the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

I thank you for your courtesy but you have nothing to fear. I rarely get offended.

I am not being courteous to you. I am pointing out the Dependent Origination possibly currently arising in your mind. Your mind is probably producing (abhinibbatti) views of beings (sattānaṃ) within categories of beings (sattanikāye) from the appearance of aggregates (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) as an acquisition of sense experience (āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho). These views are entering (okkanti) and solidified/completed (sañjāti) to give birth (jāti) to solid delusions of personhood.

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.

Like Mara:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

SN 5.10

And I agree with all of that whilst accepting that post physical death this process will continue.

[DooDoot]

And I agree with all of that whilst accepting that post physical death this process will continue.

Maybe but at least my reading of D.O. does not find this. The suttas say:

And what, bhikkhus, are the dependently arisen phenomena?

Aging-and-death, bhikkhus, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.

Birth is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, vanishing, fading away, and cessation.

https://suttacentral.net/sn12.20/en/bodhi

The suttas say:

“Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi

[Ceisiwr]

I mean relative truth is that post death there is rebirth, enlightened truth is that the process is empty of self or anything belonging to a self. That higher fact doesn’t negate the process continuing past death.

You argument seems to be that because on a higher truth the aggregates are empty of self that means that rebirth post death isn’t true or is something undeclared by the Buddha. To me this is missing the mark since the Buddha refers to “being” and “person” etc in this life without adhering to it. In the same way he can refer to a being post death. It’s true in that there is a being post death if there is clinging. It’s delusional because the “being” is merely a dhamma arising from clinging.

I just don’t see how your view of dependent origination = Buddha didn’t teach that the process doesn’t or does not continue post death. It seems to me he taught that it does.

[DooDoot]

Are you declaring direct knowledge of paṭiccasamuppāda? It seems that the path is difficult and long, although that could just be true for me.

The path is not long for men who have discerned how wrong sexual conduct harms women. When a man discerns what is right sexual conduct towards women, his sexual options become extremely limited. Its either marriage (with its myriad potential burdensome family obligations) or celibacy.

As for gay men, I recall before asking the question before how can "gayness" enhance "dhammicness"?

The great hindrance to direct realisation of D.O. is sensual desire.

Best wishes

I tell you that I have seen beings who — endowed with bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct; who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — at the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell

[Ceisiwr]

““Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?”


Rebirth and kamma are basic views which, if one sticks at this level, leads ultimately to dukkha. However, they are views which can support an individuals practice as they strive towards Nibbana. It’s also worth noting that A) Many still think in terms of “I am” when referring to the future in this life. I do when setting my alarm in the morning or when I’m planning laboratory work, and B) It’s possible to look at rebirth and kamma in terms of the 4NT. In others words you can look at rebirth as simply being “If I do good I will exist in X state” or you can look at it as being suffering.

[Ceisiwr]

Are you declaring direct knowledge of paṭiccasamuppāda? It seems that the path is difficult and long, although that could just be true for me.

The path is not long for men who have discerned how wrong sexual conduct harms women. When a man discerns what is right sexual conduct towards women, his sexual options become extremely limited. Its either marriage (with its myriad potential burdensome family obligations) or celibacy.

As for gay men, I recall before asking the question before how can "gayness" enhance "dhammicness"?

The great hindrance to direct realisation of D.O. is sensual desire.

Best wishes

I tell you that I have seen beings who — endowed with bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct; who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — at the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell

Homosexuality and it’s relation to the Dhamma is entirely irrelevant in the context of this debate.

[DooDoot]

Rebirth and kamma are basic views which if one sticks at this level leads ultimately to dukkha.

Appears not so according to MN 117, which says "kamma" is a doctrine of asava (corruptions) & acquisitions (upadhi) yet sides with "merit".

SN 12.?? says "meritorious" formations must end for Nibbana. AN 6.63 says "kamma" must end for Nibbana.

[Ceisiwr]

Rebirth and kamma are basic views which if one sticks at this level leads ultimately to dukkha.

Appears not so according to MN 117, which says "kamma" is a doctrine of asava (corruptions) & acquisitions (upadhi) yet sides with "merit".

SN 12.19 says "meritorious" formations must end for Nibbana. AN 6.63 says "kamma" must end for Nibbana.

They lead to further clinging, which is true. That doesn’t mean that such a view is false nor that it isn’t a beneficial view. It doesn’t mean it isn’t a part of the Dhamma or the Buddha’s direct knowledge either.

The NEFP leads to the ending of kamma. Without that the process doesn’t end.

[DooDoot]

They lead to further clinging, which is true. That doesn’t mean that such a view is false nor that it isn’t a beneficial view.

It actually is a "false view" not in terms of morality but in terms of anatta & Nibbana. The belief in "my good kamma" is a false view from the perspective of Nibbana but not from the perspective of morality & non-harming.

Best wishes. I got to go.

[Dinsdale]

In SN5.10 "being" refer to a convention or attachment, whereas in SN12.2 "beings" refers to living organisms (animals) which experience birth, ageing and death.

Sorry but SN 5.10 and SN 23.2 provide explicit definitions where as your personal interpretation of SN 12.2 is merely that; just your imagination.

You seem to be missing the following points:

1. D.O. is about the culmination of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.

2. For sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair to occur; aging & death must occur. People grieve over loss, change, aging & death. They do not grieve when there is no sense of personal loss.

3. For aging & death to generate sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, there must be "acquisition" connected with the aging & death (MN 26; SN 12.66). The loss must be "personal".

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.’ SN 12.66 https://suttacentral.net/sn12.66/en/bodhi

4. As I said, when change & destruction occur to non-personal things (such as a tree in a forest falling down or a cloud evaporating), there is no sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair.

5. For sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair to occur, there must be something "personal" or "acquired" that ages & death. While the aggregates certainly change, alter, decay & are destroyed, the idea of "death" applies to the idea of a "person" that "dies". For example, SN 22.85 does not say Arahants "die". SN 22.85 says the aggregates of an Arahant are destroyed. SN 22.85 says to believe an Arahant "dies" is wrong view.

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end."

"Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.

SN 22.85 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

6. Thus, when your wife's hair starts to grey & her skin starts to wrinkle, you suffer. You suffer because your lust for your wife changes & is under threat. While the skin certainly wrinkles & the hair certainly greys, what is "aging" is the acquisition you call "my wife". The idea of "my wife" was a "becoming". When you were 5 years old, you did not have "a wife". You were not yet "born" as "a husband". But when you "became" a "husband" via marriage and were "born" with the identity of "a husband", because of this becoming & birth, an "aging" happens to your "wife" when her skins wrinkles & her hair becomes grey that causes you to suffer. MN 26 says:

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

MN 26

Note: The above does not refute reincarnation. Reincarnation in hell may still occur due to bad kamma but it may not occur due to dependent origination

Sorry but I still don't agree. The meaning of words is always dependent on context, and satta does appear to have different meanings in SN5.10 and SN12.2.

It looks like you are trying to shoehorn the meaning from SN5.10 into SN12.2 because it fits your interpretation, rather than looking carefully at the context in SN12.2, where satta has the meaning of living creatures - it is being used there as a convention.
And note the reference to various groups and orders of beings in SN12.2, which sounds like species. So SN12.2 is talking about beings in general, which again supports the view of satta being used here in the conventional sense.

Obviously the physical processes of aging and death lead to suffering because of attachment and identification, but in this context that is a

[Ceisiwr]

They lead to further clinging, which is true. That doesn’t mean that such a view is false nor that it isn’t a beneficial view.

It actually is a "false view" not in terms of morality but in terms of anatta & Nibbana. The belief in "my good kamma" is a false view from the perspective of Nibbana but not from the perspective of morality & non-harming.

Best wishes. I got to go.

Have a good day

[Dinsdale]

Indeed. The above appears to show "aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair" are one phenomena. Since sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair are definitely something "mental" then its seems "aging-&-death" is also something "mental" (rather than "physical").

The "one phenomena" here is just dukkha, so the above is an abbreviated summary of the First Truth.

The aging process is clearly described as physical rather than mental (see SN12.2), it's simply that mental suffering arises from physical aging and the associated ailments and pain. The Arrow Sutta is relevant here.

So mental suffering arises from the physical process of aging and death, due to identification, regarding them as "my aging" and "my death" . This looks straightforward to me, I don't understand why it's such an issue for you.

By the way, could you explain what you mean by "ego death"? It's a phrase you often use, but I don't recall you actually defining it.

[cappuccino]

"ego death" isn't applicable for this teaching


neither to affirm or deny

[DooDoot]

The aging process is clearly described as physical rather than mental (see SN12.2), it's simply that mental suffering arises from physical aging and the associated ailments and pain. The Arrow Sutta is relevant here.

So mental suffering arises from the physical process of aging and death, due to identification, regarding them as "my aging" and "my death" . This looks straightforward to me...

Indeed. It is very straightforward. Yet you keep claiming it is "physical"; despite now admitting there is a salient mental component.

At least, after countless posts over countless years, the penny is beginning to drop for you.

The aging process is clearly described as mental rather than physical (see SN 12.2) because "a being" ("satta"), per its definition in SN 23.2 and SN 5.10, is something mental. SN 23.2:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

SN 12.2 says:

And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality, degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together called aging-and-death.

[Dinsdale]

"ego death" isn't applicable for this teaching

Difficult to say, because the term hasn't been explained.

In any case, birth, old age and death in DO are clearly described in bioligical/physical terms.

So logically cessation of these must refer to either the cessation of future birth, old age and death, or the cessation of mental anguish associated with these bodily events/processes.

The argument used about "beings" is a since the word is used in the conventional sense here, meaning living creatures. This is clear from the references to "classes of beings", which means humans, animals, etc.