[Buddha-l] rebirth

[Mike Austin]

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.'  Thus, 
the concept of 'rebirth' would be no less  than the concept of 'dukkha', 
for example. Of course, one could be more hidden that another - i.e. one 
may require more closer investigation. This is what I mean by supporting 
reflection on rebirth whilst not believing it. Both rejection and belief 
can be equally effective in closing down the enquiring mind.


>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.


>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'.  In this way, I suggest that all he taught (i.e. all 
that we can find that was written down) is of the same status. If one is 
to make distinctions between the status of different teachings,  I think 
that is the beginning of a distillation of 'truth' from them. It is this 
that I was attempting to highlight, which is quite contrary to attaching 
any 'truth' directly to the concepts used in his teachings.  When I used 
the word 'truth', it was not a categorisation from my side. It was quite 
the opposite.

-- 
Metta
Mike Austin