DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:38 am

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:The problem I have with his rejection of the 3 Lives model is that he does not address the many suttas that clearly link kamma at one moment with "establishment" of consciousness which must occur at a next life, given the mutuality of namarupa with vinnana.
It is not necessary that the "establishment of consciousness... must occur at a next life, given the mutuality of namarupa with vinnana" at all.

How does ear-consciousness come to be established, how does eye-consciousness come to be established? By being conscious of (by placing attention on, as part of nama) sensory input.

Since when, in "many suttas", is consciousness understood as rebirth-linking consciousness rather than with reference to the six sense-bases?

SN 35.93: Dvaya Sutta — A Pair (current Study Group topic)
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8242" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:23 am

Hi retro

To answer that question, firstly I need to understand how you understand the term Namarupa in the context of DN 15. To make myself clear, does eg ear-consciousness descend into the womb in the context of DN 15?
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?
What does the context of the descent of Namarupa (namarupassa avakkanti) in SN 12.39 mean in your understanding of Namarupa? See -
What one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name and form.
I hope you are not suggesting that we read this passage to mean that namarupa descends over and over and over and over in one lifetime.

How would you interpret "establishment" in light of this passage from SN 12.64 -
Monks, if there is lust, or delight, or craving for edible food *, consciousness is established therein and grows.
Where consciousness is established and grows, there is the descent of name-and-form.
Where there is the descent of name-and-form, there is the growth of formations.
Where there is the growth of formations, there is further rebirth.
Where there is further rebirth, there are further birth, decay and death.
Where there are further birth, decay and death, bhikshus, I say that it is accompanied by sorrow, by anguish, by despair.

* repeated for contact, intention and vinnana
Bear in mind the special temporal allowances of the locative absolute that governs iddapaccayata, which could have easily been abrogated had the redactors used the genitive absolute.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:51 am

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:To answer that question, firstly I need to understand how you understand the term Namarupa in the context of DN 15. To make myself clear, does eg ear-consciousness descend into the womb in the context of DN 15?
That's why I emphasised "many suttas", since DN15 is the only one I'm aware of to make this representation. It's a dubious interpretation too, because if you assume consciousness to mean rebirth-consciousness, and nama-rupa to mean mind-and-body, then there is absolutely nothing that can be done in this lifetime to bring cessation to them through the cessation of ignorance. Nothing to be done about the whirlpool of nama-rupa and vinnana other than to accept it as being a proxy for a sentient being.

It would appear that DN 15 is the first attempt to smuggle transmigration into the Buddha's teaching of dependent origination, something which would later be done independently of the suttas through the scholastic tradition. Virtually anything worth knowing in the Digha Nikaya can be found already in more reliable teachings in the Majjhima and Samyutta Nikayas. There are many, many suttas in those 2 volumes alone which accurately portray dependent origination without presenting it in such a way as to introduce religionists from other soul-based teachings to the Dhamma (as was the purpose of the DN, as observed by Bhikkhu Bodhi, amongst others).
Sylvester wrote:What does the context of the descent of Namarupa (namarupassa avakkanti) in SN 12.39 mean in your understanding of Namarupa? See -
What one intends, and what one plans and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is a descent of name and form.
I hope you are not suggesting that we read this passage to mean that namarupa descends over and over and over and over in one lifetime.
Of course I am, because that's precisely what happens. Have you never, during meditation, observed the interplay between nama-rupa and vinnana? Never seen how tendencies (intentions) repeatedly carry attention to certain subjects of consciousness?... fashioning obsessions?...
How would you interpret "establishment" in light of this passage from SN 12.64 -
Monks, if there is lust, or delight, or craving for edible food *, consciousness is established therein and grows.
Where consciousness is established and grows, there is the descent of name-and-form.
Where there is the descent of name-and-form, there is the growth of formations.
Where there is the growth of formations, there is further rebirth.
Where there is further rebirth, there are further birth, decay and death.
Where there are further birth, decay and death, bhikshus, I say that it is accompanied by sorrow, by anguish, by despair.

* repeated for contact, intention and vinnana
What a daft translation. "Edible food", how incongruent :( Try "nutriment" and then refer to how nutriment is defined in the suttas. Given that "bhava" also seems to be translated as "further rebirth", I pay no heed to this translation, let alone what it might say regarding "establishment".

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16476
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:57 am

Hmm, interesting questions here.

Perhaps one could separate the two questions:
1. DO itself (can) involve(s) rebirth.
2. The ceasing of DO halts rebirth.

Browsing through the Nidana Vagga http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#nidana" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I would have great difficulty arguing against the latter. Some commentators do argue against the former without arguing against the latter (E.g. Ven Nanananda, who does discuss that DN 15 section somewhere in his Nibbana seminars --- I'm sure Retro can find us the quote...).

:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:06 am

Greetings Mike,

Regarding point 2, the cessation of ignorance brings an end to bhava and jati, regardless of how they are translated.

In other words... bhava, by any definition, or jati, by any definition... neither apply once ignorance ceases.

Accordingly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who argued against point 2.... it's point 1 that's the contentious one.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16476
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:31 am

Hi Retro,

Are there not some who argue that there is no post-mortem rebirth? That there is no wheel of samsara (Samsara-cakka/bhava-cakka http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... .htm#cakka). Those people might argue against point 2.

:anjali:
Mike

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:43 am

Fair enough, retro. At least you don't shy away from reading DN 15's descent of namarupa as a possible exposition post-dating the Buddha.

As for the "edible food" translation for SN 12.64, how do you propose to translate "kabaḷīkāra ahara", where "kabaḷīkāra ahara" is said to be the "XXXX nutriment"? Clearly kabaḷīkāra is an adjective to the noun "ahara", so what is it, when it is definitely not a noun as you propose?

Rejecting "edible food" for "nutriment" is not particularly helpful, since SN 12.64 goes on to discuss the 3 other nutriments, ie contact nutriment (phassa ahara), volition nutriment (manosancetana ahara) and consciousness nutriment (vinnana ahara) (see the little asterisk in the citation above). It's the same list of ahara found in SN 12.11. The "establishment" of consciousness based on kabaḷīkāra ahara is repeated verbatim for each of the other 3 ahara as a peyyala.
Given that "bhava" also seems to be translated at "further rebirth", I pay no heed to this translation, let alone what it might say regarding "establishment".
I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting above. The term used in SN 12.64 was the technical punabbhava, which is then followed by birth (jāti). The Pali says -
Yattha atthi nāmarūpassa avakkanti, atthi tattha saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi. Yattha atthi saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi, atthi tattha āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti. Yattha atthi āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti, atthi tattha āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ.
Doesn't look like there was any confusing the 3 Bhava with popping-out-of-the-oven Jati.

If it is not too much trouble, what do you understand by the suttas' references to "consciousness is established" (viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ)? I will lay my cards on the table in stating that my interpretation of the suttas as plainly presenting DO on a multiple lifetimes model in fact turns on the suttas (other than DN 15) which discuss the "establishment" of consciousness. But do share with us how you actually interpret and understand consciousness being established. This is important, otherwise we would have no common vocabulary or even understanding of this process.
Have you never, during meditation, observed the interplay between nama-rupa and vinnana? Never seen how tendencies (intentions) repeatedly carry attention to certain subjects of consciousness?... fashioning obsessions?...
I hope by now, it should be obvious from my posts, that I'm disinclined to discuss the Dhamma by reference to experiential testimony. I trust you will not object if we confine this discussion to the textual testament?

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16476
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by mikenz66 » Sat Apr 30, 2011 4:58 am

Perhaps Retro follows Ven Nanananda, Nibbana Sermon 4 (Vol 1 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katukurund ... ished_Work)

Not that I completely follow the argument... :thinking:
It should be clearly understood that the passage of con-
sciousness from here to a mother's womb is not a movement
from one place to another, as in the case of the body. In reality,
it is only a difference of point of view, and not a transmigra-
tion of a soul. In other words, when consciousness leaves this
body and comes to stay in a mother's womb, when it is fully
established there, `that' place becomes a `this' place. From the
point of view of that consciousness, the `there' becomes a `here'.
Consequently, from the new point of view, what was earlier a
`here', becomes a `there'. What was formerly `that place' has
now become `this place' and vice versa. That way, what actu-
ally is involved here, is a change of point of view. So it does
not mean completely leaving one place and going to another, as
is usually meant by the journey of an individual.

The process, then, is a sort of going round and round. This
is all the more clear by the Buddha's statement that even con-
sciousness is dependently arisen. There are instances in which
the view that this selfsame consciousness fares on in saṃsāra
by itself, tadevidaṃ viññāṇaṃ sandhāvati saṃsarati, anaññaṃ,
is refuted as a wrong view.

On the one hand, for the sustenance and growth of name-
and-form in a mother's womb, consciousness is necessary. On
the other hand, consciousness necessarily requires an object
for its stability. It could be some times an intention, or else
a thought construct. In the least, it needs a trace of latency, or
anusaya. This fact is clear enough from the sutta quotations
we brought up towards the end of the previous sermon. From
the Cetanāsutta, we happened to quote on an earlier occasion,
it is obvious that at least a trace of latency is necessary for the
sustenance of consciousness.

When consciousness gets established in a mother's womb,
with this condition in the least, name-and-form begins to grow.
It grows, at it were, with a flush of branches, in the form of the
six sense bases, to produce a fresh tree of suffering.
...
:anjali:
Mike

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:02 am

Greetings Mike,
mikenz66 wrote:Are there not some who argue that there is no post-mortem rebirth? That there is no wheel of samsara (Samsara-cakka/bhava-cakka http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... .htm#cakka). Those people might argue against point 2.
I assumed that if they didn't believe in post-mortem rebirth, then they would accept that there would be no rebirth, with or without ignorance.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 5:20 am

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:The term used in SN 12.64 was the technical punabbhava, which is then followed by birth (jāti).
Well, that's fine then... repeated becoming, leading to being thus born into an identity.
Sylvester wrote:If it is not too much trouble, what do you understand by the suttas' references to "consciousness is established" (viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitaṃ)?
A particular consciousness is formed. It has arisen and come into focus. Or to quote venerable Nanananda, courtesy of Mike... "consciousness necessarily requires an object for its stability. It could be some times an intention, or else a thought construct. In the least, it needs a trace of latency." It is not transmigration. :(
Sylvester wrote:This is important, otherwise we would have no common vocabulary or even understanding of this process.
The understanding comes from studying the Dhamma and observing these processes within the domain of experience. Is what is said in the suttas true? How else to know than to validate against one's experience? "Well-proclaimed, truly, is this Lord's Teaching, visible here and now, timeless, inviting inspection, leading onward, to be realised by the wise each one for himself"
Sylvester wrote:I hope by now, it should be obvious from my posts, that I'm disinclined to discuss the Dhamma by reference to experiential testimony. I trust you will not object if we confine this discussion to the textual testament?
This isn't intended to be some kind of deep meditative "experiential testimony", it's simply about what the suttas teach us. If the suttas are not to be understood with respect to our experience, then how are they to be understood? Are they to be understood instead as abstract metaphysical doctrines detailing the transmigration of consciousness? How can that Dhamma be applied - how can that Dhamma be liberative? You do believe the Dhamma is for liberation, don't you? What I said is certainly nothing you could not observe yourself, were you to sit mindfully for one minute, observing consciousness and its arising. You don't need to wait lifetimes to see it - Dhamma is akaliko (timeless). Observe it and you will see that it is as per what I quoted from venerable Nanananda.

However, if you believe the nama-rupa/vinnana combination is just a proxy for a sentient being, then perhaps you won't see the value in this observation, and so be it. For me, the Dhamma is to be used, not merely circumambulated or as fodder for building conceptual scaffolding. If this is an independent scholastic exercise you're asking me to engage in, where I have to ignore what is "visible here and now", then I have no interest.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

Sylvester
Posts: 2205
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by Sylvester » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:06 am

Drats. After an hour of typing a reply, it's all gone.

Rather than re-do it all over again, could I refer you to SN 12.38, SN 12.39 and AN 3.76? I am reading those texts as furnishing a different sense of "establishment" from the one which you use. In a nutshell, these suttas do not use establishment as meaning the event of phassa as part of the cognitive process, but as meaning the inclination of the mind in the context of rebecoming.

You may be familiar with only DN 15 as the only sutta promoting a biological reading to namarupa, but I'll try to rustle up the others which discuss the descent of namarupa.

It's a rather involved analysis, and I'll pull out the Pali for the above 3 suttas when I'm next on line.

In the meantime, pls refrain from ascribing to me -
However, if you believe the nama-rupa/vinnana combination is just a proxy for a sentient being,
:tongue:

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by acinteyyo » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:11 am

Sylvester wrote:I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting above. The term used in SN 12.64 was the technical punabbhava, which is then followed by birth (jāti). The Pali says -
Yattha atthi nāmarūpassa avakkanti, atthi tattha saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi. Yattha atthi saṅkhārānaṃ vuddhi, atthi tattha āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti. Yattha atthi āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti, atthi tattha āyatiṃ jātijarāmaraṇaṃ.
It's a little bit oversimplified imho, if we only take birth (jāti) into consideration in case of punabbhava. I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth". So the Pali used in SN12.64 actually doesn't just tell us that rebirth (punabbhava) is followed by birth (jāti) but rather that when there is again becoming, there is birth AND aging AND death (jātijarāmaraṇaṃ). As I understand it, punabbhava is not just followed by birth, then by aging and finally by death but when there is punabhbhava (again becoming, namely someone -> sakkāya which is pañc'upādānakkhandhā) one is subject to birth, aging and death (jātijarāmaraṇaṃ) here and now.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
Posts: 20149
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by retrofuturist » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:33 am

Greetings Sylvester,
Sylvester wrote:Drats. After an hour of typing a reply, it's all gone.
That's a shame. But was there even one minute spent watching the arising of consciousness, and what caused that consciousness to arise, and the role of attention and intention in the formation of that consciousness?
Sylvester wrote:Rather than re-do it all over again, could I refer you to SN 12.38, SN 12.39 and AN 3.76?
Well I just read all three of those and these accord perfectly well with my understanding, devoid of explanations of physical biological embryos and transmigrating consciousnesses. Read through your lens though, I can see how you might see them as substantiating transmigratory leanings.
Sylvester wrote:I am reading those texts as furnishing a different sense of "establishment" from the one which you use.
Evidently so.
Sylvester wrote:In a nutshell, these suttas do not use establishment as meaning the event of phassa as part of the cognitive process, but as meaning the inclination of the mind in the context of rebecoming.
Earlier discussions reveal our definitions of phassa differs as well (I understand it in accord with Ven. Nanavira's Notes).

Again, your interpretation is nothing new here... it is 'orthodox' 3-life kammic transmigration. Personally, I prefer what acinteyyo wrote above.
Sylvester wrote:You may be familiar with only DN 15 as the only sutta promoting a biological reading to namarupa, but I'll try to rustle up the others which discuss the descent of namarupa.
Just so long as you know in advance, words translated as "descent" or "establishment" will not cut the mustard if you're attempting to convince me of a biological reading to namarupa, that is not amenable to said 'nama-rupa' ceasing due to vijja within this lifetime.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education." - Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view." (MN 117)

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23044
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by tiltbillings » Sat Apr 30, 2011 7:53 am

acinteyyo wrote: I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth".
Do you have any thing more to go on other than what you do not like? Pali is a highly idiomatic language. I have yet to see anything convincing that "again becoming" is not to be taken as it traditionally has been understood as referring to what we call rebirth. Also, rebirth is no more "speculative" than any number of things found in the Buddha's teachings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1691
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: DO not depending on avijja and sankhara?

Post by acinteyyo » Sat Apr 30, 2011 11:37 am

tiltbillings wrote:
acinteyyo wrote: I really don't like punabbhava to be understood as "rebirth", I prefer the more precise meaning of "again becoming", which doesn't imply that much "speculative baggage" like "rebirth".
Do you have any thing more to go on other than what you do not like? Pali is a highly idiomatic language. I have yet to see anything convincing that "again becoming" is not to be taken as it traditionally has been understood as referring to what we call rebirth. Also, rebirth is no more "speculative" than any number of things found in the Buddha's teachings.
I fully agree that Pali is a highly idiomatic language. This is going to be quite difficult. It's already very difficult for me to express my understanding on this in my native language but I try to explain it anyway why "again becoming" is not to be understood as "rebirth" according to my understanding, please be patient and try to understand why I see it the way I do it. I don't call for infallability so if there obviously is something wrong point it out to me.

It depends on how much the understanding of bhava (and actually the teachings at all) is influenced by belief in self (atta-vada) in the first place. Bhava or "being", "becoming" depends on upādāna (clinging). Clinging to what? Clinging to one, more or all of the khandhā (aggregates). Because of this very clinging to the aggregates regarding one, more or all of them as self, gives rise to "being something/someone" or "becoming something/someone". But not actually being or becoming something/one but rather becoming "personality" (sakkāya). Attention! This doesn't mean truly becoming something/one it (sakkāya) means clinging to aggregates! -> pañc'upādānakkhandhā is sakkāya (see MN44). This leads to birth (jāti). What is birth (MN9)?
Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
Now this understanding of bhava does not include nor imply any kind of self. It is absolutely necessary to understand "being/becoming something/someone" as "personality-view", namely the view to be in essence somebody which is nothing else but pañc'upādānakkhandhā. In fact the inability to see this delusion is ignorance. I'm not talking about anybody at all. (Hope this important difference can be understood and you're getting the point :? )

So when it comes to punabbhava (puna=again, bhava=being, becoming) it simply means again bhava, again what I explained above, which is to say again clinging to aggregates, again becoming personality. And that is definitely not what has traditionally been understood and is usually called "rebirth". It is not "rebirth" of what so ever after death of this body.

Birth is jāti and to be understood as explained by the Buddha. Why isn't he talking about punajāti then? It seems to me that people tend to think that birth (jāti) has ended, because they are already born but that's not true according to my understanding. As long as there is bhava there is birth, aging and death. The death of this body doesn't even matter at all, this doesn't make an end to bhava nor jāti. It's just death of a body. I don't apply "a certain bhava" and "a certain jāti" particularly to this body and another bhava to another body and so on. This is the way it seems to be commonly understood, like "to me applies my dependent origination and to you applies yours". I really don't see any support for such a view in the teachings of the Buddha.

The problem is, that people think I'm born, I'm aging, I will die. According to my understanding this is delusion. It just shows clinging to aggregates very well. Then they think, when I died I will be reborn, but because of their intellectual understanding of anatta, they try to avoid such formulations still beliefing in self and still not seeing it. The Buddha never taught that "I am born", "I will die" or "I will be reborn" he taught there is birth and death. And this has to be understood by means of dependent origination (see the way the Buddha answers to the questions in SN12.12). But people still understand, ah okay so I was born, I will die and so on thinking in terms of me, mine and I while conceit and atta-vada are playing a dirty trick.

Hm... as I said quite difficult. I'm not really content with this post but I can't express myself better. Please ask as much as you like so that we may do away with any incomprehensibilities.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bundokji and 101 guests