the great rebirth debate

[SamKR]

Greetings Sam,

That's True. Thanks for reminding. In the context of this topic, our training is: in reference to the assumptions/ideas/understanding/experiences about rebirth, only the assumptions/ideas/understanding/experiences about rebirth -- whatever they are.

Yep. As per SN 55.3, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself.

The acquisition of ontological views is inconsistent with this training in my opinion, as such views entail being not-pericipient of these aforementioned qualities.

But that's just me...

Great. Thanks again. "I am trying" to train "myself" like that.
I don't believe in the substance of ontology either. The phenomena which are just phenomena could be perceived as "truly" existent outside-of-experience, and only to that extent there are ontological concepts and views. Otherwise, there is nothing (within range) except "all" in "all".

[Aloka]

When I meditate, where is "belief" ?

Well, personally I find that most of the practice of meditation is based on "beliefs" and perceptions -- which is alright.

what I meant was that when the mind is settled and peaceful, there are no discursive thoughts of 'this' or 'that,' there's just awareness and clarity.

Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

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

.

[SamKR]

It's not possible to delineate the boundary between reality and unreality -- whatever is experienced in "all" is as real as it is illusory, and "we" have no access beyond those experiences. But, even if rebirth is not directly experienced, we may have faith (which is yet another experience in "all") in "literal rebirth" as taught by the Buddha.

[SamKR]

what I meant was that when the mind is settled and peaceful, there are no discursive thoughts of 'this' or 'that,' there's just awareness and clarity.

Oh ok, I understand now.

[binocular]

Hi Dennenappelmoes,

I don't know one way or the other about rebirth and find it pointless speculating about past and future lives. Therefore I set it aside in order to deal with the living of my present life and practice here and now.

with kind wishes,

Aloka

Excellent post, Aloka.

is it? it doesnt even fit the minimum definition of buddhist refuge, which is concern for future lives

part of buddhism is studying the reasonings for rebirth and observing the nature of the mind. one does not use the excuse of speculation to excuse oneself from proper investigation. when someone says that talking about past and future lives is speculation, this is a nihilistic assertion.

Understanding the arising of sankharas, and their qualitative nature (as explained by the roots of greed/aversion/delusion & non-greed/non-aversion/non-delusion - i.e. kamma), and the resultant experience of nama-rupa (as explained from vinnana/nama-rupa onwards in paticcasamuppada, which could alternatively be thought of as sabba or loka) is sufficient for me to know the appropriate way to respond to situations in life.

fair enough. i guess i wonder how a thorough understanding of paticcasamuppada and the sankharas imprinted on the mind could possibly lead one to not understand the reality of past and future lives.

Seconded.

[binocular]

What I know is the fabricated (sankhata) nature of samsaric existence, and the truth of the Buddha's teaching on kamma in that context... I know that kamma (and thus, paticcasamuppada) holds true in terms of result in the present and in the future. That provides my direction in life.

Then how do you explain or come to terms with the fact that bad things happen to good people, and good things to bad people?
How do you explain infants being raped?

What present kamma could an unborn baby have made that would warrant being raped soon after birth?


The thing is that with your kind of focus on the present, vast areas of moral concerns remain unaddressed.

And if your life is relatively peaceful - no problem. But if it is your child that is kidnapped and raped, as this happens to some people - then what?

i guess i wonder how a thorough understanding of paticcasamuppada and the sankharas imprinted on the mind could possibly lead one to not understand the reality of past and future lives.

As I understand it, all arahants have (as you call it) "a thorough understanding of paticcasamuppada and the sankharas imprinted on the mind"... yet not all arahants have the ability to see "past and future lives" - this is one of the optional "higher knowledges". Thus, for those who can't see these for themselves, their existence (or otherwise) remains a "view" or a "belief". However, that limitation does not prevent the "thorough understanding of paticcasamuppada and the sankharas imprinted on the mind" which is required to bring an end to dukkha.

Ergo, direct knowledge of "the reality of past and future lives" is not essential to this pursuit.

What are you suggesting? That you're an arahant?

[binocular]

when someone says that talking about past and future lives is speculation, this is a nihilistic assertion.

Yet the Buddha said :

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

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

And yet:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. When you see someone who has fallen on hard times, overwhelmed with hard times, you should conclude: 'We, too, have experienced just this sort of thing in the course of that long, long time.'

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

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

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: 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?"

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the blood we have shed from having our heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans."

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the blood you have shed from having your heads cut off while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time, not the water in the four great oceans.

"The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"The blood you have shed when, being water buffaloes, you had your water buffalo-heads cut off... when, being rams, you had your ram-heads cut off... when, being goats, you had your goat-heads cut off... when, being deer, you had your deer-heads cut off... when, being chickens, you had your chicken-heads cut off... when, being pigs, you had your pig-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"The blood you have shed when, arrested as thieves plundering villages, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as highway thieves, you had your heads cut off... when, arrested as adulterers, you had your heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

MN2 may be talking about something else.

[Nyana]

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.

[Dennenappelmoes]

Thanks for your reply 5heaps. What I understand from what you're saying is that death doesn't cause birth, but is a prerequisite for birth. It is something that needs to be in place. This would mean that a mind could be "on the bench" for a moment before a new birth is ready to take it. This seems a bit messy, but it could be postulated, I guess. A problem with this view, however, is that it renders excessive birth impossible. It means there cannot be conception if there is no mind on the bench. If we take conception to be a purely phyisical process, it's rather strange that it'd be prevented by such an external factor.

Hi Dennenappelmoes,

I don't know one way or the other about rebirth and find it pointless speculating about past and future lives. Therefore I set it aside in order to deal with the living of my present life and practice here and now.

with kind wishes,

Aloka

Hi Aloka,
I agree with you, but my question is of a slightly different order. I have no interest in understanding rebirth, nor know about any past lives "I" may have had, there's something else going on. For me the cause and effect point logically excludes any possiblity of rebirth before I can even begin to say that I'm open minded about it whatever it may be like.

To repeat the point, which I may not have described accurately, say that a person is dying. Upon death, the mind supposedly migrates to a new conception (lets take the simple example of a human reborn as a human). What if the person is saved at the very last moment? Does this cause the to-be pregnant girl to have a head ache and say "not tonight baby?" What if a condom breaks and conception is accidental, does it cause a person in critical condition in hospital to have cardiac arrest?
Of course, this is very anecdotal and oversimplified. What I'm just saying is, it is very very odd link of cause and effect here. To be precise: An effect now has two causes. A birth is caused both by a death, and by the contingent circumstances of the parents. Thus, is it possible for something to have two causes? It seems strange to me. If only one of these causes would be in place, there would be a cause without an effect, which violates the teachings.

See, this is just a logical analysis I am making. I am not talking about "how exactly does the mind fly through the air" or any kind of speculative question. I don't want to understand rebirth, I just want to stop "understanding" that rebirth isn't possible in any way. If someone would just open the door of a possibility for me I will shut up and practise, honest

With metta

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Then how do you explain or come to terms with the fact that bad things happen to good people, and good things to bad people?
How do you explain infants being raped?

What present kamma could an unborn baby have made that would warrant being raped soon after birth?

The thing is that with your kind of focus on the present, vast areas of moral concerns remain unaddressed.

And if your life is relatively peaceful - no problem. But if it is your child that is kidnapped and raped, as this happens to some people - then what?

Huh? You are presenting here a popularist version of karma disconnected from the Buddha's teaching. Namely that people do things and the results of those actions are experienced "out there" in the objective "real world" where they come back to bite you on the butt. I fundamentally disagree with that pop-karma interpretation. Kamma is undertaken within loka, and is similarly experienced within loka, so all your conjecture about how it plays out in the objective world is neither here nor there to me, but I can understand now why you were binded to the notion of moral justice earlier, since that is the sphere in which you see pop-karma operating.

What are you suggesting? That you're an arahant?

No. What I said there is traceable back to some key concepts in the suttas and the different classifications of arahants... nothing that requires the knowledge and liberation of an arahant to comprehend.

Metta,
Retro.

[Alex123]

To repeat the point, which I may not have described accurately, say that a person is dying. Upon death, the mind supposedly migrates to a new conception (lets take the simple example of a human reborn as a human). What if the person is saved at the very last moment? Does this cause the to-be pregnant girl to have a head ache and say "not tonight baby?" What if a condom breaks and conception is accidental, does it cause a person in critical condition in hospital to have cardiac arrest?

1) There are so many beings being born every minute that I don't think that there is lack of new body to be reborn into.

2) rebirth might not be instantaneous but when suitable "body" is available.

3) I don't think it is totally correct to say that mind migrates. Maybe there is some sort of cause-effect influence of dying mind on the mind being born without any substance travelling from one body to another.

IMHO.

[binocular]

Huh? You are presenting here a popularist version of karma disconnected from the Buddha's teaching. Namely that people do things and the results of those actions are experienced "out there" in the objective "real world" where they come back to bite you on the butt. I fundamentally disagree with that pop-karma interpretation. Kamma is undertaken within loka, and is similarly experienced within loka, so all your conjecture about how it plays out in the objective world is neither here nor there to me, but I can understand now why you were binded to the notion of moral justice earlier, since that is the sphere in which you see pop-karma operating.

I guess then Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikhhu - and a great number of others - are into "pop-karma" as well!

Sheesh, even the Buddha himself was into pop-karma then, by your criteria!

No. What I said there is traceable back to some key concepts in the suttas and the different classifications of arahants... nothing that requires the knowledge and liberation of an arahant to comprehend.

It does, if one is to assert it as true.

[binocular]

See, this is just a logical analysis I am making. I am not talking about "how exactly does the mind fly through the air" or any kind of speculative question. I don't want to understand rebirth, I just want to stop "understanding" that rebirth isn't possible in any way. If someone would just open the door of a possibility for me I will shut up and practise, honest

I think one of the easiest way of understanding how rebirth may be possible is to look at reincarnation as they have it in some schools of Hinduism. That is the simplest one, probably. Of course, it differs from some Buddhist ideas on the matter, hence the dichotomy of the terms: "rebirth" in Buddhism, "reincarnation" in Hinduism.
One can then continue with exploring how the Buddhist understanding(s !) of rebirth are different from Hindu understanding(s) of reincarnation.

[Lazy_eye]

Then how do you explain or come to terms with the fact that bad things happen to good people, and good things to bad people?
How do you explain infants being raped?

What present kamma could an unborn baby have made that would warrant being raped soon after birth?


The thing is that with your kind of focus on the present, vast areas of moral concerns remain unaddressed.

And if your life is relatively peaceful - no problem. But if it is your child that is kidnapped and raped, as this happens to some people - then what?

Past-life kamma doesn't really answer these questions either, because we still have to ask "why did this particular kamma ripen this way and at this time?"

Supposedly, since samsara is without an original cause or starting point, we have cycled through an infinite number of rebirths. But an infinite number of rebirths means that we have at some point created every possible kind of kamma, which means that any sort of vipaka could result at any time.

So, for all practical purposes, the kammic explanation is not much different from pure chance.

Besides, if we are talking about morality, what good could possibly be done by telling the parents of a raped baby that it was the baby's fault?

Looking again at your query:

What present kamma could an unborn baby have made that would warrant being raped soon after birth?

A kammic explanation is redundant, because human aggression and cruelty are sufficient to explain such actions. Bad things happen to good people because violence, hatred and greed are common human afflictions. No further "metaphysical" explanation is needed.

[Aloka]

.

Yes and the Buddha said that the precise working out of the results of kamma was one of four unconjecturables.

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

I also think its worth reading "Misunderstandings of the Law of Kamma," from "Good, Evil and Beyond - Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching " by Ven P.A. Payutto.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm

.