the great rebirth debate

[Spiny Norman]

Hi everyone, why is it that the thread has changed into "what is rebirth"? Has the discussion around the rebirth debate ceased or evolved? I wish to ask some questions around the original debate, however some users are being referred back to the debate thread, but I thought this was it?

It looks like the "What is rebirth?" thread has been rolled into "the great rebirth debate" thread.

[Expedient Means]

Thanks both of you. Well only until recently I believed that there was only one united view, that of the "literal rebirth". I have read quite a bit of this thread and its mergings but I'm finding it challenging to string together a direct answer to a few of my questions due to long separate discussions and tangents. My questions are fairly basic as I've just this week come across this division in view.

Firstly I wish to qualify by loose definition that I understand correctly what is meant by "literal rebirth" and "non literal rebirth". (A google search yielded no help).

1) A literal rebirth is where the concept of rebirth is seen to happen at the end of a beings life where the "stream" transmigrates and takes a new form. In this view, death is the same as birth and at the moment of death, there are complex summaries of karmas that determine feautres the next "phase", metaphorically speaking, causing birth in the "womb".

2) A "non literal rebirth", is where rebirth is actually occurring many times in many moments, as in theory, we become a different being after every influence.

Secondly, I have a few questions to throw out there:

3) If these really loose definitions are correct, could it be that literal rebirth and non literal rebirth are the same thing/co-exist? So in this case, theoretically, we are reborn over and over many times during this "phase" when specific events/states/karmas occur, resulting in a change to our being (however subtle). Then, at the moment of death, rebirth in the conventional way takes place however this is merely another occurrence of the "rebirth phenomenon", similar to the non literal type, except the notable difference is that this is a new phase of karma resulting in a literal rebirth.

4) If the loose definition of "non-literal rebirth" I provided earlier is correct, I don't see where new phases or lives begin? Maybe this is why I was encountering claims of annihilationism and nihilism earlier. Surely this is not the case, it just doesn't seem clear to me!

It's worth noting at this point that rebirth, states of consciousness and their relationships with the 31 planes of existence is of great interest to me however, at the same time I recognise that it is not necessarily essential or immediately useful in practice.

Thanks

[Spiny Norman]

3) If these really loose definitions are correct, could it be that literal rebirth and non literal rebirth are the same thing/co-exist?

Yes, and they are not mutually exclusive interpretations.

4) If the loose definition of "non-literal rebirth" I provided earlier is correct, I don't see where new phases or lives begin?

People talk about a continual rebirth of self-view. For me waking up in the morning feels like a sort of rebirth.

[YouthThunder]

I am quite certain Buddha mention existence of some sort of guards of hell? But I never heard them included under one of the possible incarnations like human ,deva ,asura. In fact, why they exist and why are they guarding hell?

[dhammacoustic]

phpBB .

[cappuccino]

Skepticism is a fetter.

[dhammacoustic]

Skepticism is a fetter.

Vicikiccha is rather a state of mind. Mental confusion regarding the Paṭiccasamuppāda, or one of its links.

Skepticisim is a conscious process, so it is not really a fetter, but a wise attitude.

Nonetheless, 'skeptical doubt' is a bad translation for vicikiccha. The actual meaning is 'mental wobble' that is rooted in craving & inappropriate attention.

Literal translations;

1. vici (look for) kiccha (to be vexed)
2. vi (devoid of) cikiccha (medicine/remedy)

[cappuccino]

Lack of trust in the dhamma.

[Lazy_eye]

Lack of trust in the dhamma.

But what is your reason for taking up the Dhamma in the first place? is it based on the premise that rebirth happens?

In that case, we have a circular argument: "one should believe in rebirth because otherwise one will never escape rebirth."

[dxm_dxm]

If one does not believe in rebirth and karma, then one does not believe in justice. If one does not believe in some form of justice, then he does not believe in the notions of good/skillful an bad/unskillful actions. Regardless if he is right or wrong, this is an attitude that is not going to be conductive to following the path

In the same way the agregates assembled to form this ilusion of "me" in this world, in the same way they can assemble and create this illusion again. Dreamily I have appeared here, dreamily I can appear again

[Lazy_eye]

If one does not believe in rebirth and karma, then one does not believe in justice. If one does not believe in some form of justice, then he does not believe in the notions of good/skillful an bad/unskillful actions.

That sounds like a version of the argument one hears from various religions: "if you don't follow this set of beliefs, you won't be a moral person." Christians make similar claims: without God, there can be no justice, morality, etc.

Regardless if he is right or wrong, this is an attitude that is not going to be conductive to following the path.

Okay, but my question is: what is the purpose of the path? Some people say that the purpose of the path is to end rebirth (i.e. "rebirth is the problem which the Dhamma is designed to solve."). In that case, rebirth should be a premise that one accepts prior to taking refuge. Otherwise one is taking a cure while not being convinced there is actually a disease.

[Ceisiwr]

dxm_dxm

I used to be quite a convinced christian before. The reason why I moved away from christianity was the fact that there can be no justice in that system of belief. The only way justice can exist is if rebirth is real

I doubt your claim that rebirth gives us justice. Firstly, if rebirth is true, then it's a natural phenomena, like lightening. A description of nature doesn't give us morality or justice. Such an appeal to nature is a fallacy. What is natural doesn't necessarily equal good or evil. It just is.

Any appeal to kamma-vipaka would merely describe a force of nature, so it seems that we can't find justice or morality in the theory of kamma.

Also, if I grant your point, how can it be just for a man to experience suffering because he lied to save the life of another?

[Ceisiwr]

dxm_dxm

This is a very good point and I am surprised nobody made it before. If a person believes suffering will end at natural death then there is no need to practice any path.

There seems to be a false dichotomy here. It's not the case that someone either believes in rebirth, or totally disbelieves it. There is the third option of remaining skeptical, in the sense of withholding assent to any non-evident propositions.

[Lazy_eye]

There seems to be a false dichotomy here. It's not the case that someone either believes in rebirth, or totally disbelieves it. There is the third option of remaining skeptical, in the sense of withholding assent to any non-evident propositions.

I don't see it really as a matter of making a dichotomy. It's a matter of assessing probabilities. Is rebirth (or any other sort of post-mortem continuance) certain, probable, possible, impossible?

We make decisions, I think, based on these kinds of assessments. If I determine that rebirth is a likelihood, I'll make decisions that are different from those that I would make if I'm fairly certain that this life is it. There are also implications for some Buddhist doctrines. If conscious life comes to a halt at death, it's not really accurate to say that all experiences are painful -- as long as our endorphins are still kicking in, quite a lot of things may go on being delightful until our brain activity stops.

Also, if rebirth is merely possible (rather than probable or certain), then we have to weigh it against other possibilities, notably the claims of other religions. God might be real too.

[Ceisiwr]

Lazy_eye

I don't see it really as a matter of making a dichotomy. It's a matter of assessing probabilities. Is rebirth (or any other sort of post-mortem continuance) certain, probable, possible, impossible?

We make decisions, I think, based on these kinds of assessments. If I determine that rebirth is a likelihood, I'll make decisions that are different from those that I would make if I'm fairly certain that this life is it. There are also implications for some Buddhist doctrines. If conscious life comes to a halt at death, it's not really accurate to say that all experiences are painful -- as long as our endorphins are still kicking in, quite a lot of things may go on being delightful until our brain activity stops.

Also, if rebirth is merely possible (rather than probable or certain), then we have to weigh it against other possibilities, notably the claims of other religions. God might be real too.

The original post to which I replied seemed to be making a false dichotomy between acceptance or denial. In relation to your other point, I don't even know how we would begin to asses the probability of there being some form of life after death, although I'm not a mathematician. Certainly I can make assumptions, such as death being oblivion due to our minds being in someway dependent upon, or perhaps identical to, physical brain states (in whatever form). This, however, would be merely speculation on my part as I cannot actually know, which means that I may be deceiving myself, or I may be deceived by the data.

That being said I agree that we have to assess the likelihood of a theory being true, based on probability, all the time in everyday life. Political persuasions are the best example of this, I think. For example the up and coming European Union referendum in the UK is a decision that will be made on probability, since the outcome is unknown. This will also be partly (or in some cases completely) informed by a previously held belief in a certain political ideology. Of course in these cases we can claim to know which political position was "correct" based on previous experience, or after the fact via reflection. Sadly, with any discussion of life or no life after death we are not afforded the same luxury, which means that any position we take in terms of affirmation or negation is more likely to be based on personal persuasions than any demonstrable fact. As I mentioned previously, the only hope we may have of addressing the question is through the philosophy of mind and science. If it can be demonstrated that mental phenomena depend on brain states, or are independent of them, then we might be able to address the question of post mortem existence. Until then it seems that either position, that of acceptance or denial, is on rather shaky ground which is why I remain a skeptic in regards to such matters.

There are also implications for some Buddhist doctrines. If conscious life comes to a halt at death, it's not really accurate to say that all experiences are painful -- as long as our endorphins are still kicking in, quite a lot of things may go on being delightful until our brain activity stops.

I'm not so sure. To me the Dhamma has great value in any scenario.