the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby cooran » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:06 pm

Hello all,

I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi and the respected teachers of all traditions on this.
’’………….Newcomers to Buddhism are usually impressed by the clarity, directness, and earthy practicality of the Dhamma as embodied in such basic teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the threefold training. These teachings, as clear as day-light, are accessible to any serious seeker looking for a way beyond suffering. When, however, these seekers encounter the doctrine of rebirth, they often balk, convinced it just doesn't make sense. At this point, they suspect that the teaching has swerved off course, tumbling from the grand highway of reason into wistfulness and speculation. Even modernist interpreters of Buddhism seem to have trouble taking the rebirth teaching seriously. Some dismiss it as just a piece of cultural baggage, "ancient Indian metaphysics," that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age. Others interpret it as a metaphor for the change of mental states, with the realms of rebirth seen as symbols for psychological archetypes. A few critics even question the authenticity of the texts on rebirth, arguing that they must be interpolations.
A quick glance at the Pali suttas would show that none of these claims has much substance. The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. ’’
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_46.html

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:08 pm

Ben wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of

Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben



All done in the last twenty posts Ben, take a look back
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:10 pm

A quick glance at the Pali suttas


Im sorry but a quick glance at the Pali Suttas wont win the argument. A quick glance would have us believing that the Buddha could lick his whole body :jumping:

The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. ’’


The teaching of "I" being born when there is ignorant contact is yes. Tainted Right view, i.e. view that leads to grasping and dukkha and is not the Buddhas own teaching of the four noble truths, does come up now and again. However this is because of the reason I posted above


metta
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ben » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:17 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Ben wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote:However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of

Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben



All done in the last twenty posts Ben, take a look back


What I see is selective quoting. Is there anything that unequivocally supports your point? And if you are going to quote the Buddha, it needs to be seen that he says basically what you are saying and not a quote taken out of its particular context. Can you please provide the smoking gun that definitively affirms your point?
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16062
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:38 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
clw_uk wrote:]




The Buddha-way means having no views,
And this statement is a view.
Keep in mind, Craig, the "Buddha-way" is not a view for the Buddha, but for those unawakened, it is a view. The Buddha taught rebirth as part of his understanding of how the world works.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19370
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:45 pm

clw_uk wrote:. However it [rebirth] was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
That is a claim you continually make, but as of yet, for all the quoting of suttas, you have yet to demonstrate. There is no inherent need for the idea of rebirth to be bound to the notion of "I-making," though like anything, it can be. It is, however, not a necessity, and as we have seen, rebirth is associated with the Four Noble Truths and it is associated directly with paticcasamuppada.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19370
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby isle21self » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:35 pm

There are 4 clingings.

kama upadana, ditti upadana(clinging to views), silabbatha upadana and attavada upadana. These 4 keep us in sansara. If any body can remove upadana to all ditti (views), what would happen to the person at death if he has not removed the other 3.

Thanks in advance
isle21self
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:23 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Alex123 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:50 pm

clw_uk wrote:5heaps

completely ridiculous
.

Not ridiculous. The idea of "rebirth-linking consciousness" to which your refering to did come later. Like I said, I may be wrong on exactly who, but If my memory serves me well I think it was Vasubandhu


"paṭisandhi" is mentioned in such books of Sutta-Pitaka, in KN (culaniddesa, patisambhidamagga, nettipakkarana, milindapanha, petakopadesa).

In MN106 there is the teaching evolving consciousness that can be reborn in certain state depending (in this sutta) on meditative achievement.

With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness (saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ) of his will go to the imperturbable. Kāyassa bhedā parammaraṇā ṭhānametaṃ vijjati: yaṃ taṃ saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ assa āneñjupagaṃ

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html



Please explain that sentence. Especially the part about
1) With the break-up of the body, after death,
2) saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ relinking to a new existence.

It is interesting that the sutta says that when doing such and such a practice to reach such and such a meditative state there are 3 outcomes:
a) One resolves (understands it?) with wisdom
b) one achieves that meditative state (4th Jhana or higher, which was the topic of that sutta)
c) After death, one is reborn there.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2844
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:18 pm

Ben

clw_uk wrote:
However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of

Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben


Sure

However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death
.

This is self evident from the fact that he taught in this way to some. It it didn't have some merits then he wouldn't make use of it. It should be noted however that he also made use of the golden rule, without any such mention of devas and hell realms. He also made use of the annhiliationist view point (a view that he actually seen as having quite a few merits in) as well.


He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people


This is shown here


MN 68

"So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour, and renown, or with the thought " let people know me to be thus", that when a disciple has died, the Tathagata declares his reappearance thus "so-and-so has reappeared in such-and-such a place" Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state, and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time"



lofty
Adjective
[loftier, loftiest]
1. of majestic or imposing height
2. morally admirable: lofty ideals
3. unpleasantly superior: a lofty contempt


However it was/is a tainted view.



There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.


MN 117



That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha.



MN 117 states that Rebirth as a deva view is

"the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."


Now I think we both know that grasping leads to dukkha. However grasping also leads to birth of "I"


"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922




It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of


The Buddhas own teachings, the four noble truths, dont lead to grasping but non-clinging. Right view with taints leads to grasping and dukkha. It is not part of the Four Noble Truths but something that he made use of. The fact that he made use of it and the reason why is laid out in the above quote from MN 68


metta
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:24 pm

"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922


On a side note Ben, this quite clearly shows that Jati in the scheme of D.O. refers to birth of "I" and NOT the birth of the aggregates


This falls in line with the definition of the first noble truth

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.



Notice it states that

In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

In other words

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha,

all come to be when there is clinging to the aggregates.

There is clinging to the aggregates all the time, so there is constant birth (and dukkha)

So when there is clinging, there is birth of "I am". This then is bound with ageing-death and stress

Cling to the body and there is "I am" the body. The body ages and falters and there is dukkha


metta
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Alex123 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:31 pm

Hello CLW,


Just because word jati was used once (or few times) for arising of impersonal elements, it doesn't change the fact that there is another meaning of jati and it was described as rebirth.


Please explain MN129 and MN130.

Also please explain "With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to..." .


As for "clinging aggregates". Even an arahant has clinging aggregates, the aggregates that arose due to previous (prior to arahantship) clinging.

So if it is only clinging aggregates that are dukkha, then even an Arahant would experience that dukkha.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2844
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Ben » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 am

Hi Craig

Thanks for taking the time to provide those responses. Again, I am sorry to say, I believe it is just selective quoting.
You also mention that rebirth was a doctrine "that the Buddha made use of". I think underlying that comment is an assumption that rebirth, as the Buddha taught it (or something very similar to it) was so dominant as to be widely accepted by his contemporaries that teaching the Dhamma unalloyed from the contemporary view of rebirth would have been too radical for the vast majority of his putthujana followers, is that correct?
kind regards

Ben
"One cannot step twice into the same river, nor can one grasp any mortal substance in a stable condition, but it scatters and again gathers; it forms and dissolves, and approaches and departs."

- Hereclitus


Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR
Buddhist Life Stories of Australia

e: ben.dhammawheel@gmail.com
User avatar
Ben
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16062
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: Land of the sleeping gods

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:00 am

clw_uk wrote:However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
Make use of. Insight into rebirth was a central part of the Buddha's awakening experience, and as much as you try to dismiss rebirth as some sort of "tainted" view thingie, you have made no comvincing argument for that position. Any view can be "tainted." The view about views that you anti-rebirthers are clinging to to dismiss what the Buddha clearly taught makes that point.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19370
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:18 am

clw_uk wrote:
"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922
If you could actually read Pali, inderstand its grammar and idiomatic word usage, you would see that there is nothing unusual in the fact a word such as jati can be used in any number of contexts. To assume that it is otherwise is likely to result in a self guided toddle down the garden path.


On a side note Ben, this quite clearly shows that Jati in the scheme of D.O. refers to birth of "I" and NOT the birth of the aggregates


This falls in line with the definition of the first noble truth

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.



Notice it states that

In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

In other words

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha,

all come to be when there is clinging to the aggregates.

There is clinging to the aggregates all the time, so there is constant birth (and dukkha)

So when there is clinging, there is birth of "I am". This then is bound with ageing-death and stress

Cling to the body and there is "I am" the body. The body ages and falters and there is dukkha


metta
And there is not one thing in what you said here that even remotely approaches a convincing argument against this text also being reasonably read in a literal manner. The extreme view here, the view that is indicative of clinging, is the one that insist that there only one correct way to read this text.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19370
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Suttas relevant to Rebirth?

Postby hamsa » Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:50 am

Individual wrote:DN 28

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Sampasadaniya_Sutta

Moreover, lord, this too is unsurpassable : the way namely in which the Exalted One teaches the Norm concerning descensions at rebirth : — That there are four modes in descension, thus : — one descends into the mother's womb unknowing, 3 abides there unknowing, departs thence unknowing. This is the first mode. Next, one descends into the mother's womb knowingly, but persists there and departs thence unknowing. This is the second mode. Again, one descends and persists knowing, but departs unknowing. This is the third mode. Again, one descends into the mother's womb, knowing, persists there knowing and departs thence knowing. This is the fourth mode of descension. Unsurpassable, lord, is this concerning descensions at rebirth.


Here the terms used are alternatively gabbha and its synonym, kucchi, both explicitly meaning ‘womb’ (gabbha-avakkanti = the coming down into the womb – here translated just as ‘mode’, to avoid repetitions; matū-kucchi = mother’s womb):

Aparam para bhante etad ānuttariyaṃ, yathā Bhagavā dhammaṃ deseti gabbhāvakkantīsu. Catasso imā bhante gabbhāvakkantiyo. Idha bhante ekacco asampajāno c’eva mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, asampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ paṭhamā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, asampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ dutiyā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, sampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ tatiyā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, sampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, sampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ catutthā gabbhāvakkhanti. Etad ānuttariyaṃ bhante gabbhāvakkhantīsu.”
(D 28, PTS iii.103)
hamsa
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Sasana » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:53 am

I'll throw in my 2 cents!

I fall into the category of not really proclaiming to know either way and focusing on the here and now as it's knowable.

This is not to discount the Buddha's teachings, but I don't think practice changes with or without it as long as we stay on the path as much as possible thats what matters.

I suppose thats how I see the middle way, with extreme's in view comes clinging and attachment :D

:buddha1:

With Metta,

Adam
"If the problem can be solved there's no use worrying about it, if it cant worrying will do no good." - 7 years in Tibet

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - The Buddha
User avatar
Sasana
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:24 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:31 pm

Tilt


If you could actually read Pali, inderstand its grammar and idiomatic word usage, you would see that there is nothing unusual in the fact a word such as jati can be used in any number of contexts. To assume that it is otherwise is likely to result in a self guided toddle down the garden path.


I know it can, just like birth in english can mean different things. "birth" of a nation for example


However it is clear that the Buddha, in terms of D.O., meant birth to mean birth of "I" and not birth of the aggregates


kind regards
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:51 pm

Alex



Just because word jati was used once (or few times) for arising of impersonal elements, it doesn't change the fact that there is another meaning of jati and it was described as rebirth.


Jati in D.O. means birth of "I" and not birth of the aggregates

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born."


Bodhi translation page 922




Please explain MN129 and MN130.


Also please explain "With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to..." .



MN 129


‘Bhikkhus, these three are the marks, characteristics and attainments of the fool. What are the three? The fool has foolish thoughts, foolish words and foolish actions.If the fool was not with foolish thoughts, words and actions, how are the wise to know this good person is a fool, an unworthy one. Since the fool thinks, speaks and acts foolishly, the wise know he is a fool. The fool experiences unpleasantness and displeasure here and now in three ways. Bhikkhus, if the fool is with a crowd, in the street corner or a junction, and if the people there were talking some current topic, and if he destroyed living things, took the not given, misbehaved sexually, told lies and took intoxicating drinks, it occurs to him. These things the people are talking are evident in me too. This is the first instance that the fool experiences unpleasantness and displeasure.

Again, bhikkhus, the fool sees an offender taken hold by the king and given various kinds of torture caned and wipped, flogged with the jungle rope, flogged with the soiled stick, hands severed, legs severed, or both hands and legs severed, ears and nose severed, put in the boiling gruel pot, shell tonsured, put in Raahu’s mouth, garlanded with the blazing garland, hands scorched, the bark dress given, put with snakes, putting hooks in theflesh, cutting pieces of flesh from the body, driving a spike from ear to ear, beating to make the body like straw, immersing in the boiling oil, giving to the dogs to be eaten, raising on a spike alive until death, and cutting the neck with the sword. Bhikkhus, then it occurs to the fool, for the reason of doing evil this robber, evil doer is punished. If the king gets hold of me, I too will be subjectedto these same punishments. This is the second instance that the fool experiences unpleasantness and displeasure.

Again, bhikkhus, when the fool is relaxed on a chair, on the bed or on a cover on the floor, he thinks of his misbehaviours by body, speech and mind. At such times they press on him heavily. Like the shadow of a huge mountain peak, would fall on the earth heavily in the evening..In the same mannerwhen the fool is relaxed on a chair, on the bed or on a cover on the floor, he thinks of his misbehaviours by body, speech and mind. At such times they press on him heavily. Bhikkhus, then it occurs to the fool. I did not do good and merit. Didn’t dispel the fear of the frightened, did evil bloody faults and later I will reap their results. He grieves, laments, beats his breast and comes to bewilderment of mind. Bhikkhus, this is the third instance that the fool experiences unpleasantness and displeasure.

Bhikkhus, the fool misbehaving by body, speech and mind, at the break up of the body after death, goes to decrease, is born in hell. Saying it rightly that hell is completely unwelcome and disagreeable. It is not easy to give a comparison for that unpleasantness.


http://www.vipassana.info/129-balapandita-e.htm

The Buddha is explaning the draw backs of unwholesome behaviour and then contrasts this with a widely held belief of the time, that of hell. So what?

We already know why the Buddha teaches such things to some people

Here, Anuruddha, a bhikkhu hears, the venerable bhikkhu of this name has passed away, and the Blessed One has declared that he with the destruction of the five lower bonds has arisen spontaneously, and would not proceed. Now this venerable bhikkhu happens to be a person seen by that bhikkhu or not seen. He hears, these were the virtues of the venerable bhikkhu, these were his thoughts, such was his wisdom, he developed these abidings, and was released. So this bhikkhu recollects, that faith, those virtues, his learnedness, benevolence and wisdom and directs his mind to it. Anuruddha, in this manner too there is a pleasant abiding to a bhikkhu. Anuruddha, a bhikkhu hears, the venerable bhikkhu of this name has passed away, and the Blessed One has declared that he with the destruction of the three lower bonds and lessening greed, hate and delusion, has become a once returner. Coming here once more will make an end of unpleasantness. Now this venerable one happens to be a person seen by that bhikkhu, or not seen. He hears, these were the virtues and thoughts of the venerable bhikkhu, such was his wisdom, he developed these abidings, and was released. So he recollects that faith, those virtues, his learnedness, benevolence and wisdom and directs his mind to it. Anuruddha, in this manner too there is a pleasant abiding to a bhikkhu. Anuruddha, a bhikkhu hears, the venerable one of this name, has passed away, and the Blessed One has declared that, with the destruction of the three lower bonds he is an enterer into the stream of the Teaching. That he would not fall, intent on extinction.Now this venerable bhikkhu happens to be a person seen by that bhikkhu, or not seen. He hears, these were the virtues and thoughts of the venerable bhikkhu, such was his wisdom, he developed these abidings, and was released. So this bhikkhu recollects that faith, those virtues, his learnedness, benevolence and wisdom and directs his mind to it. Anuruddha, in this manner too there is a pleasant abiding to a bhikkhu


http://www.vipassana.info/068-nalakapana-e1.htm


The other sutta is quite clearly a teaching on various mental/meditative states








As for "clinging aggregates". Even an arahant has clinging aggregates, the aggregates that arose due to previous (prior to arahantship) clinging.

So if it is only clinging aggregates that are dukkha, then even an Arahant would experience that dukkha.


The aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Thu Nov 25, 2010 7:55 pm

Ben wrote:Hi Craig

Thanks for taking the time to provide those responses. Again, I am sorry to say, I believe it is just selective quoting.
You also mention that rebirth was a doctrine "that the Buddha made use of". I think underlying that comment is an assumption that rebirth, as the Buddha taught it (or something very similar to it) was so dominant as to be widely accepted by his contemporaries that teaching the Dhamma unalloyed from the contemporary view of rebirth would have been too radical for the vast majority of his putthujana followers, is that correct?
kind regards

Ben



Hardly selective. Anyway the view of rebirth after death in some form or another was around at the time (jain, ajivaka and maybe some Vedantic form). The Buddha realized that it was tainted, that is to say caught up in grasping and is dukkha. However he seen the benefits of it in that it leads to developing wholesome states


However he also made use of other views as well (assuming the crowd was suitable) as evidence of his use of the annihilationist view


"There the blessed one uttered this inspired utterance: "It might not be, and it might not be for me; it will not be, [and] it will not be for me: resolving thus, a bhikkhu can cut off the lower fetters"

When this was said a certain bhikhhu said to the blessed one: "But how venerable sir, can a bhikkhu resolving this .... cut off the lower fetters?"

Here bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling .... regards form as self....,... or self as in consciousness. He does not understand as it really is impermanent form as "impermanent form" ... impermanent feeling, ... impermanent perception, .... impermanent volition, ... impermanent consciousness.

He does not understand as it really is painful form as "painful form", ... painful feeling, ... painful perception, .... painful formation, ... painful consciousness.

He does not understand ... selfless form as "selfless form", selfless feeling, selfless perception, selfless formation, selfless consciousness

He does not understand .... conditioned form as "conditioned form", conditioned feeling, conditioned perception, conditioned formation, conditioned consciousness.

"He does not understand as it really is, "Form will be exterminated", ... feeling will be exterminated, .... perception will be exterminated, ...., formation will be exterminated, ... consciousness will be exterminated.


"The instructed noble disciple, bhikkhu,... does not regard form as self, .... or self as in consciousness.

"He understands as it really is, "impermanent form, ... consciousness."

He understands as it really is. " painful form, ... painful consciousness."

He understands as it really is. " selfless form as "selfless form", ... Selfless consciousness"

"He understands as it really is, "conditioned form, ... conditioned consciousness"


He understands as it really is, " form will be exterminated, feeling will be exterminated, perception will be exterminated, formations will be exterminated, consciousness will be exterminated.

"With the extermination of form, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, that bhikkhu, resolving thus "It might not be, and it might not be for me, it will not be, it will not be for me". can cut off the lower fetters


...but how should one know, how should one see, for immediate destruction of the taints to occur?


Here, bhikkhu, the uninstructed worldling becomes frightened over and unfightening matter. For this is frightening to the uninstructed worldling: "It might not be, and it might not be for me, it will not be, it will not be for me". But the instructed noble disciple does not become frightened ... "It might not be, and it might not be for me, it will not be, it will not be for me"


"Consciousness ... while standing, might stand engaged with form, ... feeling, .... perception, engaged with formations, with a sprinkling of delight, it might come to growth, increase and expansion.

"Bhikkhu, thought someone might say: "Apart from form, feeling, perception, formations, I will make known the coming and going of consciousness, its passing away and birth, its growth, increase, and expansion - that is impossible.

"Bhikkhu, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for feeling element, perception element, formations element, for the consciousness element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the establishing of consciousness.

"When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated it is steady; by being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated. Being unagitated, he personally attain nibbana. He understands ... no more state of being."



SN page 893/4 Bodhi translation
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby clw_uk » Thu Nov 25, 2010 8:24 pm

"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides . He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."



http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html
“ Your mind is likewise blocked. But the right road awaits you still. Cast out your doubts, your fears and your desires, let go of grief and of hope as well, for where these rule , then the mind is their subject." Boetius
User avatar
clw_uk
 
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], robertk, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests