[Buddha-l] rebirth

[Stefan Detrez]

2006/1/31, F.K. Lehman (F.K.L. Chit Hlaing) <f-lehman at uiuc.edu>:
>
>
>      By the way, the same general form of argument applies, I think, to
> the [lace of 'Gods/gods' (*deva, devata*). They are imagined, in quite a
> secular sense, to exist, as species of beings -- in their case of great
> power and long life. But, and this is the significant, doctrinal turn for
> Buddhism, they are stripped conceptually of any transcendental or moral
> value, so that, once again, in an important way, they are not essential to
> the teaching.
>

Maybe WE understand the teaching to be separate from  a world of devas,
because it would suit our secularist predispositions, but the Buddha could
have intended otherwise.
In a mutlitude of suttas we meet the Buddha in dialogues with 'transcendent
beings', virtually claiming victory over them in every debate. The
incorporation of these beings into the suttas suggests that they did play an
important role as way of profiling the Buddha against a background of
'ordinary human beings' and transcendent beings. It would help a lot to
establish whether the suttas where these beings appear are later additions,
thus introducing an exegetical move towards folk belief (which was
elaborated in, for example, the Parinibbanasutta, where thupas became
important symbols of worship; and especially in Indian Mahayana), OR were
actually part of the 'lingua vulgaris' from the beginning/part of the
cultural sphere.
The Buddha's teaching can be 'reduced' to a non-theistic philosophy, but it
would be a mistake to assume the Buddha saw his teachings separate from the
Brahmanist and theistic background. So, Mara, the devas, the gandabbas,
Brahma, etc are in effect part of (the background of) his teaching, albeit
not in an emphatic way.

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060201/d0f89d8a/attachment.htm