the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Would you care to give your own commentary to this tilt as well?

32. "Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation.

33. "What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation.

What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.

What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation.

What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation. These are the four kinds of generation.

[Ceisiwr]

Ive also not seen one case made for why one must include rebirth after death in the 4nt's in order to understand them, why birth of "I" is not an accurate relfection of them and why if one does not take up the view of being born as a .... after death then there cannot be nibbana

[tiltbillings]

Not really. A speculation is a guess about something isnt it. I dont guess that there is birth after death or that there is God or nothing. These views arise from clinging, once one knows that then its easier to not hold to them.

So, you are claiming to know and all that goes with it.

If i really was speculating about death then I would be saying there is rebirth, there isnt rebirth, there is both rebirth and no rebirth, there is God, there is no God, there is satan etc. Instead one should see how such views come to be so one doesnt take them up and get caught in them

Interestingly, until one is awakened, one is stuck with having views. Can't get around it. You are broadcasting them constantly.

Im sorry if you choose to see vehemence. However the only reason my posts are so long and detailed is because it takes some explaining and so many different people have different questions to ask, thus the frequency and length

The issue is not the length of your posts, which tend, for all their length, not to be very informative; rather, the point is the you obviously feel compelled to defend yourpoint of view.

Sure, will do the 4nt's post to you first then get started on that

Hot damn. We will be getting your view, but based upon what?

[tiltbillings]

Would you care to give your own commentary to this tilt as well?

32. "Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation.

33. "What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation.

What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.

What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation.

What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation. These are the four kinds of generation.

Do you really need to be reminded to give the citation for a text you quote? As for a commentary, I'll consider it.

[tiltbillings]

Ive also not seen one case made for why one must include rebirth after death in the 4nt's in order to understand them, why birth of "I" is not an accurate relfection of them and why if one does not take up the view of being born as a .... after death then there cannot be nibbana

You dance around this. What happens, according to the Buddha, to the individual who has not attained nibbana and dies? It is a simple question. A three word sentence can answer it. So rather than your dancing about, feet firmly on the ground, give a straightforward answer.

[tiltbillings]

One more thing, Craig. The "I" is being "reborn" multiple times throughout the day as perception arises and falls colored by ignorance, and it gets sick and then dies before it is reborn again?

What about the streamwinner, reborn at max only seven times after that level of attainment? So, his or her "I" gets reborn seven times, then what?

[meindzai]

Ive also not seen one case made for why one must include rebirth after death in the 4nt's in order to understand them, why birth of "I" is not an accurate relfection of them and why if one does not take up the view of being born as a .... after death then there cannot be nibbana

The problem is that in order to justify the rebirthless new-age version you have to jump through such elaborate semantic hoops, rather than just look at what the text says. The Buddha first explains that birth (defined in gory detail in more than one sutta as the ghandarva entering the womb) is suffering, then goes on to explain how to end birth. (If I was already born, who cares, unless he's telling me how to end a future birth?)

In other suttas he talks about his own past lives (where he met Dipankara for example), future lives (Kukkuravatika Sutta, where one will be reborn as a dog and the other as an ox, if they continue with their views), people having been such and such in prior lives, and using the phrase upon the dissolution of the body after death. Do you really think you are revealing anything interesting by explaining away each one of these things with a convoluted system of selective readings? What's the point? What does it prove?

-M

[vinasp]

Hi everyone,

Several posters have quoted MN 36 in support of an opinion that the Buddha actually knew that rebirth was a fact. I think they should take a closer look at the text. The sequence is :

MN 36.38 "When my concentrated mind was thus purified ... I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives ..."

MN 36.39 "This was the first true knowledge attained by me in the first watch of the night ..."

MN 36.40 "When my concentrated mind was thus purified ... I directed it to knowledge of the passing away and reappearance of beings ... Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and reappearing ... according to their actions".

MN 36.41 "This was the second true knowledge attained by me in the middle watch of the night ..."

MN 36.42 "When my concentrated mind was thus purified ... I directed it to knowledge of the destruction of the taints (asavas). I directly knew as it actually is :"This is suffering ... ; This is the origin of suffering ; This is the cessation of
suffering ; This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering ; These are the taints ; This is the origin of the taints ; This is the cessation of the taints ; This is the way leading to the cessation of the taints".

MN 36.43 "When I knew and saw thus, my mind was liberated from the taint of sensual desire, from the taint of being, and from the taint of ignorance ..."

MN 36.44 "This was the third true knowledge attained by me in the last watch of the night".

The section 36.42 is describing the entire noble eightfold path, when Gotama sees this he becomes a noble one. Prior to this he is still a puthujjana.

Section 36.43 describes the actual enlightenment, Gotama is now an arahant. Note the destruction of the asava of ignorance.

Now, what credibility do the first and second knowledges have ? Gotama was still a worldling at the time of those "attainments". Also, even the eye of dhamma which is attained by a stream-winner is regarded as higher than the divine eye.

Best wishes, Vincent.

[mikenz66]

Hi Vincent,

Now, what credibility do the first and second knowledges have ? Gotama was still a worldling at the time of those "attainments". Also, even the eye of dhamma which is attained by a stream-winner is regarded as higher than the divine eye.

Recollection of past lives, along with the various psychic powers are not ariyan knowledges and not claimed to be unique to the Buddha's teaching.

Mike

[BlackBird]

all im saying is that I dont see such views in the Buddhas own teachings

Which is in itself a speculative view. You don't know the Dhamma for yourself, and neither do I, so we can speculate to the cows come home about all kinds of theories or modern interpretations, but it won't do us any good.

Please don't make the easy mistake of taking the map to be the hidden treasure itself. Realisation wont happen by debating the intricacies of the map. Go out and explore the topography of the land it maps. That's the only way to be sure.

[nowheat]

so we can speculate to the cows come home about all kinds of theories or modern interpretations, but it won't do us any good.

Sure it will. Okay, maybe it won't do any good for those whose views are entrenched, but for the observers out there to recognize that there is a debate ongoing over what the Buddha taught is a good thing.

Each side believes they are defending the dhamma the Buddha taught. Would you have one set of view-holders -- those with your prefered view, maybe? -- just stop offering their understanding on a public board? Each of us feels that to reach enlightenment, and to help others reach enlightenment, we must understand what the Buddha taught, and each in good faith is trying to help.

There will be those out there, new to Buddhism, who see the logic of the rebirth dhamma, and I'm sure that path will do them great good. There will be those out there who find no evidence themselves for rebirth, and see logic in the no-views dhamma, and I'm sure that path will do them great good, because this is, after all, a practice that is good at the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end. We have more in common in our understanding than differences.

[BlackBird]

so we can speculate to the cows come home about all kinds of theories or modern interpretations, but it won't do us any good.

Okay, maybe it won't do any good for those whose views are entrenched

That's the nail on the head right there.

but for the observers out there to recognize that there is a debate ongoing over what the Buddha taught is a good thing.

In an earlier draft of this post I had written something a long the lines of:
"But if it is for posterity then I humbly apologise"
I think that might apply here.

Would you have one set of view-holders -- those with your prefered view, maybe? -- just stop offering their understanding on a public board? Each of us feels that to reach enlightenment, and to help others reach enlightenment, we must understand what the Buddha taught, and each in good faith is trying to help.

Does understanding the Dhamma come from debating with those who have entrenched views? I guess it depends on your motivation. In my case all I get is frustration.

There will be those out there who find no evidence themselves for rebirth, and see logic in the no-views dhamma, and I'm sure that path will do them great good, because this is, after all, a practice that is good at the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end.

Is that what they call it these days? Because it certainly appears to be quite the opposite of 'no views' to me. Although perhaps appearances are deceiving me.

We have more in common in our understanding than differences.

Could you kindly elaborate on this point?

metta
Jack

[nowheat]

Would you have one set of view-holders -- those with your prefered view, maybe? -- just stop offering their understanding on a public board? Each of us feels that to reach enlightenment, and to help others reach enlightenment, we must understand what the Buddha taught, and each in good faith is trying to help.

Does understanding the Dhamma come from debating with those who have entrenched views? I guess it depends on your motivation. In my case all I get is frustration.

I'm with you on the frustration (though that's not all I get out of following these debates).

Understanding does not come from debating alone, but neither have I ever met anyone who gained a good understanding of the Dhamma without discussion with others (though there's a rumor about a guy in India 2,500 years ago who managed it).

There will be those out there who find no evidence themselves for rebirth, and see logic in the no-views dhamma, and I'm sure that path will do them great good, because this is, after all, a practice that is good at the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end.

Is that what they call it these days? Because it certainly appears to be quite the opposite of 'no views' to me. Although perhaps appearances are deceiving me.

The rebirth vs no-views is a reference to what we believe the Buddha taught (that leaving behind all views is his teaching); no-views is not referring to the people who hold the view that the Buddha taught no-views. (Whew!)

We have more in common in our understanding than differences.

Could you kindly elaborate on this point?

Gladly. I'm pretty sure we all agree that the Buddha's intention was to free humans of suffering. That the main things he taught were that we can free ourselves from suffering by relinquishing clinging; that causation is the way the world works and no thought, no object, arises without cause; that all things that arise from causes are impermanent; that because all these are impermanent, we suffer when we cling to them; and that this includes us -- we too are impermanent, and when we cling to the view that we are permanent, we suffer. Further, I expect both view-holders would agree that the Buddha said it was intention that was critical in our actions, not the actions themselves. There may be more points but that's the essence.

[BlackBird]

Thank you Nowheat

[Laurens]

I have come to the conclusion that instead of debating endlessly here we should all go off to our own individual caves (or bedrooms) and meditate untill we attain knowledge of the passing away and rising of beings. Then we can come back here and debate afterwards

Anyone??

Haha, nah I'm just jealous because I don't know the Tipitaka well enough to make lengthy posts in this topic.

All the best
Laurens