the great rebirth debate

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Christopher:::,

What do you all think of this view?

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/heaven.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To me it doesn't sound congruent with the link Retro provided.

I'll admit I only skim-read it but it seems alright to me. It's important to be able to distinguish between the conventional/everyday style of language and the ultimate/absolute style of language. In a conventional/everyday sense you can speak of a person, and it's fine to do so, even though in the ultimate/absolute sense there is no person... there is merely conditional causation, the arising and cessation of phenomena based on causes. In Buddhism, "Going to heaven" makes sense when using conventional/everyday parlance that ignores the absence of a thing called "a person" in the absolute sense.

P.S. With the link that Retro provied, is the word "evil" really the best choice, in English? I have trouble accepting that Buddha actually spoke in that way. Wouldn't he have been more likely to say a view is "wrong" or "incorrect"?

Terms like pernicious, unskilful, unwholesome, or harmful would be suitable alternatives. The point is that holding the view leads to bad consequences. What bad consequences? That one will not realise the consciousness is not-self, and thus there will be identification with it, and where there is identification with something there will be becoming and craving... and you know the rest of the story.

Metta,
Retro.

[christopher:::]

Hi Retro. Thanks for your views and the info.

It's important to be able to distinguish between the conventional/everyday style of language and the ultimate/absolute style of language. In a conventional/everyday sense you can speak of a person, and it's fine to do so, even though in the ultimate/absolute sense there is no person... there is merely conditional causation, the arising and cessation of phenomena based on causes. In Buddhism, "Going to heaven" makes sense when using conventional/everyday parlance that ignores the absence of a thing called "a person" in the absolute sense.

I agree, absolutely.

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings

Sorry for late reply, my internet has been down for a few days

Tilt

Except, kamma and paticcasamuppada are “speculative” until one, through one's own efforts gains insight into them. Knowledge of rebirth is open to personal verification just as is anicca, dukkha, anatta, and it can be a way of gaining insight into anicca, dukkha, anatta, paticcasamuppada, as the Buddha’s awakening (as well as others) suttas show.

The only one out of this that can be reguarded as an unknown is kamma, although one can understand on a basic level how intentions can lead to good or bad results

Saying that knowledge of rebirth is open to verification is to still assume that it is real

To claim that rebirth has nothing to do with “practicing the Buddha’s noble teachings,” is to claim a serious lack of textual knowledge, and even more so, as you repeatedly do here, it is to completely ignore any evidence that contradicts your position.

Because in the Buddhas teachings of the 4nt's etc there is no rebirth contained within them, perhaps you could explain why rebirth must be included in them? Im not saying rebirth isnt in some suttas, but that it was just a backdrop of the time, i cosmology that appealed to the many

I gave the very famous turtle discourse which directly ties rebirth to the Four Noble Truths: I quote: This precious human birth

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" — SN 56.48

To me this is a metaphor to stress how beings are blindly trapped in samsara of the mind, constantly becoming this and becoming that through clinging

What is worth noting is your inability to actually deal with an important, large text that places rebirth right in the middle of the paticcasamuppada chain. As for jati, you have ignored what others have said to you about this, offering no real reason that jati must always be taken in a figurative manner, as your position suggests. There is no reason to do so.

As i have said, if jati (birth of I am) is figurative, then dukkha is merely figurative

The problem with your taking a text like this without consideration of the broader context of other texts is that you simply and obviously distort the Buddha’s teachings, as you have been doing.

I dont ignore other discourses. I take discourses and compare them, look for the central theme and message. Now not all discourses in the pali canon are spoken by the Buddha, we know this. This is why comparison and investigation into those suttas is key, to find the underlying (or core) theme/message/doctrine. If we were to take every suttas at face value then we would be believing that the world is flat, that there is a big mountain in the middle, that there are spirits and ghosts living in forests and trees, that human beings can live for 80,000 years etc

All of those things have obviously nothing to do with the Buddhas teachings, nothing to do with dukkha and its quenching, they were just a backdrop of the times, something people could identify with and understand maybe. The same i feel for rebirth

There has been all this argument for rebirth in the Buddhas teachings but i have never seen one solid argument as to why

A) It must be there
B) The importance of it to the individual walking the path, so the importance of it to the practice and to nibbana


Metta

[Ceisiwr]

Peter

And then there are the two issues of a] whether the Buddha taught rebirth and b] whether Buddhist tradition teaches that the Buddha taught rebirth. Of course we cannot know what the Buddha taught apart from what the Buddhist tradition tells us. And all Buddhist traditions agree that the Buddha taught rebirth. So even if one wants to hold the belief that the Buddha didn't teach rebirth, one does so in opposition to every Buddhist tradition worldwide.

Now im not saying tradition is useless or should be done away with but just because tradition says it is so, doesnt mean it is. You seem to be suggesting that people cant think for themselves and only tradition can be trusted, despite the fact the Buddha said that one shouldnt believe something just because it is tradtition and he encouraged people to think and investigate for themselves


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Craig,

Me: Except, kamma and paticcasamuppada are “speculative” until one, through one's own efforts gains insight into them. Knowledge of rebirth is open to personal verification just as is anicca, dukkha, anatta, and it can be a way of gaining insight into anicca, dukkha, anatta, paticcasamuppada, as the Buddha’s awakening (as well as others) suttas show.

Craig: The only one out of this that can be reguarded as an unknown is kamma, although one can understand on a basic level how intentions can lead to good or bad results

Are you saying paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with choice?

Saying that knowledge of rebirth is open to verification is to still assume that it is real.

Saying that knowledge of paticcasamuppada is open to verification is to still assume that it is real.

Because in the Buddhas teachings of the 4nt's etc there is no rebirth contained within them,

A statement that has been shown via a number of texts to be wrong, but the only rebuttal you have offered is naught more than gainsaying and avoiding actually addressing what has been carefully presented.

perhaps you could explain why rebirth must be included in them? Im not saying rebirth isnt in some suttas, but that it was just a backdrop of the time, i cosmology that appealed to the many

It is not a matter of “must be”; it is a matter that rebirth is interwoven into the Buddha’s teachings. If it were not part of the way the universe operated, as the Buddha saw it, there is no reason he would have taught as being the way things are given that the Buddha stated he taught what was only true and useful.

To me this [the blind turtle simile] is a simile to stress how beings are blindly trapped in samsara of the mind, constantly becoming this and becoming that through clinging

So you claim, but you have not given any reason why it must not be read simply as it is written. This pretty much sums up the extent of your argument -- a statement of belief that has no real arguable basis. Certainly you can believe what you like, but that does not make it so.

As i have said, if jati (birth of I am) is figurative, then dukkha is merely figurative

There is no justification that you have given that requires that jati has be read in one way only in all circumstances. This has been pointed out to you in detail, which you have simply ignored.

I dont ignore other discourses. I take discourses and compare them, look for the central theme and message.

Not that you have shown us. What you have shown with this posting, is what we see time and again with your “argument” is that you will simply ignore what has been put to you in response your “argument.”

Now not all discourses in the pali canon are spoken by the Buddha, we know this. This is why comparison and investigation into those suttas is key, to find the underlying (or core) theme/message/doctrine.

But we have seen no real argumentation from you to support this, though we have seen you ignore text after text and argument after argument that do not support your position..

The same i feel for rebirth

And so we all know, but it is also plainly evident that you have no real evidence for your position.

There has been all this argument for rebirth in the Buddhas teachings but i have never seen one solid argument as to why

A) It must be there
B) The importance of it to the individual walking the path, so the importance of it to the practice and to nibbana

The fact of the matter, it is there. You have given no reasoned and exampled evidence as to why it should not be there.

You seem to be suggesting that people cant think for themselves and only tradition can be trusted, despite the fact the Buddha said that one shouldnt believe something just because it is tradtition and he encouraged people to think and investigate for themselves

Before one can decide what bits of tradition that can be viewed otherwise, it is really important to actually understand the tradition, something I have yet to see from you.

[Ceisiwr]

Tilt

Are you saying paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with choice?

No im not saying that

Saying that knowledge of paticcasamuppada is open to verification is to still assume that it is real.

But the point is that "parts" of it are verifiable on a basic level, For example feeling, craving and clinging. Seeing the whole process clearly and in an intimate way is difficult. Rebirth has no "parts" that can be verified in some way

A statement that has been shown via a number of texts to be wrong, but the only rebuttal you have offered is naught more than gainsaying and avoiding actually addressing what has been carefully presented.

I have shown a text that says it isnt wrong

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Visakha the lay follower went to Dhammadinna the nun and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 1st Noble Truth, about "I am" not physical birth>

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 2nd Noble Truth, craving leads to new identification so new birth of "I am">

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 3rd Noble Truth>

"'The way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification, the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

<edit - 4th Noble Truth>

"Precisely this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

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

In this text by a wise nun who was praised by the Buddha and who is discussing the 4nt's, Please tell me where is rebirth in there?

It is not a matter of “must be”; it is a matter that rebirth is interwoven into the Buddha’s teachings. If it were not part of the way the universe operated, as the Buddha saw it, there is no reason he would have taught as being the way things are given that the Buddha stated he taught what was only true and useful.

Its the way people of the time thought the world/universe operated and the Buddha made use of that in some situations, just as he did with the use of the idea of the time of mount sumeru or the gods of the Brahmins etc

There is no justification that you have given that requires that jati has be read in one way only in all circumstances. This has been pointed out to you in detail, which you have simply ignored.

I have given arguments for it, it seems you have just ignored them

But we have seen no real argumentation from you to support this, though we have seen you ignore text after text and argument after argument that do not support your position..

I have answered suttas that have been put to me, i have used various suttas to back up my argument and i have not ignored arguments, if i had i wouldnt have posted anything

the factt of the matter, it is there. You have given no reasoned and exampled evidence as to why it should not be there.

Once again you have ignored some of my posts

1st Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

The last bit is important for understanding, because of clinging to khandas there is "I am". When there is "I am" there is identiciation with the Khandas, when there is identification there is ageing, sickness and death (and also the whole not wanting to get sick, grief, anger etc that go hand in hand with that)

For example, if one clings to the body they identify with it. When the body ages there is the ignorant view "I age". When it dies there is the ignoranct view "I die" and so all the grief and sadness that go along with this

As the Buddhas states here

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.

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

2nd Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to new becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to be, craving not-to-be.

Craving is a condition for the arising of clinging (origin of dukkha)
Clinging is a condition for the arising of becoming
Becoming is a condition for the arising of jati, or birth of "I am", so new becoming (first noble truth because when there is identification through clinging to the khandas, there is dukkha)


3rd Noble Truth
This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it.

By removing craving (through the practice) there is no more clinging and so no more birth of "I" or identification with that which ages and dies (so no more ageing and death i.e. the deathless)

'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'

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


4th Noble Truth
Noble eight fold path will lead one to the deathless

Right View - Understanding of the Four Noble Truths

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Visakha the lay follower went to Dhammadinna the nun and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 1st Noble Truth, about "I am" not physical birth>

Saying, "Yes, lady," Visakha the lay follower delighted & rejoiced in what Dhammadinna the nun had said. Then he asked her a further question: "'The origination of self-identification, the origination of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which origination of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 2nd Noble Truth, craving leads to new identification so new birth of "I am">

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

<edit - 3rd Noble Truth>

"'The way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification, the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

<edit - 4th Noble Truth>

"Precisely this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration: This, friend Visakha, is the way of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

And

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

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

The fact of the matter, it is there. You have given no reasoned and exampled evidence as to why it should not be there

Im not saying its not there in the pali canon, just not in the 4nts

Before one can decide what bits of tradition that can be viewed otherwise, it is really important to actually understand the tradition, something I have yet to see from you.

How do you know if i understand the tradition or not?


Metta

[Ceisiwr]

There has been all this argument for rebirth in the Buddhas teachings but i have never seen one solid argument as to why

A) It must be there
B) The importance of it to the individual walking the path, so the importance of it to the practice and to nibbana

The fact of the matter, it is there. You have given no reasoned and exampled evidence as to why it should not be there.

Why must it be there (why is it so important?) and if rebirth is so important then it must have a practical use to the path, what is that?

I see no real use in having such a view


Metta

[Dhammanando]

In this text by a wise nun who was praised by the Buddha and who is discussing the 4nt's, Please tell me where is rebirth in there?

It is alluded to with the words “taṇhā ponobbhavikā”, rendered in your translation as “the craving that makes for further becoming.”

‘Ponobbhavika’ is the adjectival form of punabbhava, which is one of the commonest sutta terms for ‘rebirth’. As in the the Alagaddūpamasutta, for instance:

• “Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the round of births (jāti-saṃsāra) that brings renewed being (ponobbhavika), has cut it off at the root...”
  (MN. 22)

[Dhammanando]

Why must it be there (why is it so important?) and if rebirth is so important then it must have a practical use to the path, what is that?

I have told you before, citing the Pabbajita-abhiṇhasutta (AN. v. 87-8), the Abhiṇhapaccavekkhitabbaṭhānasutta (AN. iii. 71-5), the first of the two Āghātapaṭivinayasuttas (AN. iii. 185-6), and the dozen or so suttas in the Anamataggasaṃyutta of the SN's Nidānavagga (SN. ii. 177-193).

But a man hears what he wants to hear...

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Bhante


Doesnt punabbhava just mean "birth in a new existence"?


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Craig,

Me: Are you saying paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with choice?

Craig: No im not saying that

So, what you saying? Kamma is a part of paticcasamuppada after all?

But the point is that "parts" of it are verifiable on a basic level, For example feeling, craving and clinging. Seeing the whole process clearly and in an intimate way is difficult. Rebirth has no "parts" that can be verified in some way

Are you sure? Based upon what do you make this claim about rebirth? Actually, given that rebirth is very much part of the paticcasamuppada process, your claim is not too terribly meaningful.

I have shown a text that says it isnt wrong . . . In this text by a wise nun who was praised by the Buddha and who is discussing the 4nt's, Please tell me where is rebirth in there?

What is really interesting in this important text is that jati is not used in it, but Ven Dhammanando has just neatly shown you that rebirth is very much a part of the text you quoted. As I have said, there is no problem with the “moment-to-moment” reading of paticcasamuppada, but that is not the only way it is presented and there is no compelling evidence that it must, absolutely be read as you are suggesting it must be read. There is clear evidence of a rebirth reading of paticcasamuppada, which you have tried to dismiss without a real argument, or you have simply avoided addressing it, as you usually do.

Its the way people of the time thought the world/universe operated and the Buddha made use of that in some situations, just as he did with the use of the idea of the time of mount sumeru or the gods of the Brahmins etc

You say this, but the fact of the matter is that a number of texts have been presented that puts rebirth directly and literally into the context of paticcasamuppada and the Four Noble Truths (which are a specific application of a general formula of paticcasamuppada). Also, you attempt at reading jati solely in a figurative manner is simply contrived.

I have given arguments for it, seems you just ignored them

Others here, far more learned than you have carefully addressed this issue with you and the ignoring and sidestepping comes from thee and no one else here.

I have answered suttas that have been put to me,

No, you have not.

i have used various suttas to back up my argument

And it has been shown to you, by individuals far more learned than you, that your position is not well grounded.

And there is not a thing in the Four Noble Truths that you have quoted that necessitates reading the suttas and understanding the Buddha’s teaching in the limited way you suggest.

Im not saying its not there in the pali canon, just not in the 4nts

Right View, which you listed, is very much part and parcel of the Four Noble Truths, which I pointed out to you more than once. Since paticcasamuppada involves rebirth, it is very much a part of the Four Noble Truths.

How do you know if i understand the tradition or not?

You graphically illustrate the callowness of your understanding with this:
Why must it be there (why is it so important?) and if rebirth is so important then it must have a practical use to the path, what is that?

I see no real use in having such a view

[Dhammanando]

Doesnt punabbhava just mean "birth in a new existence"?

The full form, "generation of renewal of being in the future" (āyatiṃ punabbhavābhinibbatti), certainly does.

As for punabbhava by itself, I can't say whether each and every occurrence of it means birth in a new existence as I haven't checked them all.

[Ceisiwr]

Hey Tilt

Me: Are you saying paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with choice?

Craig: No im not saying that

So, what you saying? Kamma is a part of paticcasamuppada after all?

My current understanding is no but im not set in that

Are you sure? Based upon what do you make this claim about rebirth? Actually, given that rebirth is very much part of the paticcasamuppada process, your claim is not too terrible meaningful.

I think this is where the problem lies, the interpreation of paticcasamuppada. If someone takes it as a rebirth model then of course it is non-sensical to say the Buddha didnt teach rebirth, but if someone doesnt take it as a rebirth model then its not non-sensical to say he didnt teach it

What is really interesting in this important text is that jati is not used in it, but Ven Dhammanando has neatly shown you that rebirth is very much a part of the text you quoted.

The text i quoted states quite clearly that its discussing self-idenitiy or "I am" and not rebirth, it is quite clear in that

As I have said, there is no problem with the “moment-to-moment” reading of paticcasamuppada, but that is not the only way it is presented and there is no compelling evidence that it must, absolutely be read as you are suggesting it must be read. There is clear evidence of a rebirth reading of paticcasamuppada, you have tried to dismiss without a real argument, or you have simply avoided addressing it, as you usually do.

There is plenty or argument, sutta referneces and "evidence", much of which has been discussed here and in other threads

Right View, which you listed, is very much part and parcel of the Four Noble Truths, which I pointed out to you more than once. Since paticcasamuppada involves rebirth, it is very much a part of the Four Noble Truths.

Once again this comes down to interpretation/understanding of paticcasamuppada

How do you know if i understand the tradition or not?

You graphically illustrate the callowness of your understanding with this:
Why must it be there (why is it so important?) and if rebirth is so important then it must have a practical use to the path, what is that?

I see no real use in having such a view

Understanding and agreeing are two different things, just because i dont agree doesnt mean i dont understand


Right view is about dukkha, how it comes to be, its quenching and the way to quench it. Its about what is, investigation and rational inquiry. The Buddhas teachings are practical, things that can be put into imeditate effect. Its not about if's and but's and maybes, about unprovable theories about reincarnation, about humans living for 80, 000 years, not about spirits and ghosts in the forests or about the Brahmins gods

As Ajahn Buddhadasa said

To call something a foundation of the Buddhist Teachings is only correct if firstly, it is a principle which aims at the extinction of Dukkha [2] and, secondly, it has a logic that one can see for oneself without having to believe others. These are the important constituents of a foundation.

The Buddha refused to have any dealing with those things which don't lead to the extinction of Dukkha. Take the question of whether or not there. is rebirth. What is reborn? How is it reborn? What is its kammic inheritance [3] ? These questions are not aimed at the extinction of Dukkha. That being so they are not Buddhist teaching and they are not connected with it. They do not lie in the sphere of Buddhism. Also, the one who asks about such matters has no choice but to indis­criminately believe the answer he's given, because the one who answers is not going to be able to produce any proofs, he's just going to speak according to his memory and feeling. The listener can't see for himself and so has to blindly believe "the other's words. Little by little the matter strays from Dhamma until it's something else altogether, unconnected with the extinction of Dukkha.

Which lies in sync with what the Buddha taught here

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


Metta

[Ceisiwr]

Greetings Bhante

In this text by a wise nun who was praised by the Buddha and who is discussing the 4nt's, Please tell me where is rebirth in there?

It is alluded to with the words “taṇhā ponobbhavikā”, rendered in your translation as “the craving that makes for further becoming.”

‘Ponobbhavika’ is the adjectival form of punabbhava, which is one of the commonest sutta terms for ‘rebirth’. As in the the Alagaddūpamasutta, for instance:

• “Here the bhikkhu has abandoned the round of births (jāti-saṃsāra) that brings renewed being (ponobbhavika), has cut it off at the root...”
  (MN. 22)

How can it mean rebirth (post mortem) in this sutta when it is discussing self-identity (or "I am) and the origin of self-identity and not the origin of rebirth post mortem?


Metta

[tiltbillings]

Me: So, what you saying? Kamma is a part of paticcasamuppada after all?

Craig: My current understanding is no but im not set in that

So, there is no choice in paticcasamuppada (maybe).

I think this is where the problem lies, the interpreation of paticcasamuppada. If someone takes it as a rebirth model then of course it is non-sensical to say the Buddha didnt teach rebirth, but if someone doesnt take it as a rebirth model then its not non-sensical to say he didnt teach it

It is the language itself of some of the basic formulas of paticcasamuppada that tells us that rebirth is part of paticcasamuppada.

The text i quoted states quite clearly that its discussing self-idenitiy or "I am" and not rebirth, it is quite clear in that

And you know better than Ven Dhammanando? The issue of “I am” is very much part of impels rebirth.

Once again this comes down to interpretation/understanding of paticcasamuppada

The problem with your position is that you have to work really hard to explain away or ignore rebirth in the texts. You certainly have ignored the texts I have quoted above.

Understanding and agreeing are two different things, just because i dont agree doesnt mean i dont understand

But you have not shown any understanding.

As Ajahn Buddhadasa said

I’ll take the Buddha over Buddhadasa any day, and there is not a thing in the text you referenced that argues against rebirth.

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

Just as you claim “moment-to-moment” in this very life rebirth, this “inappropriate attention” is just as easily applied to that model. All of those “speculations” can be applied to one in a one life model.

So, it seems that not only you, but also Buddhadasa don’t quite get it.