Page 114 of 504

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:06 pm
by cooran
Hello all,

I agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi and the respected teachers of all traditions on this.
’’………….Newcomers to Buddhism are usually impressed by the clarity, directness, and earthy practicality of the Dhamma as embodied in such basic teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the threefold training. These teachings, as clear as day-light, are accessible to any serious seeker looking for a way beyond suffering. When, however, these seekers encounter the doctrine of rebirth, they often balk, convinced it just doesn't make sense. At this point, they suspect that the teaching has swerved off course, tumbling from the grand highway of reason into wistfulness and speculation. Even modernist interpreters of Buddhism seem to have trouble taking the rebirth teaching seriously. Some dismiss it as just a piece of cultural baggage, "ancient Indian metaphysics," that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age. Others interpret it as a metaphor for the change of mental states, with the realms of rebirth seen as symbols for psychological archetypes. A few critics even question the authenticity of the texts on rebirth, arguing that they must be interpolations.
A quick glance at the Pali suttas would show that none of these claims has much substance. The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. ’’
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_46.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with metta
Chris

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:08 pm
by Ceisiwr
Ben wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote: However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben

All done in the last twenty posts Ben, take a look back

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:10 pm
by Ceisiwr
A quick glance at the Pali suttas


Im sorry but a quick glance at the Pali Suttas wont win the argument. A quick glance would have us believing that the Buddha could lick his whole body :jumping:
The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. ’’
The teaching of "I" being born when there is ignorant contact is yes. Tainted Right view, i.e. view that leads to grasping and dukkha and is not the Buddhas own teaching of the four noble truths, does come up now and again. However this is because of the reason I posted above


metta

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:17 pm
by Ben
clw_uk wrote:
Ben wrote:Hi Craig,
clw_uk wrote: However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben

All done in the last twenty posts Ben, take a look back
What I see is selective quoting. Is there anything that unequivocally supports your point? And if you are going to quote the Buddha, it needs to be seen that he says basically what you are saying and not a quote taken out of its particular context. Can you please provide the smoking gun that definitively affirms your point?

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:38 pm
by tiltbillings
tiltbillings wrote:
clw_uk wrote:]



The Buddha-way means having no views,
And this statement is a view.
Keep in mind, Craig, the "Buddha-way" is not a view for the Buddha, but for those unawakened, it is a view. The Buddha taught rebirth as part of his understanding of how the world works.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:45 pm
by tiltbillings
clw_uk wrote:. However it [rebirth] was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
That is a claim you continually make, but as of yet, for all the quoting of suttas, you have yet to demonstrate. There is no inherent need for the idea of rebirth to be bound to the notion of "I-making," though like anything, it can be. It is, however, not a necessity, and as we have seen, rebirth is associated with the Four Noble Truths and it is associated directly with paticcasamuppada.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:35 pm
by isle21self
There are 4 clingings.

kama upadana, ditti upadana(clinging to views), silabbatha upadana and attavada upadana. These 4 keep us in sansara. If any body can remove upadana to all ditti (views), what would happen to the person at death if he has not removed the other 3.

Thanks in advance

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:50 pm
by Alex123
clw_uk wrote:5heaps
completely ridiculous
.

Not ridiculous. The idea of "rebirth-linking consciousness" to which your refering to did come later. Like I said, I may be wrong on exactly who, but If my memory serves me well I think it was Vasubandhu
"paṭisandhi" is mentioned in such books of Sutta-Pitaka, in KN (culaniddesa, patisambhidamagga, nettipakkarana, milindapanha, petakopadesa).

In MN106 there is the teaching evolving consciousness that can be reborn in certain state depending (in this sutta) on meditative achievement.
With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness (saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ) of his will go to the imperturbable. Kāyassa bhedā parammaraṇā ṭhānametaṃ vijjati: yaṃ taṃ saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ assa āneñjupagaṃ

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

Please explain that sentence. Especially the part about
1) With the break-up of the body, after death,
2) saṃvattanikaṃ viññāṇaṃ relinking to a new existence.

It is interesting that the sutta says that when doing such and such a practice to reach such and such a meditative state there are 3 outcomes:
a) One resolves (understands it?) with wisdom
b) one achieves that meditative state (4th Jhana or higher, which was the topic of that sutta)
c) After death, one is reborn there.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:18 pm
by Ceisiwr
Ben
clw_uk wrote:
However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of

Could you please indicate how you came to this conclusion? Could you please provide textual evidence that supports your conjecture?
thanks

Ben
Sure
However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death
.

This is self evident from the fact that he taught in this way to some. It it didn't have some merits then he wouldn't make use of it. It should be noted however that he also made use of the golden rule, without any such mention of devas and hell realms. He also made use of the annhiliationist view point (a view that he actually seen as having quite a few merits in) as well.

He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people
This is shown here


MN 68
"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

However it was/is a tainted view.

There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.


MN 117


That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha.

MN 117 states that Rebirth as a deva view is

"the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions."


Now I think we both know that grasping leads to dukkha. However grasping also leads to birth of "I"

"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922



It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
The Buddhas own teachings, the four noble truths, dont lead to grasping but non-clinging. Right view with taints leads to grasping and dukkha. It is not part of the Four Noble Truths but something that he made use of. The fact that he made use of it and the reason why is laid out in the above quote from MN 68


metta

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:24 pm
by Ceisiwr
"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922


On a side note Ben, this quite clearly shows that Jati in the scheme of D.O. refers to birth of "I" and NOT the birth of the aggregates


This falls in line with the definition of the first noble truth
"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

Notice it states that

In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

In other words

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha,

all come to be when there is clinging to the aggregates.

There is clinging to the aggregates all the time, so there is constant birth (and dukkha)

So when there is clinging, there is birth of "I am". This then is bound with ageing-death and stress

Cling to the body and there is "I am" the body. The body ages and falters and there is dukkha


metta

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:31 pm
by Alex123
Hello CLW,


Just because word jati was used once (or few times) for arising of impersonal elements, it doesn't change the fact that there is another meaning of jati and it was described as rebirth.


Please explain MN129 and MN130.

Also please explain "With the break-up of the body, after death, it's possible that this leading-on consciousness of his will go to..." .


As for "clinging aggregates". Even an arahant has clinging aggregates, the aggregates that arose due to previous (prior to arahantship) clinging.

So if it is only clinging aggregates that are dukkha, then even an Arahant would experience that dukkha.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 am
by Ben
Hi Craig

Thanks for taking the time to provide those responses. Again, I am sorry to say, I believe it is just selective quoting.
You also mention that rebirth was a doctrine "that the Buddha made use of". I think underlying that comment is an assumption that rebirth, as the Buddha taught it (or something very similar to it) was so dominant as to be widely accepted by his contemporaries that teaching the Dhamma unalloyed from the contemporary view of rebirth would have been too radical for the vast majority of his putthujana followers, is that correct?
kind regards

Ben

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:00 am
by tiltbillings
clw_uk wrote:However he did see merits in one particular view. This was the view of being reborn after death. He saw that such a view could lead to development of morality in people. Hence he encouraged such a view to some. However it was/is a tainted view. That is to say it is bound up with grasping, I-making and dukkha. It is therefore not part of his own teachings but rather something he made use of
Make use of. Insight into rebirth was a central part of the Buddha's awakening experience, and as much as you try to dismiss rebirth as some sort of "tainted" view thingie, you have made no comvincing argument for that position. Any view can be "tainted." The view about views that you anti-rebirthers are clinging to to dismiss what the Buddha clearly taught makes that point.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:18 am
by tiltbillings
clw_uk wrote:
"Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worlding ... Reguards form as Self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation - what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it BORN and produced? When ther uninstructed wordling .. is contacted by feeling born of ignorance contact, craving arises. Thence that formation is born.
"


Bodhi translation page 922
If you could actually read Pali, inderstand its grammar and idiomatic word usage, you would see that there is nothing unusual in the fact a word such as jati can be used in any number of contexts. To assume that it is otherwise is likely to result in a self guided toddle down the garden path.

On a side note Ben, this quite clearly shows that Jati in the scheme of D.O. refers to birth of "I" and NOT the birth of the aggregates


This falls in line with the definition of the first noble truth
"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

Notice it states that

In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

In other words

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha,

all come to be when there is clinging to the aggregates.

There is clinging to the aggregates all the time, so there is constant birth (and dukkha)

So when there is clinging, there is birth of "I am". This then is bound with ageing-death and stress

Cling to the body and there is "I am" the body. The body ages and falters and there is dukkha


metta
And there is not one thing in what you said here that even remotely approaches a convincing argument against this text also being reasonably read in a literal manner. The extreme view here, the view that is indicative of clinging, is the one that insist that there only one correct way to read this text.

Re: Suttas relevant to Rebirth?

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 3:50 am
by hamsa
Individual wrote:DN 28

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Sampasadaniya_Sutta" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Moreover, lord, this too is unsurpassable : the way namely in which the Exalted One teaches the Norm concerning descensions at rebirth : — That there are four modes in descension, thus : — one descends into the mother's womb unknowing, 3 abides there unknowing, departs thence unknowing. This is the first mode. Next, one descends into the mother's womb knowingly, but persists there and departs thence unknowing. This is the second mode. Again, one descends and persists knowing, but departs unknowing. This is the third mode. Again, one descends into the mother's womb, knowing, persists there knowing and departs thence knowing. This is the fourth mode of descension. Unsurpassable, lord, is this concerning descensions at rebirth.
Here the terms used are alternatively gabbha and its synonym, kucchi, both explicitly meaning ‘womb’ (gabbha-avakkanti = the coming down into the womb – here translated just as ‘mode’, to avoid repetitions; matū-kucchi = mother’s womb):

Aparam para bhante etad ānuttariyaṃ, yathā Bhagavā dhammaṃ deseti gabbhāvakkantīsu. Catasso imā bhante gabbhāvakkantiyo. Idha bhante ekacco asampajāno c’eva mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, asampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ paṭhamā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, asampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ dutiyā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, sampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, asampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ tatiyā gabbhāvakkhanti. Puna ca paraṃ bhante idh’ekacco sampajāno pi kho mātu kucchiṃ okkamati, sampajāno mātu kucchismiṃ ṭhāti, sampajāno mātu kucchismā nikkhamati. Ayaṃ catutthā gabbhāvakkhanti. Etad ānuttariyaṃ bhante gabbhāvakkhantīsu.”
(D 28, PTS iii.103)