according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
Agent
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:14 pm
Location: Morenci, Michigan

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by Agent »

zac wrote:you guys think a small grammatical error makes my post sound like it's talking about re-incarnation and the author agent just referenced literally used the term "re-incarnation" but no one noticed?
Sorry for going a bit off topic, but just to clarify so no one gets the wrong idea that the Venerable quoted supports reincarnation, the term was only used here:
Pure Buddhism does not support the belief that a spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary state until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."
In the context of the sentence the inference is that belief in a being to be reincarnated (or "reborn" for that matter) it is not a correct view.
He uses the word reincarnation and puts it in quotes to reinforce this idea.
Last edited by Agent on Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Vayadhammā saṅkhārā appamādena sampādethā.
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by Kare »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Zac,
zac wrote:bhikkhu bodhi seems to think that "rebirth" is an appropriate term. i've always felt he was a very well researched author, is it possible i was wrong about him?
Rebirth is just a word - what it points to is far more important than the choice of word itself. I would advise investigating the terms bhava, punabhava, and jati and working out what they mean for yourself so that you are not reliant on any one translator's interpretation. I think if there is a problem with the English translation 'rebirth' it is the 're' aspect. 'Re' means 'again' or 'repeated', and is with reference to an object that is"'re'd"... however in the Dhamma, there is nothing that "re's"... there is arising and cessation based on conditions, and that's it. Rebirth, at a casual glance (i.e. unless you're being directly cognizant of anicca and anatta) can be falsely taken to be rebirth of an actual self. In reality, there is no atman to be born, let alone "re"-born. As Bhikkhu Ñanananda says, "All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific."

I hope this gives some indication as to why it's better to investigate and study the key Pali terms in question, than rely solely upon English translation. As Anicca points out, "reincarnation" (literally: re-embodied in flesh) is an atrocious translation and should not be tolerated.

Metta,
Retro. :)
:goodpost:

I agree that one ought to look closer at the Pali - and at the context. "Bhava" simply means "to be (and "bhava" in fact is cognate with English "be"). "Puna" means "again". So "punabhava" means that something "comes to be again" - in a given context that may of course be biological rebirth, but in another context it may as well be greed, hate and ignorance that arises again and again. There is nothing implicit biological in the word itself, it has to be understood from the context.

"Jati" means "birth". This looks more biological ... until you read a little further in the Pali texts. Then you will find that "jati (with variant grammatical forms) also appears in idioms that have nothing to do with biological birth. For instance ... "tuttha" means "glad, happy". In a story something good happens to a man, and the texts says that he became "tutthajato". Of course he was not "born happy" in that moment ... he "became happy". So in cases like that "jati/jato" seems to indicate nothing simply that some change was occurring, something happened. Again: Context is King, as translators sometimes say.
Mettāya,
Kåre
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Zac,
zac wrote:bhikkhu bodhi seems to think that "rebirth" is an appropriate term. i've always felt he was a very well researched author, is it possible i was wrong about him?
Rebirth is just a word - what it points to is far more important than the choice of word itself. I would advise investigating the terms bhava, punabhava, and jati and working out what they mean for yourself so that you are not reliant on any one translator's interpretation. I think if there is a problem with the English translation 'rebirth' it is the 're' aspect. 'Re' means 'again' or 'repeated', and is with reference to an object that is"'re'd"... however in the Dhamma, there is nothing that "re's"... there is arising and cessation based on conditions, and that's it. Rebirth, at a casual glance (i.e. unless you're being directly cognizant of anicca and anatta) can be falsely taken to be rebirth of an actual self. In reality, there is no atman to be born, let alone "re"-born. As Bhikkhu Ñanananda says, "All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific."

I hope this gives some indication as to why it's better to investigate and study the key Pali terms in question, than rely solely upon English translation. As Anicca points out, "reincarnation" (literally: re-embodied in flesh) is an atrocious translation and should not be tolerated.

Metta,
Retro. :)
gotcha. i understand all of that and that's why i didn't use the word "re-incarnation" at all in my post. i used the word "rebirth" in conjunction with other words in combinations i've read used by many buddhist authors.

thanx for the explanation :smile:
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

Agent wrote:
zac wrote:you guys think a small grammatical error makes my post sound like it's talking about re-incarnation and the author agent just referenced literally used the term "re-incarnation" but no one noticed?
Sorry for going a bit off topic, but just to clarify so no one gets the wrong idea that the Venerable quoted supports reincarnation, the term was only used here:
Pure Buddhism does not support the belief that a spirit of the deceased person takes lodgement in some temporary state until it finds a suitable place for its "reincarnation."
In the context of the sentence the inference is that belief in a being to be reincarnated (or "reborn" for that matter) it is not a correct view.
He uses the word reincarnation and puts it in quotes to reinforce this idea.
all good agent. like i said on a buddhist web site i don't think anyone is going to be confused by this.
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

Anicca wrote:
zac wrote:i definitely didn't say "re-incarnation" ... but oh well, nit picking is fun for some. but to be fair this debate over petty semantics is :offtopic: and it would be nice to get back to talking about what the buddha taught on the topic :smile:
Howdy Zac!
I agree with you completely! Please do not think that i was implying *you* used the term re-incarnation - i mentioned it only to say that you need not doubt Ven. Bodhi because he uses the term rebirth and that if you *ever * find someone teaching re-incarnation as Buddhism - THEN run away!

Please do not take it personally when the use of any term that implies a "self" is questioned in Buddhist discussion - it goes with the territory. I understand what you mean, but you seemed confused about what Chris said so i hoped to clarify those words - not pick on yours.
cooran wrote:I think a better question is "What is it which re-becomes?" "You" are not reborn.
Metta
right on, i didn't think you were saying that. thanx for clarifying anyway :smile:
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

can we please get :focus: ?

i'd really love to hear more about what everyone knows about the buddha's teachings on death. pretty please?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings zac,
zac wrote:i'd really love to hear more about what everyone knows about the buddha's teachings on death. pretty please?
Death of what, though?

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings zac,
zac wrote:i'd really love to hear more about what everyone knows about the buddha's teachings on death. pretty please?
Death of what, though?

Metta,
Retro. :)
so... i'm not sure where to go from here. we are going to micro manage the way things are worded to the point that i have to explain what the phrase "the buddha's teachings on death." means??? i think everyone knows what i mean.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by retrofuturist »

zac wrote:i think everyone knows what i mean.
Greetings Zac,

The reason I ask, is because the reality is arising and cessation. What we would conventionally call "death" is a concept. As I quoted earlier...
Bhikkhu Nanananda wrote:All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific.
In other words, if there is no proliferation there is no death. This is why arahants can attain 'the deathless', here-and-now, namely because they have transcended the proliferation (and its underlying ignorance) that conceives of a "thing" that can "die".

Though I'm sure that you're thinking of something very different with your assumed definition, taking something as given which perhaps should not be taken as such... which is why we ask. The questions aren't as pedantic as you make them out to be.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

retrofuturist wrote:
zac wrote:i think everyone knows what i mean.
Greetings Zac,

The reason I ask, is because the reality is arising and cessation. What we would conventionally call "death" is a concept. As I quoted earlier...
Bhikkhu Nanananda wrote:All concepts of 'going', 'coming', 'being born', 'growing old' and 'dying' are to be found in the prolific. They simply do not exist in the nonprolific.
In other words, if there is no proliferation there is no death. This is why arahants can attain 'the deathless', here-and-now, namely because they have transcended the proliferation (and its underlying ignorance) that conceives of a "thing" that can "die".

Though I'm sure that you're thinking of something different, taking something as given which perhaps should not be taken as such... which is why we ask. The questions aren't as pedantic as you make them out to be.

Metta,
Retro. :)
ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium. at some point the speaker says exactly what i wrote in the original topic. they would all assume what the speaker meant by these words because it's not convoluted or difficult to understand. when he said "any questions?" they would not raise their hands and point out possible flaws in the minute parts of his talk.

making assumptions is the only way we can function. if everything is picked apart then things come to a standstill, like this thread! explaining every little word in depth would turn each topic into a book and even then things could be picked apart. imagine you are talking to a buddhist monk and he says "rebirth" are you going to correct him?????? not that i'm a monk but why do this here if you wouldn't do it there? is it solving anything or making the conversation run more smoothly? i've heard monks and nuns say many things that are a little off and, unless i'm genuinely confused, i would never ever start pointing these "mistakes" out. again i don't equate myself with a monk! i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same? from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Zac,
ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.
Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.
i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?
Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).
from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?
If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Zac,
ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.
Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.
i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?
Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).
from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?
If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,
Retro. :)
ok so you're saying that i have to be suuuuuuuuuuper specific. it seemed that people knew what i meant at first and then the debate about the word "rebirth" messed everything up. i don't think anyone would be confused to read in a book or even the title of a book "the buddha's teachings on death.". the only way to make this confusing is to spin it into the mess of deep thinking philosophy around the idea of "no self" and other complicated buddhist ideals. i really just wanted to hear about what the original teachings were on death. and i think anyone who read my topic knew i meant "what are the buddha's teachings on what happens to a persons' consciousness between the moment of physical death and the transferring of their karmic storehouse to a new body.". i do love semantics as i was raised by and english professor! that's the funny part! but sometimes it's nice to just have a conversation without everything being immaculately perfect in wording.
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by beeblebrox »

What happens after death? Ignorance (volitional formations, consciousness, clinging, existence, another birth, death again, still ignorant...) Is there an escape?
User avatar
dhammastudier
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 4:28 am

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by dhammastudier »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Zac,
ok, but let's say everyone talking on this topic was at a dharma talk in a big auditorium.
Then it's necessarily going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator. Do you want a lowest common denominator understanding, or do you want to strive to develop the sublime, profound understanding of the enlightened ones, so deep that the Buddha was originally tempted not to teach it? If the former, more worldly view, is all you're interested in then by all means reduce profound Dhamma teachings to worldly common denominators.
i'm only saying why not treat everyone the same?
Don't worry, I do. If you don't ask, you don't find. Any sincere question directed to a better understanding of the Dhamma is a good question (even if, in retrospect, it may be inappropriately worded).
from abbott of a temple to some guy you're talking to at a book store, unless they are making no sense and are really confusing people, what good is it to pull an "english language professor" attitude on them?
If you think this is some kind of "English language professor" mode then you're completely missing the point that people are trying to communicate to you.

You (anonymously) quote the Buddha addressing Mara, the personification of death, as an "end-maker" in your signature, but if you're content to settle for a conventional understanding of death, you will not be able to comprehend (either conceptually or experientially) what is meant by this.

Be clear, this is not an attack on you. This is an important point that will not be resolved through defensiveness.

Metta,
Retro. :)
ok i think i have an excellent way to put this! if you and i were both novelists, i would be richard stark and you would be robert ludlum!!!! that's it! :smile:




if you don't know; ludlum's novels (bourne series and others) are always above four hundred pages and stark's ("the hunter" made into a film called "payback" with mel gibson and many others) are almost never more than two hundred, sometimes even one fifty. ludlum gives lots of detail and different angles on things and stark... well he writes starkly, including only the bare essentials needed to tell a story. ludlum feels that to get his point across everything must be very clearly explained and stark feels that people will just get it.

also this is not a bad thing, i love both authors! ;)

also what did you mean when you said my signature quote is "anonymous"? because i didn't say it came from the samyutta nikaya?
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: according to the pali canon, what happens after you die?

Post by jcsuperstar »

zac, people are at different places on the path, to say "you get born again" is not sufficient for some as they are beyond that type of understanding, yet other people that is all they need to know.
the problem here, if it is a problem(i don't think so), is that Buddhism while perfectly fine as a "regular" religion that just tells you what to believe has more profound teaching that require you to ask the tough questions yourself and figure out things. there are different sorts of Buddhists, this was true even in the Buddha's time, he said there are those who follow on faith and those who must test everything for themselves the interesting thing is those who follow on faith practice cause they believe the teaching will work and so when they work they reach the deathless, and those who feel the need to test everything will practice and see if the teaching work and when they do will reach the deathless. this post in a good example of how teaching work on these levels, when i 1st read the thread i was like "meh boring" but then when cooran and retro posted what they posted i was like "hmmm interesting" the more complex/philosophical answers force you to ask questions, maybe at first you're like "what the hell does that mean?" but its a start.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Post Reply