the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

mikenz66 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:29 pm
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:23 pm
Dinsdale wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:05 pm
Could you briefly explain what you mean by "realist" and "phenomenologist" in a Buddhist context?

And is the latter view supposed to be superior?
For the phenomenologist, Dependent Origination occurs entirely within the space of a mind moment.
So, for example, it's not death in itself, but the self-refered concept of death. I have yet to die, but the idea of death already makes me suffer.
The realist thinks in terms of existence or non-existence, which is wrong according to the Buddha. The phenomenologist doesn't have this problem, because he rightly considers everything to be a fabrication. Everything: both the object and the subject.
The illusion of the self derives from the vortical interplay between consciousness and name-and-form, which are also fabrications.
Dependent Origination occurs simultaneously, and also cease simultaneously. That's exactly why Nibbana is possible here and now.
I've been very concise and perhaps unclear, so I suggest you to read "The Magic of the Mind" by Ven. K. Nyanananda.
I don't read Ven Ñāṇananda quite like that. Phenomenology can mean a lot of things, but I think that, broadly, it more interested in investigating process than questions about existence.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/phenomenology

While Ven Ñāṇananda certainly has a one-life interpretation of dependent origination, it doesn't appear to me to be a strictly one-mind-moment one. He certainly talks about literal rebirth, he just argues against a multi-life interpretation of dependent origination. I don't think he comes under the umbrella of "everything is a fabrication". He is careful to take a middle way...

See, for example Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda's comments in Nibbāna –The Mind Stilled
https://seeingthroughthenet.net/ After two years of deep analysis, he starts talking about putting it into practice in Sermon 27, with a chilling version of the Chess Game story.

Here is a part of Sermon 28, in the context of discussing contemplation of internal and external elements:
Ñāṇananda wrote: Now the Buddha has related the story of this great earth in some
discourses. But it is not an account of a scientific experiment, as our
modern day scientists would offer. The Buddha describes how this great
earth came up and how it gets destroyed in order to drive home into our
minds the impermanence of the very stage on which we enact our
samsāric drama, thereby inculcating an attitude of disenchantment and
dispassion, nibbidā and virāga.

These sankhāras, pertaining to our drama of existence on this gigantic
stage, the earth, get deeply imprinted in our minds. They sink deep as
latencies to perception, productive of existence. It is to eradicate them that
the Buddha has placed before us the story of this great earth in some
discourses. By far the best illustration comes in the Aggaññasutta of the
Dīgha Nikāya.
https://suttacentral.net/dn27
...

Billions and billions of years passed until the earth assumed its present
shape and appearance with all its gigantic mountains, rocks and buildings.
But then, in the Sattasuriyasutta of the Anguttara Nikāya,
https://suttacentral.net/an7.66
the Buddha
describes what happens to this great earth at the end of the aeon.

As the holocaust draws near, a second orb of the sun appears, and then
a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth and a seventh. The great earth in its
entirety, together with its mountains and rocks, goes ablaze, becoming just
one huge flame of fire, consuming all before it without leaving any ash or
soot, like in a spot where oil or ghee had burnt. So here we have no room
for any atomism. In conclusion the Buddha brings out the true aim and
purpose of this discourse.
"So impermanent, monks, are preparations (saṅkhāras), so unstable, monks, are
preparations, so unsatisfying, monks, are preparations. So much so,
monks, this is enough to get disenchanted with preparations, this is
enough to get dispassionate with them, this is enough to get released from
them".
:heart:
Mike


Sounds like the sun entering the red giant phase and destroying the Earth, shortly before it’s death ☀️
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

“Here we have two peculiar terms: itthabhāva aññathābhāva – ‘thisness’ and ‘otherwiseness’. What is called birth’ and ‘death’ is tantamount to an alternation between ‘thisness’ and ‘otherwiseness’. Just ponder over this statement. So this alternation is merely a journey of ignorance. It is not someone’s journey. Only a journey of ignorance. Therefore ignorance is a vast delusion (‘mahā moho’) as stated in the second verse. However the two most important terms are ‘itthabhāva’ and ‘aññathābhāva’.

As you might recall, while discussing Mahā Nidāna Sutta we happened to mention that the Buddha in his questioning of venerable Ānanda step by step about the mutual relationship between consciousness and name and form posed the following question:

“Ānanda if consciousness having descended into the mother’s womb slips out, will name and form get born into a state of thisness (‘itthatta’)?”

There we came across the term ‘itthatta’; ‘Itthatta’ is none other than ‘itthabhāva’ just as ‘nānatta’ is a synonym for ‘nānābhāva’. Granted that ‘itthatta’ means ‘itthabhāva’ we can gather something about it from the above reference itself. So it is only so long as consciousness and name and form are found together in a mother’s womb, that we can expect the birth of a child. As we happened to mention in that context, if consciousness slips out only a ball of flesh would come out of the womb. It is only when these two continue to be together that a child is born into this world as a ‘thisness’. This is because when the new born child looks around, he finds himself born into a world of six sense spheres. From his point of view it is a ‘thisness’. Therefore thisness is equivalent to ‘birth’. Otherwiseness is his journey towards ‘decay and death’. So then, ‘thisness’ and ‘otherwiseness’ is an inseparable pair. The worldling tries to separate birth from death and keep back birth and reject death. But this is an impossibility. It is an inseparable pair.

So it is clear that thisness (itthabhāva) is birth. The moment one grasps something as ‘THIS’ giving it a ‘thingness’ it starts becoming otherwise. He comes under the inescapable law of impermanence. Therefore ‘itthabhāva’ and ‘aññathābhāva’ are tantamount to ‘birth’ and ‘death’. The alternation between them in Saṁsāra is merely a journey of ignorance (‘avijjāyeva sā gati’).

Ven. Nanananda.


http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.0.pdf
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

SteRo
Posts: 2313
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:31 pm
“... So this alternation is merely a journey of ignorance. It is not someone’s journey.

...
So it is clear that thisness (itthabhāva) is birth. The moment one grasps something as ‘THIS’ giving it a ‘thingness’ it starts becoming otherwise. He comes under the inescapable law of impermanence. Therefore ‘itthabhāva’ and ‘aññathābhāva’ are tantamount to ‘birth’ and ‘death’. The alternation between them in Saṁsāra is merely a journey of ignorance (‘avijjāyeva sā gati’).
Ven. Nanananda.
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... ev_1.0.pdf
"the inescapable law of impermanence" ... is that other than "thisness"? Certainly not. Ven. Nanananda seems to come under the "inescapable law of thisness", the law of ignorance. But the same could be said of the Buddha because the Buddha taught a lot of thisnesses.

Therefore one should be cautious to not believe in teachings but take the Buddha's teachings at face value nevertheless. Why? Because otherwise liberation cannot be attained. ... sounds like thisness, right?

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6734
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Something which might be of interest to Nanananda followers:

Bhikkhu Anālayo Lectures
Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled


During the Spring-Summer of 2017, 2018 and 2019, Bhikkhu Analayo offered an online lecture series on the 33 Nibbāna Sermons by Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda. This series was hosted by the Numata Center for Buddhist Studies University of Hamburg in collaboration with the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies.

The entire series of lectures by Bhikkhu Analayo is now available below.

https://buddhistinquiry.org/resources/o ... /lectures/
.

User avatar
zerotime
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by zerotime »

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:08 am
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:12 am
manifold past lives
Interesting idea above yet appears unsupported by the Pali. Since when did the Pali words "nivasa" & "vasa" means "life" or "lives" ("jiva")? :shrug:

Bhikkhu Bodhi comes clean:
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi
Thanisssaro Bhikkhu comes clean:
With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:12 am
In the same way I saw an ancient path
The above probably needs to point out where "rebirth" fits into the "Noble Path". For example, MN 117 appears to clearly say "rebirth" is not part of the Noble Path.
I cannot locate that part inside MN 117. Can you cite this?

It is truth some Suttas like that are referred to abide, without added notions. While others Suttas are very clear about the context.
Probably this is related with to the problem of "two languages" explained by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. However, the purpose of one language is not to deny the reality of the phenomenological side but a way to understand it.


Read in exmple here:

"Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?... This is the greater: the tears you have shed...

Long have you repeatedly experienced the death of a mother... The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

- SN 15.3


this is so clear that there is no doubt.

In fact there are many Suttas talking on rebirth in clear terms. One list from internet:
D. I, 13, 15, 16, 81; S. I, 167, 175, 196; II, 122, 213; V, 265, 305; A. I, 25, 164; II, 183; III, 323, 418 sq.; IV, 141 sq.; V, 211,

Just by seeing the first one, D.I:

39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Abhassara Brahma-world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness.


there are many more.

Question is: Why the people engaged in question Rebirth only exhibit supports from those Suttas lacking of a clear context regarding the physical world?. We can think about it. What can inhabit inside those minds?. Because that procedure is not proper from honest and objective minds. No fruitful.


Denying of rebirth is ditthi, wrong view]:

"There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view..."


specially there is wrong view when there is no experience of the unreality of rebirth or non-rebirth. Because in such case, the only available reason to support non-rebirth is the attachment, - no to empirical facts-. but to outsider beliefs which doesn't belong to Dhamma.

In pragmatical terms: When we lack of the possibility of an empirical experience in this issue, Where it can be the business in spreading or being attached to outsider beliefs instead to Dhamma beliefs?. Where is the benefit and the coherence?

Aloka wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:10 am
AlexBrains92 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:05 am

Sooner or later we'll find out who is right :)
"I'm Right, You're Wrong" :

https://www.amaravati.org/dhamma-books/ ... ure-wrong/


:anjali:

note that book starts in this way:

"The phrase ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ is the archetypal expression of our tendency to attach to views and opinions: ‘If I think it, it must be true, and if you think differently, sorry, but you’re wrong. "

then perhaps there is necessity to define previously what is an opinion or a view.

At least I understand some discussion about the existence of rebirth in Dhamma it is not a discussion of personal view but an investigation to clarify what the Dhamma teaches. When somebody believes the non-rebirth can be fitted in Dhamma, I believe it is fully right to say you are wrong, I'm right. Because Rebirth is part of Dhamma teaching. No a personal view.

Or if somebody tells "In Dhamma, dukkha is not the suffering to be eradicated", or "In Dhamma the nibbana doesn't exist", etc.. Also in all these cases one can remember what the Dhamma teaches, and one can say "you are wrong, I'm right".

Because these are not opinion or views. This is also compassionate. Sounding pleasurable to others it is another issue. The Buddha himself was not pleasurable to some ears. Some people cannot find joy or pleasure in the eradication of errors and wrong views. Also other people is in another worldly business and the Dhamma it is just like a product for those business. This wouldn't be a Dhamma problem but their own problem.
Last edited by zerotime on Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 7680
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

:goodpost:
“Bhikkhus, whatever is not yours, abandon it. When you have abandoned it, that will lead to your welfare and happiness. ” SN 35:101

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17739
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

Aloka wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 9:24 pm
Something which might be of interest to Nanananda followers:

Bhikkhu Anālayo Lectures
Nibbāna: The Mind Stilled


During the Spring-Summer of 2017, 2018 and 2019, Bhikkhu Analayo offered an online lecture series on the 33 Nibbāna Sermons by Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda. This series was hosted by the Numata Center for Buddhist Studies University of Hamburg in collaboration with the Barre Center for Buddhist Studies.

The entire series of lectures by Bhikkhu Analayo is now available below.

https://buddhistinquiry.org/resources/o ... /lectures/
.
Yes, those presentations, and the discussion forum that went along with it, were excellent. Some of that discussion is reported verbally at the start of each lecture. Ven Analayo was the one who transcribed and annotated those Sermons, and implored Ven Ñāṇananda to keep translating them (from the original Sinhala), so he has a deep association with them. The discussion he gives avoids the tendency that one sometimes finds here of viewing Ven Ñāṇananda's teaching as a continuation of Ven Nanavira, and/or part of a "phenomenological school". He certainly didn't see it that way:
[Bhikku Ñāṇananda:] “It is true, Ven. Ñāṇavīra made a start. But I think he went
to an extreme in his criticisms, until his followers were dropping
even the useful things. And he failed to make the necessary
distinctions
between saupādisesa and anupādisesa Nibbāna
elements. That led to an idealized view of the noble disciple. And
now there is a lineage of ‘Ñāṇavīrists’ who fail to see anything
beyond Ven. Ñāṇavīra’s views. They are simply idolizing him.”

[Bhikkhu Yogānanda:] I was one of them until I started a correspondence with
Bhante Ñāṇananda, so I know the way of thinking.
[Questions & Answers On Dhamma. https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/]
As I have said, elsewhere, Bhikkhu Analayo's recent course on Mindfully Facing Climate Change https://buddhistinquiry.org/resources/o ... s-analayo/ in parts is a logical continuation of some of the material in Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda's Nibbana Sermons.
https://dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5016

The final few Nibbana Sermons (from about Sermon 27) had a big impact on my meditation practice. Reading those Sermons, and participating in the discussions, where Bhikkhu Analayo offered some ways of contemplating internal and external elements (some now in the guided meditations of his Mindfully Facing Climate Change course) was extremely helpful, and I was inspired to revisit his mediation manual, such as Seeing Through: A Guide to Insight Meditation, https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books/, which have some excellent practice suggestions.

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
robertk
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by robertk »

nanananda
sermon 18
As in the case of Venerable Dabba Mallaputta, he would
sometimes cremate his own body without leaving any ashes
.
quoted by mike above.

A strange idea.
Dabba mallaputta did indeed attain khandha parinibbana in this manner. But he didn't repeat it .
No one comes back from this.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 17739
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mikenz66 »

robertk wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:33 am
nanananda
sermon 18
As in the case of Venerable Dabba Mallaputta, he would
sometimes cremate his own body without leaving any ashes
.
quoted by mike above.

A strange idea.
Dabba mallaputta did indeed attain khandha parinibbana in this manner. But he didn't repeat it .
No one comes back from this.
I think if you look at the whole paragraph:
So the arahant lets go of his body, experiencing ambrosial
deathlessness. As in the case of Venerable Dabba Mallaputta, he would
sometimes cremate his own body without leaving any ashes.
it's clear that the "he" is intended to refer to "various arahants", though, admittedly it is faulty English...

:heart:
Mike

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 8153
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
I cannot locate that part inside MN 117. Can you cite this?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn [arisen] beings.... MN 117
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
transmigrating
The above is another sloppy translation. "Samsara" does not mean "transmigration". "Samsara" is described in SN 22.99:
"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, 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 people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
Long have you repeatedly experienced the death of a mother... The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

- SN 15.3
I have highlighted in red the important words. Per SN 22.99, these are the self-views that cause suffering & continuing attachment. Samsara is continuously cycling in self-views, as SN 22.99 says. This is so clear that there is no doubt.
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
this is so clear that there is no doubt.
Since your ideas appear to be as described in MN 117, obviously they are not clear all. They are merely your personal ideas with effluents & resulting in acquisitions as MN 117 says.

:smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 6734
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

zerotime wrote:
note that book starts in this way:

"The phrase ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ is the archetypal expression of our tendency to attach to views and opinions: ‘If I think it, it must be true, and if you think differently, sorry, but you’re wrong. "

then perhaps there is necessity to define previously what is an opinion or a view ......etc
Ceisiwr wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:18 pm
:goodpost:
Zerotime -before launching into an attack on a little booklet written by Ajahn Amaro the abbot of Amaravati monastery, which was mentioned in a previous post of mine, I think its necessary to actually read it first, rather than criticising the first two sentences. Other than that, I have a busy day ahead and nothing further that I want to waste time saying to you here.

Good day.

PS
DooDoot - I enjoyed reading your posts this morning.

:alien:

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

There are quite a number of suttas like this one, describing a transmigration without beginning.

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.4/en/sujato
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

DooDoot wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:34 am
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
I cannot locate that part inside MN 117. Can you cite this?
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn [arisen] beings.... MN 117
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
transmigrating
The above is another sloppy translation. "Samsara" does not mean "transmigration". "Samsara" is described in SN 22.99:
"Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, 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 people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He assumes feeling to be the self...

"He assumes perception to be the self...

"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
:alien:
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
Long have you repeatedly experienced the death of a mother... The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

- SN 15.3
I have highlighted in red the important words. Per SN 22.99, these are the self-views that cause suffering & continuing attachment. Samsara is continuously cycling in self-views, as SN 22.99 says. This is so clear that there is no doubt.
zerotime wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:11 pm
this is so clear that there is no doubt.
Since your ideas appear to be as described in MN 117, obviously they are not clear all. They are merely your personal ideas with effluents & resulting in acquisitions as MN 117 says.

:smile:
Regarding right view, right view with effluents is still right view. As opposed to wrong view, which is rejecting rebirth, something you seem to be fixated on. .

Regarding transmigration, in suttas like SN 15.3 and SN 15.4, it's described as having no beginning, clearly describing repeated human births and deaths, the repeated death of a mother, father, etc.
The suttas clearly include descriptions of rebirth, and no amount of obfuscation from you changes that fact.
I honest don't understand your repeated attempts to airbrush rebirth out of the suttas, when this stuff is so easily set to one side.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:53 am, edited 4 times in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

User avatar
AlexBrains92
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:25 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by AlexBrains92 »

From "Nibbana Sermon 3" by Ven. K. Nyanananda:
The ‘noble norm’ is none other than the law of dependent arising, and the stream-winner has seen it well, penetrated into it well with wisdom. The prefix su- implies the clarity of that vision. The question, then, is how a stream-winner, who has no knowledge of the recollection of past lives, can get this insight.
Whatever it may be, the accepted interpretation, as already mentioned, puts the first two links into the past. That is to say, ignorance and preparations are referred to the past. Birth, decay-and-death are referred to the future. The eight links in between are explained with reference to the present. Thus the formula is divided into three periods.
Not only that, in the attempt to interpret the formula as referring to three stages in the samsāric journey of an individual, additional links had to be interposed to prop up the interpretation. Ignorance, preparations, craving, grasping and becoming are regarded as the past causes. Depending on these past causes, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense-bases, contact and feeling are said to arise as results in the present. And again, with ignorance, preparations, craving, grasping and becoming as present causes, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense-bases, contact and feeling arise as results in the future.
This kind of interpretation is also advanced. But this interpretation in terms of pentads violates the interrelatedness between the twelve links in the formula. We have already drawn attention to the fact of interrelation between the two links in each pair. In fact, that itself has to be taken as the law of dependent arising. That is the basic principle itself: because of one, the other arises. With its cessation, the other ceases. There is this mode of analysis, but then it is disrupted by the attempt to smuggle in additional links into the formula.
Furthermore, according to this accepted commentarial exegesis, even the term bhava, or becoming, is given a twofold interpretation. As kamma-process-becoming and rebirth-process-becoming. In the context upādānapaccaya bhavo, dependent on grasping is becoming, it is explained as rebirth-process-becoming, while in the case of the other context, bhavapaccaya jāti, dependent on becoming is birth, it is taken to mean kamma-process-becoming. So the same term is explained in two ways. Similarly, the term jāti, which generally means birth, is said to imply rebirth in the context of the formula of dependent arising.
There are many such weak points in the accepted interpretation. Quite a number of authoritative modern scholars have pointed this out. Now all these short-comings could be side-tracked, if we grant the fact, as already mentioned, that the secret of the entire samsāric vortex is traceable to the two links consciousness and name-and-form. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the formula of dependent arising is to show the way of arising and cessation of the entire mass of suffering, and not to illustrate three stages in the samsaric journey of an individual.
The distinctive feature of this law of dependent arising is its demonstrability in the present, as suggested by the terms ‘to be seen here and now’ and ‘timeless’, even as the bodhisatta Vipassī discovered it, through radical reflection itself. The salient characteristic of the teaching of the Buddha is its visibility here and now and timelessness.
"If appeasement of desires is what is really blissful, 'desirelessness' as the appeasement of all desires would be the Supreme Bliss, and this in fact is what Nibbāna is." (Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda)

Spiny Norman
Posts: 7399
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

AlexBrains92 wrote:
Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:24 am
From "Nibbana Sermon 3" by Ven. K. Nyanananda:
The ‘noble norm’ is none other than the law of dependent arising, and the stream-winner has seen it well, penetrated into it well with wisdom. The prefix su- implies the clarity of that vision. The question, then, is how a stream-winner, who has no knowledge of the recollection of past lives, can get this insight.
Whatever it may be, the accepted interpretation, as already mentioned, puts the first two links into the past. That is to say, ignorance and preparations are referred to the past. Birth, decay-and-death are referred to the future. The eight links in between are explained with reference to the present. Thus the formula is divided into three periods.
Not only that, in the attempt to interpret the formula as referring to three stages in the samsāric journey of an individual, additional links had to be interposed to prop up the interpretation. Ignorance, preparations, craving, grasping and becoming are regarded as the past causes. Depending on these past causes, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense-bases, contact and feeling are said to arise as results in the present. And again, with ignorance, preparations, craving, grasping and becoming as present causes, consciousness, name-and-form, six sense-bases, contact and feeling arise as results in the future.
This kind of interpretation is also advanced. But this interpretation in terms of pentads violates the interrelatedness between the twelve links in the formula. We have already drawn attention to the fact of interrelation between the two links in each pair. In fact, that itself has to be taken as the law of dependent arising. That is the basic principle itself: because of one, the other arises. With its cessation, the other ceases. There is this mode of analysis, but then it is disrupted by the attempt to smuggle in additional links into the formula.
Furthermore, according to this accepted commentarial exegesis, even the term bhava, or becoming, is given a twofold interpretation. As kamma-process-becoming and rebirth-process-becoming. In the context upādānapaccaya bhavo, dependent on grasping is becoming, it is explained as rebirth-process-becoming, while in the case of the other context, bhavapaccaya jāti, dependent on becoming is birth, it is taken to mean kamma-process-becoming. So the same term is explained in two ways. Similarly, the term jāti, which generally means birth, is said to imply rebirth in the context of the formula of dependent arising.
There are many such weak points in the accepted interpretation. Quite a number of authoritative modern scholars have pointed this out. Now all these short-comings could be side-tracked, if we grant the fact, as already mentioned, that the secret of the entire samsāric vortex is traceable to the two links consciousness and name-and-form. As a matter of fact, the purpose of the formula of dependent arising is to show the way of arising and cessation of the entire mass of suffering, and not to illustrate three stages in the samsaric journey of an individual.
The distinctive feature of this law of dependent arising is its demonstrability in the present, as suggested by the terms ‘to be seen here and now’ and ‘timeless’, even as the bodhisatta Vipassī discovered it, through radical reflection itself. The salient characteristic of the teaching of the Buddha is its visibility here and now and timelessness.

Birth (jati) implying rebirth is supported by suttas like SN15.4, where transmigration is said to be without beginning.
https://suttacentral.net/sn15.4/en/sujato

I think its right to say that the 3-lives model of DO has its problems, but IMO this is also true of the alternative models, including Nanananda's interpretation.
Buddha save me from new-agers!

Post Reply