the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Thank you.

No problem, sorry if I wasnt very clear the first time





metta friend

[Ceisiwr]

So how do you account for the Buddha's recollection of his prior lives, including his meetings with the prior Buddha Dipankara. These were all hallucinations?

And what's an Aeon? Just a metaphorical time period like waiting in line at the DMV?

-M

recollected past abodes. As in recollected the countless times he mistakenly, through ignorace, grasped at the aggregates as self or me or I am. Think about it, if birth means birth of I which comes about through craving then there must be an unimaginable number of births since there are so many instances of craving and clinging to things



Prior Buddhas, not saying they are not in the nikayas but how many suttas are they in and which nikaya?


this is my understanding but you can also take the view that times and numbers got exaggerated, it does seem to be a common occurence in indian/far eastern religions/philosophical schools. Personally I go for my abover explanation



I quite like what the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand has to say about heaven and hell though, which related to you point

His Holiness’ two books on heaven and hell are truly analytical view on the subject from a Buddhist point of view. As we are so familiar, in religious sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself. On this very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies...*

slightly off topic, whats a DMV?

metta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Often in discussions like this, there is a tendency to cling and grasp to either the view that "the Buddha taught rebirth" or "the Buddha didn't teach rebirth", and this view, creates the framework by which one interprets the suttas. I do not think either of these views, or frames of reference, are particularly beneficial, because they involve superimposing one's own views over the words of the Buddha and forcing them to fit a certain mould that they were never intended to fit. Over the last few years I have seen people twist and contort teachings to fit their pre-disposed view and cling tenaciously to their view in the process. Unsurprisingly, dukkha is often the result.

Of relevance here, is the Niruttipathasutta of the Khandhasaṃyutta in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, which venerable Nanananda discussed in Nibbana Sermon #12, perhaps showing one of the fundamental flaws by which we can place undue signficance on the "rebirth debate".

"Monks, there are these three pathways of linguistic usage,
of synonyms and of designation, that are not mixed up,
have never been mixed up, that are not doubted and will not be
doubted, and are undespised by intelligent recluses and brahmins.
What are the three? Whatever form, monks, that is past,
ceased, transformed, `it was' is the reckoning for it, `it was' is
its appellation, `it was' is its designation, it is not reckoned as
`it is', it is not reckoned as `it will be'."

The burden of this discourse, as it proceeds in this way, is
the maxim that the three periods of time should never be mixed
up or confounded. For instance, with regard to that form that
is past, a verb in the past tense is used. One must not imagine
what is past to be existing as something present. Nor should
one imagine whatever belongs to the future as already existing
in the present.

Whatever has been, is past. Whatever is, is present. It is a
common mistake to conceive of something that is yet to come
as something already present, and to imagine whatever is past
also as present. This is the confusion the world is in. That is
why those recluses and brahmins, who are wise, do not mix
them up.

Metta,
Retro.

[tiltbillings]

recollected past abodes. As in recollected the countless times he mistakenly, through ignorace, grasped at the aggregates as self or me or I am. Think about it, if birth means birth of I which comes about through craving then there must be an unimaginable number of births since there are so many instances of craving and clinging to things

Doesn't really work, trying to read those texts that way. Tell you what, quote the whole former habitation/abodes text and you give a commentary on it in detail showing that your position makes sense and that it consistent with other related texts.

And while you are at it show us that the Buddha never, ever tied rebirth to the Four Noble Truths.

I quite like what the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand has to say about heaven and hell though, which related to you point

Does he say there is no literal rebirth? Does he say that the Buddha did not teach such?

[Laurens]

So, CLW, am I understanding you correctly, you deny cyclic existence?

Hell is a mental state of being, which is what Buddha is saying above and not some place after death

Please explain:

"Householders, it is by reason of unrighteous conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination in the lower world, in hell"

MN 41

If the Buddha was talking about a mental state of being, why on earth would he confuse things by saying that it occurs 'on the the breakup of the body, after death'?

There are many, many instances in the Pali canon in which the Buddha refers to rebirth occuring post-mortem:

"When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings. With the devine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their actions thus: 'These beings who behaved wrongly by body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in a lower world, in hell..."

MN 36

The Buddha clearly tells us that he could see for himself the fate of beings post-mortem, it doesn't make it clear that this is something that occurs during one's life.

I don't see why the Buddha would have taught of metaphorical hell realms that occur in this lifetime, without making it very clear that he was talking in such a manner, if indeed he was talking in such a manner in the above quotes, then he is clearly not being clear about that, although to me it seems more likely that he is stating in a clear and consise way that rebirth is a literal occurance and there are realms beyond this earth.

Whilst I do agree that certain conditions can make one's current life into a state that is comparable to a hell, but personally I don't think you can argue that the Buddha did not teach rebirth literally. Like I said before, whenever the Buddha was speaking metaphorically he would make it clear, when he speaks about hell realms and rebirth etc, he does not say that he is speaking metaphorically, so it is safe to assume that he is talking literally.

Best wishes
Laurens

Edited to sort out the quotes!

[meindzai]

its a metaphysical view that has no real bearing on removing dukkha

I'd say that right view has a lot of bearing on removing dukkha. See MN 60 Apannaka Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

in the here and now (remember buddha said its for the here and now)

Where and when did he say that? I've heared it uttered more times by new agers than I have ever read this in the canon. With out regards to the conequences of one's actions, there is no true dhamma. That involves not just present states but those which will arise in the future as well. ("From the arising of this comes the arising of that... from the cessation of this comes the cessation of that).

-M

[nowheat]

Rebirths are said to be favorable or unfavorable only insofar as they afford Dhamma practice. Rebirth results from self-clinging which is to be abandoned. Actions are said to be virtuous or non-virtuous only insofar as they are causes for Liberation or causes for Samsara, rebirth. Actions motivated by self-clinging must necessarily be causes for Samsara, rebirth, and are thus non-virtuous. And so on.

By thinking in this way, there is no inconsistency.

Thanks for you comments, enkidu.

So if we abandon self-clinging, we get no rebirth. An example of self-clinging is a belief in rebirth (because in holding to the karmic view, one is clinging to a view that causes the continual rise of the five aggregates, resulting in another round in samsara -- so Bhikkhu Bodhi says re: MN 117 -- see quote and link below). Let go of a belief in rebirth, you end rebirths. Yes, that's pretty consistent. It feels to me about as consistent as a snake biting its tail, but it is consistent.

We see this distinction, “Right view, I say, is two-fold. There is right view that is affected by taints...Partaking of merit..." now we have an expression a little obscure, the translation is “ripening in the acqusitions”: “upadhivepakkà”. What is meant here by “the acquisitions”... the relevant meaning here would be “the five aggregates that constitute personal existence”. And so meritorious right view, ripens in the acquisitions, in that it leads to acquiring a new set of five aggregates in the future, that is it's still, you could call it “right view which is still bound up with samsaric existence”.

-- Bhikkhu Bodhi
http://www.bodhimonastery.net/courses/M ... MN-117.mp3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlackBird]

For me personally, i dont see how rebirth in Buddhadhamma means some place after death.

One thing is that Buddhadhamma is for the removing of all speculative views

Want a shovel Craig?

[Ceisiwr]

Hey guys

clw_uk wrote:
recollected past abodes. As in recollected the countless times he mistakenly, through ignorace, grasped at the aggregates as self or me or I am. Think about it, if birth means birth of I which comes about through craving then there must be an unimaginable number of births since there are so many instances of craving and clinging to things

Tilt - Doesn't really work, trying to read those texts that way. Tell you what, quote the whole former habitation/abodes text and you give a commentary on it in detail showing that your position makes sense and that it consistent with other related texts.

And while you are at it show us that the Buddha never, ever tied rebirth to the Four Noble Truths.

For me it makes perfect sense really, as i said there must be a crazy number of births and worlds that come about in the course of 5 minutes let a lone a lifetime. In relation to writting a commentary on the sutta i think thats actually an interesting idea, if you really want me to do one (and i dnt get accused of being arrogant for writting my own) i will give it a go, although I am going some heavy studying atm so it wont be straight away


in relation to the four noble truths i will answer that after I have responded to the other posts put here over the night

Craig - I quite like what the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand has to say about heaven and hell though, which related to you point

Tilt - Does he say there is no literal rebirth? Does he say that the Buddha did not teach such?

I dont say there is no rebirth and I dont say he never taught such a notion to some people (or most people)

[Ceisiwr]

Craig - Hell is a mental state of being, which is what Buddha is saying above and not some place after death


Laurens Please explain:

"Householders, it is by reason of unrighteous conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination in the lower world, in hell"

MN 41

If the Buddha was talking about a mental state of being, why on earth would he confuse things by saying that it occurs 'on the the breakup of the body, after death'?

I have already explained the birth of "I" into mental states of hell etc a few posts back. In relation to this text though my explanation would be this

"Householders, it is by reason of unrighteous conduct, conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, that some beings here, on the breakup of the body, after death, are reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination in the lower world, in hell"

Householders, the vast majrity of which were steeped in superstitious and metaphysical sepculative thinking, usualy encouraged by the Brahmins or the Jains

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


Buddha is leading them away from views that lead to unwholesome mind states to views that encourage wholesome mind states thus helping increase well-being

BUT

It is still a view and so is still a source of clinging and so dukkha. If one is to succesfuly practice the NEFP and for nibbana to come about one must let go of all views

And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views.

Look at it this way

Pr1) Rebirth is a view

pr2) Views are a yoke

C) Rebirth View must be let go off


However this must be done only after sufficient practice otherwise one might fall into another (worse) speculative view, which i think has been demostrated here via the false dichotomies that pop up

"if there is no rebirth then there is only nihilism/materialism......"

Buddhas way is for the leaving behind of all views points and view stances, for cesstation, for peace, for nibbana

If the Buddha was talking about a mental state of being, why on earth would he confuse things by saying that it occurs 'on the the breakup of the body, after death'?

There are many, many instances in the Pali canon in which the Buddha refers to rebirth occuring post-mortem:

Answered above

"When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady and attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away and birth of beings. With the devine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being born, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their actions thus: 'These beings who behaved wrongly by body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been born in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in a lower world, in hell..."

MN 36

the pali word is actually jati which means birth not RE birth, i have changed the translation to reflect this


Now then he says that wrong actions leads to birth. When is there birth? When there is becoming, which comes to be via clinging. So whenever there is clinging there is Birth (no rebirth remember, the pali doesnt say that). Since there is constant clinging in our lives there must be constant birth (for you cannot have clinging not leading to birth) now, since "your" not poping out of a womb every two seconds it must mean birth of "I". This can actually be easily seen, cling to the body and what is there? There is "I" am the body, there is a birth there.

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

Being born in Hell means that "I" has been born into the mental state of Hell, which is what this sutta is teaching you

It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Contacts Sixfold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named "Contacts Six Fold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue ... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life."

Khana Sutta - SN




Now in relation to the last line

'These beings who behaved wrongly by body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been born in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in a lower world, in hell..."

Now then lets look at context as this is very important to get an understanding of a text. Who is Buddha talking to?

Then Saccaka, a Nigantha (Jain),

A Jain. Someone who is stepped in specualtive metaphysical thinking thus the teaching of a notion of after death you will be born as a fish would be good since he would readily adopt it and it would lead to wholesome states for himself, which would then help him walk the NEFP if he choose to do so

It was said, “Bhikkhus, the gain of a view too is twofold, consisting of that should be practiced and should not be practiced, that too quite different from each other.” On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? When practicing the gain of a certain view if demerit increases and merit decreases such gain of views should not be practiced. When practicing the gain of a certain view if demerit decreases and merit increases such a gain of view should be practiced.

Venerable sir, practicing the gain of what kind of views does demerit increase and merit decrease? Here a certain one has these views, there are no results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings. There are no results for good and bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings, There are no recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. Venerable sir, practicing the gain of this kind of views demerit increases and merit decreases.

Venerable sir, practicing the gain of what kind views does demerit decrease and merit increase? Here a certain one has these views, there are results for gifts, sacrifices and offerings. There are results for good and bad actions. There is this world, another world, mother, father, spontaneously arisen beings, There are recluses and brahmins who realizing this world and the other world declare it. Venerable sir, practicing the gain of this kind of views demerit decreases and merit increases

By gaining the view of after death i will be born in relation to my actions wholesome mind states increase and negative ones decrease thus leading to an overall improvment in well being which can then help one progress through the NEFP and put and end to Dukkha in the here and now.


Also interesting to note that it quite plainly states

practicing the gain

Gain is an acquisition, i.e. grasping. Grasping leads to dukkha hence why one must let go of views

And how is there the yoke of views? There is the case where a certain person does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views. When he does not discern, as it actually is present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawbacks, & the escape from views, then — with regard to views — he is obsessed with view-passion, view-delight, view-attraction, view-infatuation, view-thirst, view-fever, view-fascination, view-craving. This is the yoke of sensuality, the yoke of becoming, & the yoke of views.

Since i have answered you I would very much like to see your interpretation of this text

32. "Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation.

33. "What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation.

What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.

What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation.

What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation. These are the four kinds of generation.

metta

[Ceisiwr]

Abandoning Possessions & Views
"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

"Monks, you would do well to depend on a view-dependency (ditthi-nissaya), depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a view-dependency, depending on which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#dukkha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ceisiwr]

For me personally, i dont see how rebirth in Buddhadhamma means some place after death.

One thing is that Buddhadhamma is for the removing of all speculative views

Want a shovel Craig?

Not really as im not speculating and taken up views about death all im saying is that I dont see such views in the Buddhas own teachings

[Ceisiwr]

Hey

I'd say that right view has a lot of bearing on removing dukkha. See MN 60 Apannaka Sutta

Which is a sutta about which views lead to wholesome states and which lead to negative states. Only someone who says "there is no rebirth and at death there is nothing" would fall into serious wrong view



Noble Right View is the Four Noble Truths

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:1 Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the aggregates subject to clinging are stressful.

There is dukkha through clinging to aggregates (and so birth of "I" and dukkha because of anicca)

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

Origin of this dukkha is craving

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

Cesstation is craving removal

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

Practice a series or moral and mental training and there will be dukkha's cesstation


All really the Buddha taught. No rebirth as a toad here

in the here and now (remember buddha said its for the here and now)



Where and when did he say that? I've heared it uttered more times by new agers than I have ever read this in the canon. With out regards to the conequences of one's actions, there is no true dhamma. That involves not just present states but those which will arise in the future as well. ("From the arising of this comes the arising of that... from the cessation of this comes the cessation of that).

-M

Cant remember where I read going to have to do some digging round the suttas, will be back with reference soon


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Not really as im not speculating and taken up views about death all im saying is that I dont see such views in the Buddhas own teachings

Of course you are speculating and you are clearly holding views about the nature of death and rebirth, unless you are claiming that you know from direct experience, and given the vehemence with which you try to argue your case, it would suggest a fair amount of attachment to your views.

As for what the Buddha has taught, you have been shown that the Buddha very directly talked about reboirth and the FNT to monks and you have ignored the texts. Rather than shouting texts at us without really unpacking their meaning, let us see you take the one of the "former habitation" texts give us a line by line, word by word commentary, drawing in all the relevant texts to it. Let us see if you can really do the work; let us see of you can really make a case for your claims.

[Ceisiwr]

Of course you are speculating and you are clearly holding views about the nature of death and rebirth, unless you are claiming that you know from direct experience, and given the vehemence with which you try to argue your case, it would suggest a fair amount of attachment to your views.

Not really. A speculation is a guess about something isnt it. I dont guess that there is birth after death or that there is God or nothing. These views arise from clinging, once one knows that then its easier to not hold to them.



If i really was speculating about death then I would be saying there is rebirth, there isnt rebirth, there is both rebirth and no rebirth, there is God, there is no God, there is satan etc. Instead one should see how such views come to be so one doesnt take them up and get caught in them

given the given the vehemence with which you try to argue your case, it would suggest a fair amount of attachment to your views.

Im sorry if you choose to see vehemence. However the only reason my posts are so long and detailed is because it takes some explaining and so many different people have different questions to ask, thus the frequency and length

As for what the Buddha has taught, you have been shown that the Buddha very directly talked about reboirth and the FNT to monks and you have ignored the texts

Didnt say he didnt talk about the view of rebirth. As for the four noble truths I have said I am going to answer you, i was just about to start getting the suttas together actually

Rather than shouting texts at us without really unpacking their meaning, let us see you take the one of the "former habitation" texts give us a line by line, word by word commentary, drawing in all the relevant texts to it. Let us see if you can really do the work; let us see of you can really make a case for your claims.

Sure, will do the 4nt's post to you first then get started on that


metta