SamKR wrote:But the belief (intuitively or by experience) in rebirth is not inappropriate. These two (attention and belief) are different things.
Yes. More specifically, the assertion that discernment is only developed through meditation (bhāvanā) fails to account for the developmental process by which discernment is initially obtained through hearing (sutamayā paññā) and through reflection (cintāmayā paññā). To fully account for the development of discernment through gradual training these other modes of development need to be included and accounted for.
And integral to this developmental process are the three kinds of valid knowledge. These are listed by Steven Collins in
Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities:
- Indian philosophy acknowledges three common "means of knowledge" (pramāṇa):
(i) pratyakṣa (Pali paccakkha), perception or experience,
(ii) anumāna, inference or logical proof, and
(iii) śabda (Pali sadda) or śruti (Pali suti), verbal testimony (=scriptural authority; in Buddhism often Buddha-vaccana, the Word of the Buddha, or some equivalent).
In terms of scriptural authority there are many suttas where
physical birth, death, and rebirth are explicitly stated. In the SN there are entire saṃyuttas largely devoted to rebirth (e.g. Saṃyutta 15, 29, 30, 31, 32).
In terms of inferential knowledge, there are passages such as the following from SN 42.11 where one is instructed to develop inference regarding both the past and the future following from direct perception:
- Headman, by means of this principle that is seen, understood, immediately attained, fathomed, apply the method to the past and to the future thus: 'Whatever suffering arose in the past, all that arose rooted in desire, with desire as its source; for desire is the root of suffering. Whatever suffering will arise in the future, all that will arise rooted in desire, with desire as its source; for desire is the root of suffering.'
And related to this, SN 12.34 gives a comprehensive analysis of paṭiccasamuppāda including analysis of past and future conditions:
- Bhikkhus, what are the seventy-seven cases of knowledge?
The knowledge: 'Aging-and-death has birth as its condition.' The knowledge: 'When there is no birth, there is no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'In the past too aging-and-death had birth as its condition.' The knowledge: 'In the past too, had there been no birth, there would have been no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'In the future too aging-and-death will have birth as its condition.' The knowledge: 'In the future too, should there be no birth, there will be no aging-and-death.' The knowledge: 'That knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma is also subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.'
The knowledge: 'Birth has existence as its condition.' ... The knowledge: 'Volitional formations have ignorance as their condition.' The knowledge: 'When there is no ignorance, there are no volitional formations.' The knowledge: 'In the past too volitional formations had ignorance as their condition.' The knowledge: 'In the past too, had there been no ignorance, there would have been no volitional formations.' The knowledge: 'In the future too volitional formations will have ignorance as their condition.' The knowledge: 'In the future too, should there be no ignorance, there will be no volitional formations:.'The knowledge: 'That knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma is also subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.'
Other discourses that include consideration of future results are MN 41, MN 46, MN 135, MN 149, SN 12.33, SN 22.5, SN 22.9, SN 22.10, SN 22.11, AN 4.232, AN 8.33, AN 8.35, AN 8.36, etc.
The use of scriptural authority, inference, and reasoning (yutti) are also recommended for developing discernment pertaining to paṭiccasamuppāda and rebirth in the Visuddhimagga (Ch. 17), the commentary on the Vibhaṅga (Ch. 6) and the sub-commentary on DN 15. And in non-Pāli Buddhist sources there are a number of treatises explaining direct perception and inference.