According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by DNS »

Sam Vara wrote: I like the rather more modest interpretation of Richard Gombrich in What the Buddha Thought. He maintains the idea of personal continuity, as this is the only way of making sense of us being owners of and heirs to, etc., our individual kamma, as per binocular's post above.
Yes, that would make sense in the terms of continuity. Gombrich elaborates further in chapter 5:
Gombrich wrote:In brief, such confusion surrounds our own use of the term 'soul'
that to translate the Buddhist concept of anattii as 'no soul' is at
best uninformative and at worst utterly misleading. In fact it does, in
my experience, often mislead people, because they tend to
understand it as denying a principle of continuity. As explained in
the Introduction, that is totally wrong, for in Buddhism there is an
extremely strong principle of continuity -which is karma. I therefore
try to avoid using the word 'soul' in discussing the topic. What makes
it impossible, however, to follow this policy consistently is that
Buddhism in India became identified with the teaching of anatti,
which became a virtual label or catchphrase; and in such a context
I must admit that I see no better shorthand expression than No
Soul, which is how it has always been rendered in English.
However, would Gombrich's view of "no unchanging self" (basically an impermanent self) be compatible with the Classical Theravada anatta?
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by aflatun »

David N. Snyder wrote:In the suttas it is clear that the aggregates are not-self, that they do not continue
Can you explain what you mean by this?
David N. Snyder wrote:I completely agree with anatta. If you cut a being open and look inside there is no soul to be found; dissect a body and its brain, still no soul, no self.
I don't intent to nit pick here, but do you really find this convincing? How does any such procedure lead to the conclusion of anatta?

For one, a dissected organism is one thing and a functional living one is another (or if you like, a heap of parts is one thing and a chariot is another)

Second, why would a subject ever be found in an object? Please note, I don't believe in a transcendental subject, or any 'real' subject! My point is, that kind of procedure would leave an Atman, or atmavada, entirely untouched.
David N. Snyder wrote:Yet there is something that gets reborn and allows for rebirth (according to the suttas and classical Theravada).
Are you sure the suttas state the situation like this (i.e. there is some *thing* that is reborn?) Again I'm not nit picking, but I'm wondering if the way your framing the issue might benefit from some refinement.

Thank you for your indulgence :)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by Sam Vara »

David N. Snyder wrote:
However, would Gombrich's view of "no unchanging self" (basically an impermanent self) be compatible with the Classical Theravada anatta?
That's an excellent point. I'm certainly very uneasy with the idea of "poo roo" ("the one who knows") in Ajahn Chah's tradition, which is 2c, and in a strange way very close to 2b. It seems similar to the error made by Sati the fisherman's son. (I say this as one who has spent twenty years attending a monastery in that lineage, and has listened to Ajahn Sumedho outline versions of it many times.)

I'm not sure if Gombrich's conception is all that different from anatta in most of Theravada. Are there any particular divergences which concern you? If there were, I think I would prefer intellectual coherence over tradition. Retro's earlier point about rebirth as a concept being Western Buddhism's attempt to square anatta with the traditional belief in reincarnation has hit me quite forcefully.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by DNS »

Digha Nikaya 1 wrote:Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an investigator. He declares his view hammered out by reason, deduced from his investigations, following his own flight of thought thus: 'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue," and "the body" that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal, subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) that self is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain the same just like eternity itself.
(Buddha listing some of the wrong views regarding self)
We know that form is not eternal and then note that the Buddha remarks that even mind (citta), mentality (mano) and even consciousness does not continue, is not-self.

Rebirth is ubiquitous throughout the Suttas:
"He recalls to mind his various temporary states in days gone by; one birth, or two or three or four or five births, 10 or 20, 30 or 50, a 100 or a 1,000 or a 100,000 births, through many cycles of cosmic contraction and cosmic expansion . . .

. . . he recollects his numerous past lives: that is, (he recollects) one birth, two, three, four, or five births; ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty births; a hundred, a thousand, or a hundred thousand births; many hundreds of births, many thousands of births, many hundreds of thousands of births. (He recalls:) 'Then I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance; such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my span of life. Passing away thence, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his numerous past lives in their modes and their details.
"
Digha Nikaya 1
If some sentient being passes away in say, France and is "reborn" in Singapore, there is something that makes the transfer possible. If it is just two dudes born coincidentally 9 months apart with no connection, then that's not rebirth, that's just yolo.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by DNS »

David N. Snyder wrote:I completely agree with anatta. If you cut a being open and look inside there is no soul to be found; dissect a body and its brain, still no soul, no self.
aflatun wrote: I don't intent to nit pick here, but do you really find this convincing? How does any such procedure lead to the conclusion of anatta?
No, I don't find that convincing, but from a Classical view it seems that if one holds to a view of an immaterial self if even an impermanent self, then the Classical position would be to call that atmavadin. And that could be why so many modern day Theravada Buddhists are materialists and skeptical of rebirth.

For me personally, I'm not a materialist or skeptic on rebirth, thus, this discussion.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by aflatun »

David N. Snyder wrote:If some sentient being passes away in say, France and is "reborn" in Singapore, there is something that makes the transfer possible. If it is just two dudes born coincidentally 9 months apart with no connection, then that's not rebirth, that's just yolo.
Lmao! Agreed.
David N. Snyder wrote:For me personally, I'm not a materialist or skeptic on rebirth, thus, this discussion.
We're on the same page here! (And I didn't assume you were :) )
And that could be why so many modern day Theravada Buddhists are materialists and skeptical of rebirth.
I tend to think its more because they have a belief that "science has proven materialism, x, y and z," or that they simply do what most people do: believe what they're told to believe, or what the "expert" (the new priest) believes. But no need to go down this rabbit trail, that's their problem, not ours.
No, I don't find that convincing, but from a Classical view it seems that if one holds to a view of an immaterial self if even an impermanent self, then the Classical position would be to call that atmavadin.
I believe the Classical position is correct in this regard!

The reason I brought up the apple in my first post in this thread, is I believe your question boils down to (although you didn't phrase it this way) "what makes an individual an individual, in the midst of all the change?" If we can answer what makes an individual an individual in this life, then we might be able to answer what makes two separate lives belong to an individual without positing any kind of self, substance, essence etc?

I don't think anatta requires any denial of individuality. This continuum of "mine" is individual, and extends onwards into past and future "forever," but its not "mine, what I am, my self." There's continuity between last year and today much as there's continuity between this life and the next. In fact it would have to be in the same exact way for 'rebirth' to make any sense for me. Do we need a "what" to provide that continuity? Conceptually maybe.

Its the same apple from first look to last bite, even though when we search for what makes it so, we can't find it. (Pulga and SDC: if you're out there, I believe you can help here!)

But we are in the classical forum, and I believe the classical position would be that "apple" is mere concept, and the momentary pulses of citta and rupa that make up that experience are what's "ultimately real" (someone please fix this if I've botched the terminology)

(It was probably in response to this kind of question that bhavanga citta and alaya vijnana were elaborated, but best to ignore them for now because it seems you don't find these explanations particularly compelling)




Sam Vara wrote: Retro's earlier point about rebirth as a concept being Western Buddhism's attempt to square anatta with the traditional belief in reincarnation has hit me quite forcefully.
Can you direct me to this prior discussion? (If its not to much trouble, of course)
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
SarathW
Posts: 21226
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by SarathW »

What is reborn is the ignorance. (ie: the thought I, me and myself)
Ignorance is like the fire.
Why grass fire become a bush fire?
What is the cause of the bush fire?
What if we extinguish the grass fire? Will there be a bush fire?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Sam Vara wrote:Retro's earlier point about rebirth as a concept being Western Buddhism's attempt to square anatta with the traditional belief in reincarnation has hit me quite forcefully.
aflatun wrote:Can you direct me to this prior discussion? (If its not to much trouble, of course)
It was here...

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5611
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by robertk »

. Elimininativism would be the view that the self is a complete and useless fiction that so much gets in the way that we had best eliminate all mention of it altogether. (In another context, an eliminativist might say about the concept of the soul that it is utterly vacuous and so misleading that we had best purge our vocabulary of it.)

2. Reductionism would be the view that it makes sense to speak of a self, but only insofar as "self" is a convenient shorthand for a complex of phenomena that it would be cumbersome to mention in full detail.

2.a. There is no self but there is a frequency transfer of kammic energies (some interpretations)
2.b. There is no permanent self, but there is an indeterminate, inexpressible self (pudgalavada)
2.c. There is no permanent self but there is citta which never dies (some Forest traditions and other modern interpretations in Theravada and Mahayana)
2.d. What is reborn? Neuroses (Trungpa)
2.e. There is no permanent self, but there is a mind stream which is individual and continues (some interpretations)
2.f. There is no self but there is a Ālāya-vijñāna (store-house consciousness) accounting for kamma and rebirth (Mahayana-Yogachara)

3. Realism would be the view that the self is fully real in that there are predicates that apply to it but that cannot be applied to anything else. The self is one of the ultimately real constituents of the world, and it would therefore be an intellectual mistake to eliminate it or to see it as merely a convenient fiction. (In another context, some philosophers hold that consciousness is a sui generis reality that cannot correctly be seen as just a metaphorical or careless way of speaking about events in the brain.) No schools of Buddhism (including the Pudgalavada) have adopted this realism view were realists, but that one can find self-realists in most non-Buddhist schools of Indian philosophy. These are the full-fledged atmavadins.

Number one above would be associated with nihilism and number three with eternalism. Orthodox Theravada would perhaps be some where between numbers one and two (perhaps 2.a.?) and Modern Theravada views would be number two or one of the 2 a. to 2 e. Thoughts?

Did I miss any other possibilities?

There are analogies to a flame being passed from one candle to another; it is not the same flame as it is always changing, but then that could be interpreted as an "impermanent self" which is opposed to the classical view. Bhante Punnaji describes it as a frequency transmission, sort of like changing the channel on your remote control, so I'm leaning toward that explanation. (2.a.) Does anyone have a better explanation, from the Classical view? And note for the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming rebirth is real.

There is only citta, cetasika and rupa that arise and cease instantly. However each citta (in conjunction with cetasikas) potentially conditions succeeding cittas which means there is a stream - neverending, unless khandha parinibbana occurs- of these elements.
THere is no problem at all talking about people and self as long as one understands that these are mere linguistic terms of convenience to identify who and what.
User avatar
cjmacie
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:49 am

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by cjmacie »

.
I put this question (as in the OP) to both Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu in post-talk Q/A sessions over the last couple of years. Both replied, in effect, that craving is reborn.

It's hard for me to realistically imagine personal, soul-type recurrence, but observing behavior patterns that come and go, again and again, has always been a fascinating past-time.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by Lazy_eye »

David N. Snyder wrote:
2.a. There is no self but there is a frequency transfer of kammic energies (some interpretations)
2.b. There is no permanent self, but there is an indeterminate, inexpressible self (pudgalavada)
2.c. There is no permanent self but there is citta which never dies (some Forest traditions and other modern interpretations in Theravada and Mahayana)
2.d. What is reborn? Neuroses (Trungpa)
2.e. There is no permanent self, but there is a mind stream which is individual and continues (some interpretations)
2.f. There is no self but there is a Ālāya-vijñāna (store-house consciousness) accounting for kamma and rebirth (Mahayana-Yogachara)
The Sampasādanīya Sutta, DN 28, refers to "the unbroken flux of human consciousness," in a section on degrees of discernment. It's a difficult sutta and probably there is some context or dimension of meaning to the words that I'm not aware of. However, on the face of it, doesn't this "unbroken flux" sound like 2e or possibly 2c?

[A recluse or brahmin] by means of ardour, of effort, of application, of strenuous earnestness, of careful concentration, reaches up to such rapture of thought that with rapt mind he meditates introspectively on just this bodily organism from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, as a hide-bound mass of manifold uncleanness...and he goes on after that to discern the unbroken flux of human consciousness established both in this world and in another world.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by binocular »

aflatun wrote:We might be talking about two different things, but I'm not sure? When you said "not definitive for its identity" with respect to the ship, I thought you mean there was something that was definitive for its identity apart from its material components, i.e. an essence.
No. I think it's the concepts of "individuality" and "essence" when we take them for granted that make us think of and look for things that might not be there.

It is my intuition that for a practicing Buddhist, whether a ship from a couple of years ago called "Argo" is the same ship called "Argo" now is not relevant, nor is it relevant that the John one knew ten years ago is the same John one knows now.
Identity, essence are important for various practical worldly purposes (note: legal purposes), and in some religions, they are important to the execution of justice (so that the right, the same person goes to hell forever and ever, etc.). But beyond that -- what is the use of notions like identity, essence?
Or are you saying that kamma, or intention, is what makes an individual continuum what it is?
As far as I understood, yes. It's kamma that makes the I. It's not that kamma makes you you; it's that kamma makes you.
In "I am the owner of my kamma", I don't take this to mean that that "I" exists somehow separately from the kamma, or that it is "I" who makes kamma. It's the other way around.
aflatun wrote:The reason I brought up the apple in my first post in this thread, is I believe your question boils down to (although you didn't phrase it this way) "what makes an individual an individual, in the midst of all the change?" If we can answer what makes an individual an individual in this life, then we might be able to answer what makes two separate lives belong to an individual without positing any kind of self, substance, essence etc?
Indeed! What is it that makes you you?
Your taste in music? Your name? The color of your skin? Your education? What your parents think of you? ...

We can specifiy identity in some worldly contexts and for worldly purposes. But beyond that, I don't see how it is possible to define identity in any meaningful way.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by binocular »

David N. Snyder wrote:My discussion centers around how does sentient being C go to sentient being D after she passes away, does not attain nibbana while in lifetime C?
By kamma.
I completely agree with anatta. If you cut a being open and look inside there is no soul to be found; dissect a body and its brain, still no soul, no self.
I don't find this convincing at all. To know another's self, you would have to become that other's self -- which is not possible.
Moreover, an experiment like you describe assumes that our current state of technology is able to discover a self by dissecting a body. Which assumes that the self is something material that third parties with their current level of technology are able to find. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17186
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by DNS »

binocular wrote:
I completely agree with anatta. If you cut a being open and look inside there is no soul to be found; dissect a body and its brain, still no soul, no self.
I don't find this convincing at all. To know another's self, you would have to become that other's self -- which is not possible.
Moreover, an experiment like you describe assumes that our current state of technology is able to discover a self by dissecting a body. Which assumes that the self is something material that third parties with their current level of technology are able to find. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I responded to that already here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 26#p431146
Of course I don't find that convincing either, I was pointing out that if one looks to something immaterial, it is often labeled as possessing a self view or subtle self view.
binocular wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:My discussion centers around how does sentient being C go to sentient being D after she passes away, does not attain nibbana while in lifetime C?
By kamma.
Yes, but how does the kamma go to the next sentient being? There must be some stream, mind-stream, etc., some continuity.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: According to Classical Theravada, what is reborn?

Post by aflatun »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Sam Vara wrote:Retro's earlier point about rebirth as a concept being Western Buddhism's attempt to square anatta with the traditional belief in reincarnation has hit me quite forcefully.
aflatun wrote:Can you direct me to this prior discussion? (If its not to much trouble, of course)
It was here...

Metta,
Paul. :)
Thank you for that Retro! I think I was getting at a similar thing by saying that "what" is just another "who," but I like the way you phrased it better :thumbsup:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Post Reply