-19) : > At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable > beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, > though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are > transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at > one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been > your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your > daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find. > > "Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A > beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance > and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have > you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, > swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all > fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be > released." How would you explain everyone being someone that we have known in the past?

1. If there's no *rebirth*, what happens after death of a *non-arahant*? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended? 2. Rebirth is tightly connected with *kamma*. a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life? b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those *kammas* which haven't produced result in the current life? 3. Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of *kamma* amassed in previous existences. If there's no *rebirth*, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its *kamma* to it. How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through *kamma*? 4. From experience (one salient example is fate of many Nazi war criminals) it's known that retribution for deeds both evil and good often doesn't occur in the current life (yet the law of *kamma* somehow needs to operate), it's also unlikely that *aranantship* will be achieved in the current existence. Without afterlife and no *arahantship* in sight, what then should be incentive to do good and deterrent against doing evil? 5. If a person doesn't attain *nibbana* in the current life, isn't there any hope for them? Thank you for your time

If you knew about a Dhamma practitioner who strongly believes in no reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth what would be your advice to him/her?

Some Secular Buddhists and some members of Buddhism.SE do not accept that "Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition" (according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu in this essay ). They usually interpret this as something else, e.g. rebirth in the animal realm, as momentary animalistic states of mind etc. In my view, the DN2 excerpt below, provides an irrefutable statement by the Buddha on the fact of rebirth. A very similar statement can be found in MN4 , MN36 , MN19 , MN119 , SN12.70 , SN51.20 , AN9.35 , AN5.28 , AN3.100(xi-xv) , DN1 , DN12 and KN (Iti 3.50 ). This statement can be found in all the five nikayas. MN36 is said to be one of the earliest suttas by Thanissaro Bhikkhu . Questions: 1. How could this be interpreted in any other way? 2. Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the accuracy of the translation of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas? 2. Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the authenticity of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas? > "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, > free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to > imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the > recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his > manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, > five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, > one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of > cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, > [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had > such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure > and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I > re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, > had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of > pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that > state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in > their modes and details. > > Just as if a man were to go from his home > village to another village, and then from that village to yet another > village, and then from that village back to his home village. The > thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that > village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, > talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that > village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a > way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in > such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — > with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, > free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to > imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of > the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past > lives... in their modes and details.