Reincarnation

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Reincarnation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Actually, just following your train of thought which you started which has little regard for the OP:
retrofuturist wrote:I think that's as true as far as it goes, but I believe punabhava (commonly translated as rebirth) is actually the repeated false cognition of existence, rather than any post-mortem transmigratory event. Sometimes I don't think "rebirth", as it's used in Buddhist circles, isn't as far away from "reincarnation" as it ought to be. . . . To me, as I understand it, punabbhava has nothing to do with transmigration, whereas patisandhi does.
Not at all. It precisely has to do with the differential between rebirth, punabbhava and reincarnation.
tiltbillings wrote:And "it seems you are once again just railing against that which seems unfamiliar" is a cheap shot.
It is an opportunity for you to demonstrate that this is not what you're doing... an opportunity I hope you will take up.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Similarly, in an attempt to argue in favour of "rebirth", I believe some have a tendency to take it too far and slip into eternalism.
Possibly, but keeping rebirth (and nibbana) tethered to anatta and paticcasamuppada, it becomes far less a problem.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Reincarnation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I said, "The falsity of rebirth is a speculative view that cannot be verified."
Which, again, is something you introduced into this topic. My point was that Ven Nanananda talked about rebirth in his books, Concept and Magic, in terms that pointed to the fact he accepted rebirth as part of the framework of the Buddha's teachings.
Which, as I said, was a non-sequitir, because no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing, or thinking in terms of, reincarnation.

See my earlier post to Mike about the Buddha using words without being misled by them.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by ground »

retrofuturist wrote:Don't think of the word 'speculative' as an insult or denigration - it simply means it is a view that has not been experientially validated by the person holding the view.
...
Something being "speculative" neither makes it right nor wrong.
:goodpost:

Kind regards
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:GreetWhich, as I said, was a non-sequitir, because no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing, or thinking in terms of, reincarnation.
Which is THE non sequitur here.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:Actually, just following your train of thought which you started which has little regard for the OP:
retrofuturist wrote:I think that's as true as far as it goes, but I believe punabhava (commonly translated as rebirth) is actually the repeated false cognition of existence, rather than any post-mortem transmigratory event. Sometimes I don't think "rebirth", as it's used in Buddhist circles, isn't as far away from "reincarnation" as it ought to be. . . . To me, as I understand it, punabbhava has nothing to do with transmigration, whereas patisandhi does.
Not at all. It precisely has to do with the differential between rebirth and reincarnation.
Which, of course, assumes that one can meangingfully, via the suttas, totally disengage punabhava from the idea rebirth, for which there is no real reason to do so, and in trying to do so leads to an unnecessary dichotomy.

The OP:
Seems like if someone has not been able to penetrate the teachings on not-self or the teachings on having no doctrine of self then someone can only accept reincarnation and not rebirth.....seems like the degree that someone has penetrated the delusion of self is the same degree which it is possible for them to accept rebirth....otherwise it is just reincarnation.
This is not an unreasonle assessment, as far as it goes, needing as we have seena caveat ot two here and there. Rebirth tied to anatta and paticcasamuppada is in line with the Buddha's teachings, but like most of the Buddha's teachings, it takes time and effort to gain the actual insight into the truth of this. Rebirth is no more susceptible misinterpretation than is any other doctrine.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote: To deny "rebirth" (as understood, conventionally in English) based on one's experience, you would have to experience death and then experience the absence of rebirth.

I do not see how this could logically be done, unless you could experience the future, here-and-now, and experience first-hand the lack of post-mortem continuity of experience.

Failing that, the view "rebirth is false" is necessarily speculative.
...
Yes, this is the argument that I find totally unconvincing...

This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.

We can't take the Buddha's words, or those of Ven Nanananda, or anyone else, at face value because we have not yet personally experienced everything that they discuss, and so we might be mistaken about it?

Hmm...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by ground »

mikenz66 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: To deny "rebirth" (as understood, conventionally in English) based on one's experience, you would have to experience death and then experience the absence of rebirth.

I do not see how this could logically be done, unless you could experience the future, here-and-now, and experience first-hand the lack of post-mortem continuity of experience.

Failing that, the view "rebirth is false" is necessarily speculative.
...
Yes, this is the argument that I find totally unconvincing...

This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.

We can't take the Buddha's words, or those of Ven Nanananda, or anyone else, at face value because we have not yet personally experienced everything that they discuss, and so we might be mistaken about it?
Very interesting thoughts. Since I agree to retro's thoughts about "speculative" I would like to comment:
The conclusion for me is that discussion about such things is inappropriate if "discussion" is held to be intended to lead to a valid outcome. If discussion about such things is held to demonstrate the relativity of views which are not grounded in experiences that everybody can share then discussion is okay.


Kind regards
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Reincarnation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:This use of "own experience" and "speculative" line, which basically shuts down any possibility of discussion.
I don't see any shutting down of discussion here... just the intellectual and spiritual integrity to differentiate between what one has known and seen for oneself (i.e. knowledge, ñana), versus what one believes, but has not personally confirmed.... so that when engaging in discussions, other people know the basis upon which you speak.
Kalama Sutta wrote:"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Such distinctions between what one has known and seen for oneself (i.e. knowledge, ñana), versus what one believes, but has not personally confirmed exist during discussions between participants in the suttas. I find it somewhat incongruent that you perceive it to be "shut[ting] down any possibility of discussion" when it happens in an online forum. I genuinely do not understand why you regard it as such. For example...
"My friend, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended. It's as if there were a well along a road in a desert, with neither rope nor water bucket. A man would come along overcome by heat, oppressed by the heat, exhausted, dehydrated, & thirsty. He would look into the well and would have knowledge of 'water,' but he would not dwell touching it with his body. In the same way, although I have seen properly with right discernment, as it actually is present, that 'The cessation of becoming is Unbinding,' still I am not an arahant whose fermentations are ended."

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Pavittha, "When he speaks in this way, friend Pavittha, what do you have to say about Ven. Narada?"

"When Ven. Narada speaks in this way, friend Ananda, I have nothing to say about Ven. Narada except that [he is] admirable & skillful."
Source: SN 12.68 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is a person who has given up false speech and abstains from it. When he is in the council of his community or in another assembly, or among his relatives, his guild, in the royal court, or has been summoned as a witness and is asked to tell what he knows, then, when he knows, he will say, “I know”; and when he does not know he will say, “I do not know”; when he has seen, he will say, “I have seen”; and when he has not seen, he will say, “I have not seen.” He will not utter any deliberate lie, be it for his own sake, for the sake of others or for some material advantage.
Source: AN 10.206 - http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh238-p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.

If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.

If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.
Just as a point of clarification, I am not arguing (and probably never have argued such here): "Rebirth is true." But I am arguing that the Buddha of the suttas taught literal rebirth, tied to anatta, kamma and paticcasamuppada.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Retro,
retrofuturist wrote: If I were to say, "rebirth is true" that would be speculative, because I do not know.
Of course. I don't see anyone arguing that we can know that "rebirth is true" or "the end of suffering is possible" without having experienced it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained it by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction in others that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation;
retrofuturist wrote: If I were to say, "rebirth is taught in the Theravada tradition" that would not be speculative, because I know.
And that's all we can reasonably discuss on this forum. What the teachings appear to mean. And in the context of such discussion I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Reincarnation

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:And that's all we can reasonably discuss on this forum. What the teachings appear to mean.
But is it, though?

Chownah's questions/observations pertain to the experience of those teachings, how we internalize them, and how through that process of internalization (conditioned by avijja), we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.

That sounds like a very useful and productive discussion to me (and in fact, what this topic seems to be about).
mikenz66 wrote:I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

Sure, but as I said to Tilt... no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing in reincarnation, so I don't see what significance such a statement has to the topic of reincarnation. I raised Bhikkhu Nanananda on account of his sophisticated exposition of "bhava" (becoming/existence), which in turn relates to (a hopefully more sophisticated) discussion on "punabbhava" - the Pali word most commonly regarded as synonymous to "rebirth". Why kamma and dependent origination came into the discussion though, I don't yet understand, though I'm happy for someone to join the dots.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Mawkish1983
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: Reincarnation

Post by Mawkish1983 »

retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Reincarnation

Post by tiltbillings »

Mawkish1983 wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:we can come to inadvertently misinterpret them into views the Buddha regarded as harmful.
Very useful thing to consider, I think. I think Chownah is probably right that lots of people will openly say phrases like, "I don't believe in reincarnation, I believe in rebirth as taught by the Buddha" but at the same time completely misunderstand what the Buddha taught. Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta. Yes, it would be a wrong view, but I am wondering how damaging it might be really to one's practice. If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster but still practiced mindfulness and try to develop the brahmaviharas, would that belief hold back my practice? I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?

Anyway, that might be off topic, I don't know, it's just something Chownah's topic made me think of.
It looks to be on topic to me, but then what do I know.

You make an important point here about practice and belief. "Often I suppose people might very well be believing in some sort of version of reincarnation that is not compatible with the Buddha's teaching about anatta." Until we come to some degree of actual experience of anatta, this is where we start out. Always, there must be a willingness to reassess one position.

"I imagine eventually the belief would fall away as insight arose, so as long as the belief isn't clung to, would it be that much of a hinderance?" That is an interesting and challenging question. Also, to add, as long as one does not cling to the insights, either.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Reincarnation

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I see nothing speculative about my observation that that Ven Nananada's writings are in line with the Theravada on such things as kamma and rebirth.

Sure, but as I said to Tilt... no one is accusing Bhikkhu Nanananda of believing in reincarnation, so I don't see what significance such a statement has to the topic of reincarnation. I raised Bhikkhu Nanananda on account of his sophisticated exposition of "bhava" (becoming/existence), which in turn relates to (a hopefully more sophisticated) discussion on "punabbhava" - the Pali word most commonly regarded as synonymous to "rebirth". Why kamma and dependent origination came into the discussion though, I don't yet understand, though I'm happy for someone to join the dots.
Now I'm completely confused. I thought we were discussing how the buddhist concept of "rebirth" differers from "reincarnation". So seems relevant to me to look at what Ven Nananda has to say about such things. He's an excellent scholar, and, as you say, has some very interesting analysis of possible interpretations of bhava, and a nice interpretation of dependent origination that differ from orthodox Theravada doctrine. So it seems highly relevant to the discussion that, judging from the passages that I quoted here: http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 40#p146297, he also discusses the "standard rebirth" where beings physically die and beings are physically born. It's relevant because his "sophisticated exposition of "bhava"" is not used to construct an argument that such an interpretation of rebirth is mistaken, whereas he does argue that the standard interpretation of dependent origination is mistaken. Or, at least, that's how I understand his writings.

:anjali:
Mike
Post Reply