the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Mara was definiately just a personfication of unwholesome states and temptation etc

How can you say this for sure?

Definitely was to strong a word, however the overall impression that I get is that Mara is a teaching device as just another word for the aggregates when we cling to them


"Ven. Sir, it is said, "Mara, Mara." In what way, ven. sir, might there be Mara?


When there is form Radha there might be Mara, or the Killer, or the one who is killed. Therefore Radha see form as Mara, see it as the Killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, a dart, a tumour, as misery, as real misery. Those who see it thus see rightly."


SN III Chapter 2, Sutta 1

And so on for the other aggregates

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

The Five Kind of Māra

[Spiny Norman]

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation on page 922 mentions a "feeling born of ignorance-contact" in SN 22.81, which is available on ATI but translated as "what is felt born of contact with ignorance" by Ven. Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu.

What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by what is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.

I'm still not clear as to the meaning here. Does "what is felt" refer to vedana, and if so, is it saying that vedana can be ignorant or not ignorant?
What exactly is meant by "contact with ignorance"? Does it just mean "while ignorance persists"?

[Spiny Norman]

The point I was trying to make though is that D.O. is multifaceted in the Suttas, being taught operating over mind moments and also over lifetimes depending on which sutta we look at.

But I'm still not clear how you're interpreting DO to support the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth. Could you describe the model you're using?
You've referred to ignorant contact, but which factor of contact are you assigning the ignorance to - is it sense organ, sense object or sense-consciousness?
I'd have thought that ignorant feeling would make more sense, since craving arises in dependence on feeling and craving is the problem.

[chownah]

[quote
SN 22.81: Pārileyyaka Sutta wrote:What is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by what is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.][/quote]
culaavuso,
Thanks for bringing this reference here. For those looking for support for the idea of momentary rebirth, I think this is a good one. Notice in the portion presented here it talks about feelings being born and I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with feelings and how they arise and pass away many times even in a few moments......so you could say that feelings get reborn on a momentary basis. Also in the same sutta there is a talk about various views of self and how these are all fabrications born of feelings born of ignorance and the craving that arises from it. So, feelings are born and fabrications are born.......seems clear that rebirth happens for feelings and fabrications...if not for what we identify as the feeling or the fabrication then surely for the process of feeling and fabrication......and notice how the discussion of self doctrines is said to be born suggesting the rebirth of self doctrine on a moment to moment basis. That is to say that our sense of self as a fabrication is in a constant state of rebirth from moment to moment. Seems like we are getting pretty close to a complete expication of a doctrine of rebirth and all based in the moment to moment time frame......I guesss......don't know for sure......
chownah

[Spiny Norman]

Notice in the portion presented here it talks about feelings being born and I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with feelings and how they arise and pass away many times even in a few moments......so you could say that feelings get reborn on a momentary basis.

All the aggregates are continually rising and falling. But I don't see how that gets us any closer to a coherent moment-to-moment interpretation of DO.

[Aloka]

Mara was definiately just a personfication of unwholesome states and temptation etc

Yes I agree, I don't believe there was an actual 'Devil' wandering around! I think its pretty clear that in SN 5.2 Soma sutta, Mara represents the doubts the nun has been having about being a woman - and In this translation Mara is called " the embodiment of delusion".

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .olen.html

[Ceisiwr]

The point I was trying to make though is that D.O. is multifaceted in the Suttas, being taught operating over mind moments and also over lifetimes depending on which sutta we look at.

But I'm still not clear how you're interpreting DO to support the idea of moment-to-moment rebirth. Could you describe the model you're using?
You've referred to ignorant contact, but which factor of contact are you assigning the ignorance to - is it sense organ, sense object or sense-consciousness?
I'd have thought that ignorant feeling would make more sense, since craving arises in dependence on feeling and craving is the problem.

The way I "work" it is that ignorance is one thing, contact another, sense object a third and feeling being fourth as their meeting place.


Feeling isn't ignorant, feeling is feeling. However Ignorance transforms feelings into craving through pursuing.


An example I can give is when I'm in meditation and my legs hurt. When there is ignorance, then there is aversion to the feeling and the birth in the mind of "I am in pain etc" and the dukkha that is bound with that. However when there is no ignorance, then painful feeling is just a sensation. There is no "me" created and its as if the painful feeling isn't there, feeling has ceased. This I feel is the cessation of the mind and body.


An analogy I could give would be full awareness as an island and feelings as an ocean. When there is ignorance, then feelings flood the Island (mind) and the mind is overcome and concocts craving which leads to Self and dukkha etc. However when there is full awareness and knowledge, then feelings break upon the shore and do not flood the mind. In essence they are not allowed into the mind to remain and be pursued. This then cuts off the concocting of craving, ends any self or identity. It ends me and mine and leaves us with emptiness and peace. This I feel Is the island that you cannot go beyond.


So going back the the example of painful legs in meditation, when there is knowledge through awareness (of the thee marks) then the painful feelings just breaks upon the shore, they arent pursued and allowed to flood the island of conciousness.

[Ceisiwr]

I'd have thought that ignorant feeling would make more sense, since craving arises in dependence on feeling and craving is the problem.

Feeling is always there, its the reaction to it based on our ignorance that is the problem.

[Ceisiwr]

"There is Bhikkhus the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element of ignorance. When the uninstructed ... is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, "I am" occurs to him. [So when there is Ignorance and contact, feeling is pursued which gives "birth" to "I am" in a certain mental sphere, depending on intentional actions]


"I am this" occurs to him; "I will be" [Reborn?] and "I will not be" [Reborn?]


"I will consist of of form" and "I will be formless" [I will be a formless deva seems to be a false notion born from ignorance]


"I will be percipient; and "I will be non-percipient" ....


"The five faculties remain right there, bhikkhus, but in regard to them the instructed .... abandons ignorance and the arising of knowledge. With the fading of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge;

"I am" does not occur; "I am this does not occur to him


"I will be" does not occur to him [I will be reborn doest enter his head?] "I will not be" does not occur to him [So metahysical views dont arise?]

SN III 47.5




That quite clearly shows D.O. happening in the moment and being psychological in nature.


If I am correct in relation to the non thought of "Will I be alive or not after death" when enlightened, then it would tie in with this sutta which describes an Arahants take on views and metaphysical questions.


""A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another.


Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.""


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .irel.html

[Ceisiwr]

The "I will be" and "I will not be" are also the foundation of the view of Annihilationism


So that speculative view arises just because of ignorance based contact, and the birthing of "I am"


So when ignorance is dispelled, then "I will be" or "I will not be" does not arise, so the view of anniliationism is abandoned and set aside (same for the other speculative views)



This is also why debating about what happens to an Arahant after death is pointless, because when there is no more ignorance then concepts such as "existence and non-existence" just simply do not arise in the mind.

The flood of views has been abandoned, dukkha has been abandoned

[Nikaya35]

The "I will be" and "I will not be" are also the foundation of the view of Annihilationism


So that speculative view arises just because of ignorance based contact, and the birthing of "I am"


So when ignorance is dispelled, then "I will be" or "I will not be" does not arise, so the view of anniliationism is abandoned and set aside (same for the other speculative views)



This is also why debating about what happens to an Arahant after death is pointless, because when there is no more ignorance then concepts such as "existence and non-existence" just simply do not arise in the mind.

The flood of views has been abandoned, dukkha has been abandoned

I agree with you, the buddha never declared what happens after death to Arahants and himself.

[chownah]

Notice in the portion presented here it talks about feelings being born and I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with feelings and how they arise and pass away many times even in a few moments......so you could say that feelings get reborn on a momentary basis.

All the aggregates are continually rising and falling. But I don't see how that gets us any closer to a coherent moment-to-moment interpretation of DO.

I would say that if the elements of DO are constantly being reborn that in itself is a coherent moment to moment interpretation of DO. What are you looking for? Are you looking for some over arching self which represents DO which gets reborn?
chownah

[Spiny Norman]

Notice in the portion presented here it talks about feelings being born and I'm pretty sure most people are familiar with feelings and how they arise and pass away many times even in a few moments......so you could say that feelings get reborn on a momentary basis.

All the aggregates are continually rising and falling. But I don't see how that gets us any closer to a coherent moment-to-moment interpretation of DO.

I would say that if the elements of DO are constantly being reborn that in itself is a coherent moment to moment interpretation of DO. What are you looking for? Are you looking for some over arching self which represents DO which gets reborn?
chownah

No, I'm looking for a intelligible and coherent explanation of DO which is consistent with the way the nidanas are described in SN12.2, and consistent with the way that phassa, vedana, etc are described in the suttas. The moment-to-moment interpretations of rebirth only seem to work if one starts redefining key terms.

[Spiny Norman]

Feeling isn't ignorant, feeling is feeling. However Ignorance transforms feelings into craving through pursuing.
An example I can give is when I'm in meditation and my legs hurt. When there is ignorance, then there is aversion to the feeling and the birth in the mind of "I am in pain etc" and the dukkha that is bound with that. However when there is no ignorance, then painful feeling is just a sensation. There is no "me" created and its as if the painful feeling isn't there, feeling has ceased. This I feel is the cessation of the mind and body.

I broadly agree with your analysis here, but I'm still not sure about your idea that the birth of I am results from the aversion. It looks to me the other way round, ie the aversion is a result of underlying self-view. In other words the aversion to the pain stems from the underlying assumption that there is an I to which the pain is happening. And of course these assumptions of self are fetters which need to be overcome.