the great rebirth debate

[daverupa]

I consider rebirth to be a special case of idappaccayatā, but it's rather pointless to insist on a special case in preference to the principle - rather, preference ought to be placed on seeing it for oneself, not accepting it as dogma. Therefore, meditation and the Noble Eightfold Path are proper foci, not rebirth doctrines and metaphysical realms beyond the ken of (nearly?) all of humanity. The Four Noble Truths can be explained to the most strident skeptic with benefit, but when rebirth is taken to be an essential explanatory tool the Dhamma becomes obscured, and it is for this reason alone that I seek to make this point:

Much is made of rebirth in the Sutta milieu, and rightly so given that this was the prevailing norm. Rebirth according to the Dhamma is the matrix within which the Buddha recast proto-Hindu karma according to his soteriological purpose. Rebirth may obtain, or it may not obtain, in the way in which one thinks. The point is not getting rebirth view right, the point is getting right view (& right intention, and so forth). Indeed, the Sammaditthi Sutta offers a number of ways of understanding sammaditthi without any recourse to rebirth at all.

Wholesome and unwholesome are defined according to whether or not an action of body, speech, or mind is conducive to liberation - not whether or not such action is conducive to rebirth.

"Upali, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities do not lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, nor to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.'

"As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to utter disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding': You may categorically hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'"

It is just as in this case:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:

"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.

"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.

"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.

"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.

Disciples of the Buddha acquire assurance grounded not in knowledge of past and future states, but grounded in what can be observed here and now.

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action... While you are doing a bodily action... Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities."

A view on rebirth is not required for practice. A view on rebirth is not required to explain Dhamma.

[Alex123]

Alex...which part of " I refer you to the body of work of Ajahn Buddhdasa and withdraw " do you not understand..?

Are we talking about Buddha's teaching on Rebirth, or Ajahn Buddhdasa's?

The Buddha was clear. Оne may have his/her own beliefs. But when there is a difference, don't mix your or Ajahn Buddhdasa's idea with what the Buddha has taught .

[ancientbuddhism]

Alex...which part of " I refer you to the body of work of Ajahn Buddhdasa and withdraw " do you not understand..?

Are we talking about Buddha's teaching on Rebirth, or Ajahn Buddhdasa's?

The Buddha was clear. Оne may have his/her own beliefs. But when there is a difference, don't mix your or Ajahn Buddhdasa's idea with what the Buddha has taught .

To be fair, the texts were clear.

[ancientbuddhism]

Perhaps rebirth as dogma is an internet thing where the fundaloonies come out of the .html woodwork like orcs in the Mines of Moria.

I haven’t read all 118 pages of this mosaic, but I can only imagine that this impasse has occurred here before. What has perplexed me over the years in these forum ‘rooms’ is that whenever this topic comes up and a rebirth-agnostic with present-life DO analysis position is offered, the fundaloonie takes it as his/her mission to refute it as though it was a heretical misrepresentation of the Buddha, or it is a claim that the Buddha never taught it, or that it was presented as the only way to interpret the matter; all of this coming from a position which carries none of that baggage.

[Alex123]

To be fair, the texts were clear.

Ok, good that you accept that texts were clear... about rebirth. Personally one can hold whatever one wants, just don't mix one's beliefs with what the texts say.


It would be good if there was only one life. Existence is dukkha and the quicker it ends, the quicker the better. One life would be awesome... Total pеаce after this misery.

[daverupa]

One life would be awesome... Total piece after this misery.

Peace, or piece (of cake)?

Inherent contradiction, either way. One life would be awesome if it wasn't dukkha, or as you say "this misery". Multiple lives of dukkha, one life of dukkha - it's dukkha, is what it is, however it's sliced. What's so awesome about the Buddha is that he taught the Dhamma for the cessation of dukkha, and did so such that speculation on things not verified by oneself is not required fare, as I have showcased in quotes from these texts we agree on.

"Without rebirth, there's no reason to practice" is the same sort of ridiculousness as "Without God, we'd all be immoral beasts". It's a sloppy non sequitur.

[ancientbuddhism]

To be fair, the texts were clear.

Ok, good that you accept that texts were clear... about rebirth. Personally one can hold whatever one wants, just don't mix one's beliefs with what the texts say.


It would be good if there was only one life. Existence is dukkha and the quicker it ends, the quicker the better. One life would be awesome... Total piece after this misery.

Are you able to hear any point of view other than your own?

[santa100]

AncientBuddhism wrote:
Are you able to hear any point of view other than your own?

Sure he did:

Alex123 wrote:
I don't reject momentary DO interpretation of some factors.

[Alex123]

One life would be awesome... Total piece after this misery.

Peace, or piece (of cake)?

Peace. I made a typo.

Inherent contradiction, either way. One life would be awesome if it wasn't dukkha, or as you say "this misery".

The awesomeness was that the dukkha would then be limited to one life rather than to trillions of even endless amount of them. I've never denied dukkha of this miserable life of this sack of urine & excrement conventionally called "Alex".

What's so awesome about the Buddha is that he taught the Dhamma for the cessation of dukkha,
...
"Without rebirth, there's no reason to practice" is the same sort of ridiculousness as "Without God, we'd all be immoral beasts". It's a sloppy non sequitur.

Without rebirth, If there is one life only, I could commit suicide and be done with Dukkha once and for all. No need for years or decades of hard work (that may not pay off that much either. How many people now have become Arahants within one life?). However within multiple lifetimes, suicide would not work unless one could become an Arahant at the moment of death, which is risky. Suicide would be a shortcut to parinibbāna if there was only one life.
Rebirth is the reason why suicide is not a shortcut to parinibbāna.

With best wishes,
Alex

[mikenz66]

Perhaps rebirth as dogma is an internet thing where the fundaloonies come out of the .html woodwork like orcs in the Mines of Moria.

Some would say that no one comes out of the woodwork with anti-rebirth dogma out in the real world of Dhamma practice...

I haven’t read all 118 pages of this mosaic, but I can only imagine that this impasse has occurred here before. What has perplexed me over the years in these forum ‘rooms’ is that whenever this topic comes up and a rebirth-agnostic with present-life DO analysis position is offered, the fundaloonie takes it as his/her mission to refute it as though it was a heretical misrepresentation of the Buddha, or it is a claim that the Buddha never taught it, or that it was presented as the only way to interpret the matter; all of this coming from a position which carries none of that baggage.

Both many-lives and present-life arisings abound in the suttas, abhidhamma, and commentary. I don't see it as an either-or thing. Ven Nanananda's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katukurund ... anda_Thera" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; nibbana sermons argue strongly for a single-life interpretation of DO, but he also talks clearly about rebirth. And, in fact, I've pointed out before in this thread that Ajahn Buddhadasa seems to me to do the same (not deny rebirth, just deny that DO involves rebirth).

Ven Thanissaro describes his interpretation this way:

To begin with, the causal principle underlying the processes of
dependent co-arising is a complex principle, allowing for feedback loops to
develop, to interact persistently, and to intersect on different time scales. The
principle is this: ...

e.g. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... fering.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For many things in the Tipitika and commentaries, the interesting question is not so much "what does it say?" as "how should be take it?". As Peter says, "poetic" (I prefer the term "mythic") does not mean "wrong". The Buddha teaches a "first person discourse" (the "all" is "all that can be experienced"). It is possible to argue (as Ven Nanananda does) that the aggregates themselves involve deluded concepts. Even if one does not want to go that far, certainly it's concepts/papanca that leads to the delusion of self and how we perceive "the world".

So our "reality" is, at least to some extent, created by our delusions and these questions about what is "true" are interesting, difficult and complex. And will not be satisfactorily settled by dogmatic statements that it has to be like this or like that...


Mike

[Alex123]

Both many-lives and present-life arisings abound in the suttas, abhidhamma, and commentary. I don't see it as an either-or thing.

Right. I accept various versions of D.O. as long as they don't contradict other aspects of the Dhamma such as rebirth. There is absolutely no need to limit DO only to one model and exclude others.

DO can be examined in momentary fashion, in three lifetime model, in two lifetime model, in one lifetime model and I've seen interpretations (in abhidharmakosabhasyam) of all 12 factors within one moment of citta. I also believe that DO can be taken as a structural and/or hierarchical principle of conditionality. One interpretation does not have to exclude others. It is not either/or. I take issue only with sticking to only one interpretation of D.O. that supports one's beliefs and refusing to consider other equally valid interpretations of DO. Without rebirth, one could have a quick shortcut to parinibbāna, suicide. But because of rebirth, suicide would not work. So its not the way.


"Deep is this dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[daverupa]

Rebirth is the reason why suicide is not a shortcut to parinibbāna.

Actually, the fact that post-death states are (barring psychic power) wholly unknowable is the reason why suicide is not a shortcut. Rebirth may obtain, in which case suicide is simply useless and deluded, or it may not obtain, but in this case annihilation is not the only alternative. Given the numerous ideas and theories about post-death events, choosing one among them as "the case" and then living, or dying, accordingly is simply guesswork. The fact of the matter is that we cannot say we know what happens, and even if we had psychic powers that conveyed information on this front, DN 1 showcases how that can go terribly wrong and lead on to wrong view.

The Dhamma offers a chance to maximize benefit irrespective of what happens after death, thereby rendering such post-death speculation completely irrelevant to practice here and now.

[Alex123]

Rebirth is the reason why suicide is not a shortcut to parinibbāna.

Actually, the fact that post-death states are (barring psychic power) wholly unknowable is the reason why suicide is not a shortcut.

If death is not the end, then suicide is not a shortcut. Whether one knows or doesn't know, events occur. I believe that lack of knowledge does not mean that something doesn't occur. Ignorance is no excuse.

The Dhamma offers a chance to maximize benefit irrespective of what happens after death, thereby rendering such post-death speculation completely irrelevant to practice here and now.

How many people in the recent times have achieved Arhatship? What are the chances of you and me becoming Arhat in this life?

If there is just one life, then one could in principle reach parinibbāna through suicide much quicker than reaching Arhatship (which is not even guaranteed). Or less extreme version might be to find the right anti-depressant, CBT of some form, and some enjoyable worldly activity to occupy one's mind. This will not work if there is rebirth, though.


With best wishes,

Alex

[daverupa]

If death is not the end, then suicide is not a shortcut. Whether one knows or doesn't know, events occur. I believe that lack of knowledge does not mean that something doesn't occur. Ignorance is no excuse.

What do you mean "no excuse"? The fact that humans do not generally know what happens after death should hardly have to be argued, so the fact that suicide is a risky gamble on long odds (on account of the one committing it is assuming that post-death states will be free of dukkha) is simply apparent.

How many people in the recent times have achieved Arhatship? What are the chances of you and me becoming Arhat in this life?

Zero, without the Dhamma.

If there is just one life, then one could in principle reach parinibbāna through suicide, much quicker than reaching Arhatship. Or less extreme version might be to find the right anti-depressant, CBT of some form, and some enjoyable worldly activity to occupy one's mind. This will not work if there is rebirth, though.

It also won't work if Yahweh is going to judge you, or the White Buffalo Woman. What if the Mormons have it right, and you end up in the third level of heaven digging ditches? Rebirth isn't the only game in town, and of all the games in town, every single one is speculative from the perspective of the bulk of humanity. Therefore, using supposed post-death states to inform one's behavior here and now is a ridiculous guessing game.

[cooran]

Hello all,

This might be of interest:

Does Rebirth Make Sense? by Bhikkhu Bodhi

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. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms — the hells, the animal world, the spirit realm, the human world, and the heavens — they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally……………………………………
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_46.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

with karuna
Chris