the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

clw_uk wrote:

So when there is ignorance, there is craving and clinging and the whole mass of suffering


Now that's not to say that there is one life, but it does mean that it doesn't matter if there is one life or millions since this process occurs regardless


Thats why we experience dukkha

This is from Ajahn Amaro in the book "The Good Heart – HH Dalai Lama Explores the Heart of Christianity and of Humanity" (1994)
“What is reborn ?"

" From the Theravada Buddhist perspective there is no fixed position.
The Buddha described the process of rebirth quite clearly, but he also said that all knowledge is based on personal experience. So when he talks about the idea of death and rebirth in a different realm of existence, this is like a map that he laid out. It is not handed out as something that we as individuals must believe, but more as a pattern that can help describe our experience of reality.

Generally speaking, what is reborn are our habits. That is the essence of it. Whatever the mind holds onto is reborn: what we love, hate, fear, adore, and have opinions about. Our identification with these aspects of the mind has a momentum behind it. Attachment is like a flywheel. Enlightenment is the ending of rebirth, enlightenment is really the natural condition of the mind when its not confused, identified, or caught up with any internal or external object

:anjali:
Last edited by Aloka on Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

nowheat wrote: <chuckling> I think your idea of "plainest English" and my idea of the same may just be a universe apart.
Occupational hazard, m'dear. I'm one of those who persistently object to the use of Plain English in my profession. I now have to unravel some tax legislation that was carelessly drafted by Plain English advocates who could not see the distinction between an adjectival participle and a prescriptive term.

Then there was this conversation you had with chownah:
chownah wrote:Sylvester,
I read SN36.6 and find no use of the terms designation or resistance contact. Is resistance contact the first arrow, I.e. bodily pain and is designation contact the second arrow I.e. mental pain?
Sylvester wrote:So, yes, you understand me correctly when you summarise as above.
It seems you are agreeing with the Dharmagupta you cited above,
It's too early for me to "agree" with the Dharmaguptaka; I was merely making an observation that DA 13 also bifurcated contact/sparsa into what appears similar to the SN 36.6 model. To agree or to disagree requires a more detailed Textual Criticism analysis to actually pierce behind the Chinese to determine if the 身觸 rendered by Buddhayaśas was with reference to 身 as contact that is pratigha or as kāya in the original Indic. From what I can gather from another Agama (the MA), the pratigha concept (at least when used in the formless attainments formula is denoted by 有對, admittedly a reading already influenced by the Sarva Abhidharma's sapratigha saṃjñā, instead of the sutra's plain pratigha saṃjñā.


... and I take this to mean that you're defining *all* bodily contact as something one experiences resistance to, resistance that is described in SN 36.6 as being reacted to with "vanta" (vomiting? -- I take to mean rejecting it "bleagh!" like bad food meeting an empty stomach)?
I think we need to be careful with the meaning of paṭigha as used in SN 36.6 and DN 15. Paṭigha in SN 36.6 deals with the anusayas, more specifically the latent disposition to aversion (paṭighānusaya). On the other hand, I follow the traditional interpretation of paṭigha in DN 15 and all the arūpa pericopes to actually mean the impact/collision of sense data on its internal sense base. My only caveat being that I reject the Abhidhammic prescription that paṭigha in DN is limited to the 5 "material" sense bases.

So, while SN 36.6 speaks of paṭighavanta (a dvanda adjective, according to Ven Nyanaponika's translation, or an avyayībhāva compound per BB)), that is in the context of what happens when paṭighānusaya underlies (anuseti) with reference to the painful feeling ( yo dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayo so anuseti). DN 15's paṭighasamphassa has nothing to do the aversion or rejection. So, I don't think that "bodily contact" is something to which one reacts with resistance in the SN 36.6 sense.


I ask this in an effort to lead up to answering your original question (I haven't forgotten it, honestly) and I have one more for you: do you find anything about "self" described in SN 36.6? You seem to be emphasizing the kama/sensuality, with your repeated mention of the hedonic,
As I tried explaining in my reply to chownah, it is my belief that the suttas' presentation of hedonic tone is rather different from the Western and Abhidhammic understanding of the same. As per MN 148, the mind is actually capable of experiencing pain and grief disjointed. So, I'm actually rejecting the standard interpretation that kāyika (bodily) feelings are limited to the kāmā. An unpleasant memory or even an unpleasant thought gives rise to pain at mind-contact. Grief, however, is optional, if I understand the anusaya theory correctly.


so I'm guessing your understanding is that is what the sutta is addressing is the activation of the senses, and a simple like/dislike of what we feel, and how we react to the unpleasant by running off looking for something nice -- rather than the sutta being about anything more complex than that?
I think there something more complex in SN 36.6 than just the search for pleasure. See what happens in SN 36.6 when the hedonic tone is neutral feeling (adukkhamasukha vedanā). See what anusaya pertains to that hedonic tone and what other suttas (eg SN 36.7) have to say about this anusaya. Do you see the intersection between this anusaya and the delineation of self mentioned in DN 15? Does the delineation of self in DN 15 fall to be criticised as being identical with MN 64's sakkāya-diṭṭhanusaya?

:namaste:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:

But what does that actually feel like to you in practice? What is it that you actually experience being reborn?
Identification, "I am this, this is mine"
I'm still far from clear. Could you give some practical examples of how you experience identification being reborn? I can see it might make sense to talk about desire being continually "reborn", but I don't think that's what you mean?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

The more I think about the "skillful means" and "rebirth as metaphor" theories, the less convincing they become.

The Buddha taught a path leading to awakening, "seeing things as they really are", direct insight. And part of that path was Right Speech, ie speech that is honest and helpful.

Given that, is it really credible that the Buddha would have started making stuff up, or not being clear, or fudging the issue on the rebirth question?
Isn't the simpler and more likely explanation for the sutta accounts that the Buddha was speaking honestly and directly from experience?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:
Alex123 wrote:
Jati means birth, as in "from the mother's womb". Death means the grave or cremation. So birth and death is "from cradle to grave".
Which I don't agree with/ have any use for, and why it's a pointless exercise
The suttas consistently and repeatedly describe birth and death in physical terms, including in the context of DO ( see the nidana definitions in MN9, SN12.2, DN15 etc ).

Why don't you agree with what the suttas say?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: As I said the interpretation of birth being birth of identity does not subtract from rebirth
But it does fudge the question, and I don't see the Buddha as a teacher who would have fudged this important question.

Either the suttas support the rebirth teachings as metaphorical interpretation, or they don't - and I don't see any evidence that the suttas do support the metaphorical interpretation.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

If the buddha lied to us about rebirth, what's to say he didn't lie to us about Nibbana. Its a pretty slippery slope when you start believing the buddha just made things up to get his point across. Certainly no account of the Precept of Honesty and not lieing allows for this process you call "skillful means" which by definition are not skillful at all.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

If the buddha lied to us about rebirth, what's to say he didn't lie to us about Nibbana

I dont think anyone is saying that he is lying, I'm certainly not


Spiny I will have to reply later
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

So you believe the buddha wasn't lieing when he clearly taught literal rebirth???
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:So you believe the buddha wasn't lieing when he clearly taught literal rebirth???

As I said, if the birth of "I am" carries on after death, I do not know. However it makes no difference if it does or not since we would have to practice the Dhamma the same regardless, Dhamma practice isn't dependent on there being an afterlife.

Now the Buddha is recorded in the suttas teaching folk that they will be reborn after physical death

Why he taught this I don't know, be it objective truth that he knew (and I don't) or as a teaching metaphor to train people in morality, or by just accepting it as a given from doctrines he was aware of ... Or for some other reason.

I don't know which one of those it is, and it doesn't matter really because to me, as I said, the practice stays the same regardless of what happens after death, rebirth or not.


So to summarise, d.o. Happens in the moment (you will find this isn't something new, it's apparently in the commentaries and abhidhamma) and rebirth is not central.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by lyndon taylor »

Nonsense, belief in rebirth is one of the stongest motivating factors for practice.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:Nonsense, belief in rebirth is one of the stongest motivating factors for practice.

Maybe for you but not for everyone


It isn't for me, dukkha is my motivation
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Nikaya35
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 4:36 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Nikaya35 »

clw_uk wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Nonsense, belief in rebirth is one of the stongest motivating factors for practice.

Maybe for you but not for everyone


It isn't for me, dukkha is my motivation
I see your point but in another hand if we only have one life and thats it . That means it doesnt matter because ultimately Dukkha will end at death.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

I see your point but in another hand if we only have one life and thats it . That means it doesnt matter because ultimately Dukkha will end at death.
Which is a speculative view that can't be known

Besides if there is one life it doesn't matter because there is dukkha in the here and now, and we can be free from It in the here and now.

All these speculations are pointless, as I said if rebirth was true or not, the freedom from dukkha is still in the here and now
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22410
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

All i can be sure of is that dukkha exists because of clinging, and the less clinging there is the less dukkha there is and the easier life becomes

"The burden which is well borne becomes light." Ovid


Metaphysical questions about the afterlife are just meaningless IMO

Dhamma practice doesn't depend on there being an afterlife
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply