the great rebirth debate

[tiltbillings]

Considering how precise the Buddha was making sure that He would not be misinterpreted, is there any clear statement that He was merely talking about momentary mind states?

Dhp 33. Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so difficult to guard.

34. As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the realm of Mara.

35. Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind brings happiness.

36. Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings happiness.

[daverupa]

Bala-pandita Sutta: The Fool & the Wise Person

The Blessed One said, "The ignorance with which the fool is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has not been abandoned by the fool; that craving has not been destroyed. Why is that? The fool has not practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is headed for a [new] body. Headed for a body, he is not entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. I tell you, he is not entirely freed from stress & suffering.

There's always a bracketed portion in Suttas such as this, which always leaves me wondering - is it a grammatically understood case, is it contextual with respect to idiom, is it some manner of translation bias? I think the sentence reads better without it.

In any event, I agree that the idea of punabhava is here set out very simply, except that 'body' must be broadly understood as it encapsulates even the subtle bodies of devas and other beings, which can have all manner of dimensions and qualities.

I will also add that, as far as I can tell, this does not show that paticcasamuppada is to be understood solely with reference to punabhava, only that punabhava was part of what the Buddha explained to others. A leaf not left on the tree - might be important.

[Alex123]

Hello Tilt,

Can you please explain what you are trying to say in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p141427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;? How do those poetic phrases in Dhammapada relate to lets say MN130 or to technical description of D.O. in SN12.2 or to birth in DN15?


"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
...
"'From birth as a requisite condition come aging and death.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from birth as a requisite condition come aging and death. If there were no birth at all, in any way, of anything anywhere — i.e., of devas in the state of devas, of celestials in the state of celestials, of spirits in the state of spirits, of demons in the state of demons, of human beings in the human state, of quadrupeds in the state of quadrupeds, of birds in the state of birds, of snakes in the state of snakes, or of any being in its own state — in the utter absence of birth, from the cessation of birth, would aging and death be discerned?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Was Buddha agnostic regarding post mortem fate?

6. Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One and, after greeting him respectfully, sat down at one side. And he said to the Blessed One: "Here in Nadika, Lord, there have passed away the bhikkhu Salha and the bhikkhuni Nanda. Likewise there have passed away the layman Sudatta and the laywoman Sujata; likewise the layman Kakudha, Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda. What is their destiny, Lord? What is their future state?"

7. "The bhikkhu Salha, Ananda, through the destruction of the taints in this very lifetime has attained to the taint-free deliverance of mind and deliverance through wisdom, having directly known and realized it by himself. [17]

"The bhikkhuni Nanda, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities) and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world.

"The layman Sudatta, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters (self-belief, doubt, and faith in the efficacy of rituals and observances), and the lessening of lust, hatred, and delusion, has become a once-returner and is bound to make an end of suffering after having returned but once more to this world.

"The laywoman Sujata, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters has become a stream-enterer, and is safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment.

"The layman Kakudha, Ananda, through the destruction of the five lower fetters (that bind beings to the world of the senses), has arisen spontaneously (among the Suddhavasa deities), and will come to final cessation in that very place, not liable to return from that world.

"So it is with Kalinga, Nikata, Katissabha, Tuttha, Santuttha, Bhadda, and Subhadda, and with more than fifty laymen in Nadika. More than ninety laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the destruction of the three fetters, and the lessening of lust, hatred, and delusion, have become once-returners and are bound to make an end of suffering after having returned but once more to this world.

"More than five hundred laymen who have passed away in Nadika, Ananda, through the complete destruction of the three fetters have become stream-enterers, and are safe from falling into the states of misery, assured, and bound for Enlightenment.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#fnt-17" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


If there was no rebirth after death, then Buddha wouldn't say that such and such a person has been reborn here or there. If Ananda who knew D.O. would believe only in momentary D.O. that happens within this life, then Ananda would not ask the Buddha such question. Question of post-mortem destiny would not make sense if there were no rebirth for non-Arahants.

[Nikaya35]

Alex I agree with you . In the Nikayas the Buddha talk about literal karma and rebirth many times . Is clear that is part of his teachings. Claiming that the Buddha never teach both doctrines based in the Nikayas is a mayor BULL.... Infact nihilism ( denying karma and literal rebirth ) is a wrong view according to the Buddha in the Nikayas and eternalism as well. According to the nikayas the Buddha have 3 knowledges .( 1) The destruction of taints . (2) His past lives and (3) how beings get reborn in different destinations according to their karma . His followers asked him about the destination of others persons after death and he answers . In many sutras in the Nikayas the Buddha talk with devas and other Samsara beings . The truth is that Buddhism is a religion . Buddhism is a SPIRITUAL PATH . The teachings of the Buddha have things that can been verified by direct knowledge and experience by everyone and some aspects like Karma and Rebirth that can been verified by few beings .

[Kenshou]

If we're going to be picky, I don't think nihilism is the right word. I believe what is often translated as that is ucchedavada, which carries the implication of a self which gets annihilated. It is possible to believe in a lack of literal rebirth without believing that there is a self involved, just as it is possible to hold the view of literal rebirth without a self/soul/atma involved.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, just a nitpick.

[cooran]

If we're going to be picky, I don't think nihilism is the right word. I believe what is often translated as that is ucchedavada, which carries the implication of a self which gets annihilated. It is possible to believe in a lack of literal rebirth without believing that there is a self involved, just as it is possible to hold the view of literal rebirth without a self/soul/atma involved.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, just a nitpick.

Yes, no need to cling to a belief in a soul or self - the Buddha’s teachings are about the constant moment by moment arising, changing while standing, and falling away of the stream of cittas - all with blinding speed, which gives the deluded the feel/appearance of a continuing self.
This stream continues onward flavoured/coloured by its baggage of wholesome and unwholesome kamma until enlightenment and cessation is achieved (without a particular constant individual identity attached).

with metta
Chris

[tiltbillings]

Hello Tilt,

Can you please explain what you are trying to say in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p141427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;? How do those poetic phrases in Dhammapada relate to lets say MN130 or to technical description of D.O. in SN12.2 or to birth in DN15?

Considering how precise the Buddha was making sure that He would not be misinterpreted, is there any clear statement that He was merely talking about momentary mind states?

What do you mean by momentary mind states?

[daverupa]

Hello Tilt,

Can you please explain what you are trying to say in http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p141427" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;? How do those poetic phrases in Dhammapada relate to lets say MN130 or to technical description of D.O. in SN12.2 or to birth in DN15?

Considering how precise the Buddha was making sure that He would not be misinterpreted, is there any clear statement that He was merely talking about momentary mind states?

What do you mean by momentary mind states?

[Alex123]

If we're going to be picky, I don't think nihilism is the right word. I believe what is often translated as that is ucchedavada, which carries the implication of a self which gets annihilated. It is possible to believe in a lack of literal rebirth without believing that there is a self involved, just as it is possible to hold the view of literal rebirth without a self/soul/atma involved.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha263.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anyway, just a nitpick.

But even if we reject atta and post-mortem rebirth, then still this idea qualifies as nihilism as it denies the results of kamma after the body falls apart (death).

[Alex123]

Considering how precise the Buddha was making sure that He would not be misinterpreted, is there any clear statement that He was merely talking about momentary mind states?

What do you mean by momentary mind states?

What I had in mind was:
The idea that birth is only metaphorical description of a moment when the mind takes on some identity, and death is metaphorical description of the cessation of that momentary mind state. Where did the Buddha explicitly taught this and denied birth & death as is commonly known?

[tiltbillings]

Considering how precise the Buddha was making sure that He would not be misinterpreted, is there any clear statement that He was merely talking about momentary mind states?

What do you mean by momentary mind states?

What I had in mind was:
The idea that birth is only metaphorical description of a moment when the mind takes on some identity, and death is metaphorical description of the cessation of that momentary mind state. Where did the Buddha explicitly taught this and denied birth & death as is commonly known?

Since that is not what I was talking about, this is not a discussion of interest to me.

[Kusala]

My personal opinion is that the Buddha talked about literal rebirth. It accords with my reading of the Suttas and Venerable Bodhi's 'A comprehensive manual of the Abhidhamma'.
However, I think the real issue is not so much whether rebirth exists or doesn't exist, is what is it that wanders on. And for me, this is the million dollar question. Not only understanding paticcasamuppada, understanding anatta, the process of becoming (and unbecoming) from an intellectual point, but developing naana, (insight/knowledge) with regards to the reality of rebirth and anatta directly through bhavana.
Kind regards

Ben

He talked about reincarnation to those who clearly could not accept his own radical teachings. The true issue that he dealt with was human suffering through ignorance. Part of finding that release was ridding oneself off speculative view. The Buddha's teaching of Anatta had nothing to do with pre-Buddha notions of reincarnation. Nor did he teach "rebirth", which was a later post-Buddha attempt to force pre-Buddha reincarnation speculative view into the Buddha's teachings.

How do we explain this:

"...In England, a 5 year old girl said she could remember her other mother and father and she talked vividly about what sounded like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called in and asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke of living in a particular village, in what appeared to be Spain. She gave the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbours’ names and details about her everyday life there. she also tearfully spoke of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later.

When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was a village in Spain with the name the child had given. There was a house of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more, it was found that a 23 year old woman living in the house had been killed in a car accident five years before...Now how is it possible for a five year old living in England who had never been to Spain to know all these details?"

[bodom]

Hi kusula.

There are many examples such as the above:

It is perhaps quite true that a direct proof for rebirth cannot be given. We have, however, the authentic reports about children in Burma and elsewhere, who sometimes are able to remember quite distinctly (probably in dreams) events of their previous life. By the way, what we see in dreams are mostly distorted reflexes of real things and happenings experienced in this or a previous life. And how could we ever explain the birth of such prodigies as Jeremy Bentham, who already in his fourth year could read and write Latin and Greek; or John Stuart Mill, who at the age of three read Greek and at the age of six wrote a history of Rome; or Babington Macaulay, who in his sixth year wrote a compendium of world history; or Beethoven, who gave public concerts when he was seven; or Mozart, who already before his sixth year had written musical compositions; or Voltaire, who read the fables of Lafontaine when he was three years old. Should all these prodigies and geniuses, who for the most part came from illiterate parents, not already in previous births have laid the foundations to their extraordinary faculties? "Natura non facit saltus: nature makes no leaps." - Nyanatiloka Mahathera

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 4.html#ch2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Nikaya35]

My personal opinion is that the Buddha talked about literal rebirth. It accords with my reading of the Suttas and Venerable Bodhi's 'A comprehensive manual of the Abhidhamma'.
However, I think the real issue is not so much whether rebirth exists or doesn't exist, is what is it that wanders on. And for me, this is the million dollar question. Not only understanding paticcasamuppada, understanding anatta, the process of becoming (and unbecoming) from an intellectual point, but developing naana, (insight/knowledge) with regards to the reality of rebirth and anatta directly through bhavana.
Kind regards

Ben

He talked about reincarnation to those who clearly could not accept his own radical teachings. The true issue that he dealt with was human suffering through ignorance. Part of finding that release was ridding oneself off speculative view. The Buddha's teaching of Anatta had nothing to do with pre-Buddha notions of reincarnation. Nor did he teach "rebirth", which was a later post-Buddha attempt to force pre-Buddha reincarnation speculative view into the Buddha's teachings.

How do we explain this:

"...In England, a 5 year old girl said she could remember her other mother and father and she talked vividly about what sounded like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called in and asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke of living in a particular village, in what appeared to be Spain. She gave the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbours’ names and details about her everyday life there. she also tearfully spoke of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later.

When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was a village in Spain with the name the child had given. There was a house of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more, it was found that a 23 year old woman living in the house had been killed in a car accident five years before...Now how is it possible for a five year old living in England who had never been to Spain to know all these details?"

What Stuka is saying is complete BULL.......... . He claims that the Buddha doesn't teach or that the Buddha don't really think that Literal Karma and Rebirth is true. And worst he is making those claims based in the Nikayas !!!! Anyone that read the complete 4 nikayas will realize that what he is saying is rubbish and the Nikayas says otherwise.
The nikayas have tons of sutras where the Buddha talk about Karma and Rebirth as part of his teachings .

[Ben]

That is a very old friend you dredged up, maitreya31.
Yes, some of us are very familiar with Stuka and his peculiar form of bs.
kind regards

Ben