the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

nowheat wrote:
lyndon taylor wrote:Actually if you don't believe in rebirth, there is no deathless, rather upon death there is only totally dead, not deathless. You can't have it both ways, if there is no rebirth, Nibbana ends completely at death, the end, zippo, are you comfortable with that?
lyndon, there are two kinds of "don't believe in rebirth". The kind you are referring to is what is loosely called atheism even in Buddhist circles where God has no part to play: an active *disbelief* in rebirth. The other kind is one who *neither believes nor disbelieves". For them, there is the deathless as you are taking it if there is rebirth, and if there is not there is not. But neither case matters (as Craig often argues if I understand him, though he doesn't put it the way I do) because there is the state the Buddha described of living a life with no perception that there is a self that dies -- and that is, in that sense, a deathless state.
There's a previous thread here: "What is the deathless" which may be of interest:

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p240963

.
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by ancientbuddhism »

lyndon taylor wrote:... if there is no rebirth, Nibbana ends completely at death, the end, zippo, are you comfortable with that?
Do you believe that while sitting crosslegged, you should fly through the air like a winged bird?
  • Ākāse'pi pallaṅkena kamatha seyyathāpi pakkhi sakuṇo...
If you don’t, then all you have to contemplate is cognition at sensate events. Are you comfortable with that?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

lyndon taylor wrote:...if there is no rebirth, Nibbana ends completely at death, the end, zippo, are you comfortable with that?
I didn't notice, till ab posted a comment, that you'd asked me a question, lyndon. To answer it: yes, I am as comfortable with death being the end as I am with the prospect of a rebirth based on the karma from this life I'm living now. I hope you are equally comfortable with either prospect.

:namaste:
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

lyndon taylor wrote:Actually if you don't believe in rebirth, there is no deathless, rather upon death there is only totally dead, not deathless. You can't have it both ways, if there is no rebirth, Nibbana ends completely at death, the end, zippo, are you comfortable with that?

Deathless is not clinging to anything, not identifying with that which dies


If that happens then there is no death in this life, or another


It's only when, through ignorance, we give rise to "me" is there death

How can death occur when there is no "me" to die?


However your also confusing NON-belief in rebirth with belief in NO Rebirth, a subtle distinction but an important one


Let me put this to you, If somehow you discovered that rebirth didn't happen, would you not still experience dukkha through clinging?

To me it's obvious we do, therefore to be free from dukkha we should not cling, and so Dhamma practice is the same regardless of what happens after death

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself.

When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

"there is no you in connection with that ... Just this is the end of stress"

I.e. the deathless
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

.

In his book " Don't Take Your Life Personally" Ajahn Sumedho describes the deathless as "the unconditioned" or "nibbana".


.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Aloka wrote:.

In his book " Don't Take Your Life Personally" Ajahn Sumedho describes the deathless as "the unconditioned" or "nibbana".


.

That's it, the mind that isn't conditioned and deluded by phenomena, and so not giving rise to identity, is Nibbana
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Yes. Nice description Craig.
"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."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Sylvester »

nowheat wrote: I would love to be able to point you to a particular "citation...that furnishes this Creation myth" but I've never found one neat portrayal of this type of creation myth in any ancient volume -- there are dozens of snippets scattered all over (they are found as far back as the RgVeda, as recent as the Upanisads), discussing various parts, changing up the stories, taking as assumed the particular variant for their time or perhaps lineage -- "worshipping" this or that element with poetry, or building their own theories on the structure, themselves. They seem to never sit down and tell the story neatly, from start to finish, as we would, but assume their audience is already familiar with it, and simply use it as background to their arguments. (Oh, say, that sounds familiar... isn't that what I'm saying the Buddha's doing? It always surprises me when I see another way in which what the Buddha is doing is modeled on what has been done again and again in the literature that came before him -- I think this adds to the evidence that he was a well-educated man.)
Anyway, I think I have said, a couple of times, that I don't see the structure the Buddha used in DA as tying to one specific worldview (much less myth), but to a generalized one, which makes sense because, yes, there was not just one Creation myth. I do see the structure strongly matching the Prajapati myth -- in one or two very generalized versions of the popular variants. <edit/insert:> What I am trying to say is that the Prajapati myth may be one useful example of the type of myth the Buddha was generalizing about -- or it may be the primary one -- but what he is describing is meant to be generally representative of the way most people in his day looked at the world, rather than a direct refutation of that one myth. <end-edit> There's one in which Prajapati divides himself up, gaining senses through the individuality of name-and-form (I associate this with "form" in the canon), and in the other all the "pieces" having such similarity that they stuck together and were in constant contact (which I think of as matching "the formless" in the canon). Perhaps there were other myths out there that used a similar pattern, but the Prajapati myth (which was, earlier, associated with Purusa, and later associated with Brahma) matches up well enough to be used for the purposes of discussion. For references to the (bits and pieces in the) original texts that support the common understanding of those myths, I would point to Professor Jurewicz's paper, "Playing With Fire", which is chock full of citations -- she has far more knowledge of these things than I do. You can find a link to her paper on the same page of this forum as there is a link to mine, cited earlier: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 60#p192603
Thank you for this. If there was no one neat Creation myth, perhaps you could furnish at least one common thread underlying the entire multi-coloured fabric of the pre-Buddhist millieu? I do know from your essay in the OCBS Journal that you may equate this to the "sense of self", but it is not immediately apparent to me what that "sense of self" was, given the diversity of theories presented in the Upanisads. Certainly, I would not discount the utility of DA in accounting for some "sense of self", since grasping/clinging forms an important component of the 1st Noble Truth, while DA is identified with the 2nd. I take MN 44 as furnishing an alternative characterisation of the grasping in the concept of sakkāya, so perhaps this is one expression of a "sense of self".

But that being said, despite the summary equation (saṅkhitta) of the pañcupādānakkhandhā as dukkhā, we cannot discount the other appositional statements in SN 56. 11-
jātipi dukkhā jarāpi dukkhā vyādhipi dukkho maraṇampi dukkhaṃ appiyehi sampayogo dukkho piyehi vippayogo dukkho yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ

Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering.
Is an account of DA that attempts to address the source/origin of this sense of self alone what is presented in the suttas? I think this is papering over other very important aspects of DA that attempt to explain phenomenon beyond the clinging to identity. Such an account fails to acknowledge that DA as presented in the suttas function to explain feelings as well. Take for example the internal evidence in SN 12.25, where SN 56.11's piyehi vippayoga (seperation from the loved) fits in with SN 12.25's exposition on the source of feeling -
Friend Sāriputta, some ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, maintain that pleasure and pain are created by oneself; some ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, maintain that pleasure and pain are created by another; some ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, maintain that pleasure and pain are created both by oneself and by another; some ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, maintain that pleasure and pain have arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another.76 Now, friend Sāriputta, what does the Blessed One say about this? What does he teach? How should we answer if we are to state what has been said by the Blessed One and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? And how should we explain in accordance with the Dhamma so that no reasonable consequence of our assertion would give ground for criticism?”

“Friend, the Blessed One has said that pleasure and pain are dependently arisen. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact. If one were to speak thus one would be stating what has been said by the Blessed One and would not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact; one would explain in accordance with the Dhamma, and no reasonable consequence of one’s assertion would give ground for criticism.

“Therein, friend, in the case of those ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by oneself, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created both by oneself and by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain have arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another—in each case that is conditioned by contact.

“Therein, friends, in the case of those ascetics and brahmins, proponents of kamma, who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by oneself, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created by another, and those who maintain that pleasure and pain are created both by oneself and by another, and those [39] who maintain that pleasure and pain have arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another—in each case it is impossible that they will experience [anything] without contact.”
This analysis is echoed in AN 3.61 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html . Both SN 12.25 and AN 3.61 certainly fit in with your description that it addresses a prevailing belief(s), but both suttas do not stop to say that one's sense of self originates from that belief. Both suttas explicity deny the validity of the beliefs, and then go on to present the Buddha's teaching on the source of feelings.

I would also note that AN 3.61 goes beyond the exposition on the origin of feelings. The alighting of the embryo (gabbhassāvakkanti) is mentioned. What's striking here is that clinging to the 6 dhātū is the paccaya for the alighting of the embryo. This turns the table on the discussion, insofar as the Buddha has gone beyond applying DA as just being an account of pañcupādānakkhandhā, but has actually applied DA as pointing to pañcupādānakkhandhā (or the underlying upādāna/clinging) as the condition for the alighting of the embryo. I therefore find it hard to believe that the Buddha actually used DA as a mere pedagogical tool to explain the Brahmin's "sense of self", not when AN 3.61 points clearly to DA being an explanation for how clinging leads to rebirth.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10178
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

nowheat wrote: First there is an innate view of self, then there is the perception that we have a self, then there is a refined view of self, and then there are the ways those perceptions inform our thinking, and then they are expressed in action.
I broadly agree, though I think that the "innate view" of self is deep-seated and continuous, so to talk about it being "reborn" doesn't feel right. As I said before, it's the ocean, not the waves - the waves would be like desires. I find in practice that mindfulness works best when I'm experiencing stuff directly, without imposing too many ideas on the process. So I might think "Ah, there's some desire, I wonder where that came from?", but I wouldn't start thinking in terms of birth, ageing and death because it's just adding another layer of conceptual proliferation.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10178
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: How can death occur when there is no "me" to die?
But clearly there is still the physical death of the body, and still the experience of dying. As I've noted before, in the suttas death is always clearly described as a physical event.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: How can death occur when there is no "me" to die?
But clearly there is still the physical death of the body, and still the experience of dying. As I've noted before, in the suttas death is always clearly described as a physical event.

Of course the body dies however there is no "death" for me, that is there is no "me" to experience death

Thats why Buddha says that when we don't cling to anything, we don't form identity ... We aren't connected with that which ages and dies, so there is no ageing, sickness or death ... No sorrow or lamentation etc



There is just detached awareness
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

Spiny

I'm still far from clear. Could you give some practical examples of how you experience identification being reborn? I can see it might make sense to talk about desire being continually "reborn", but I don't think that's what you mean?
Well for example when in meditation, if there is pain and aversion arises then there follow "I dont want this pain, make this pain go away, why dont I just move" etc

Whereas if there is strong mindfulness then the feeling is just observed as it is, no aversion arises and so no sense of self in the moment. That is no "I am in pain" etc, so "I" isnt born through craving/clinging

I think you mean your Dhamma practice doesn't depend on there being an afterlife. For many Buddhists the rebirth teachings are important.
Of course some people find it important, however my argument is that Dhamma practice would remain the same regardless because there would still be dukkha, ageing and death in this life, which we can practice to be free from.

It occurred to me that by "identification" you might be referring to the continual rebirth of self-view, which is something I've considered. But from personal experience and reading the suttas I have the sense that self-view is a deep-seated underlying tendency or condition - this seems to be confirmed by self-view being one of the last fetters to be overcome.
self-view is one of the first three fetters to be overcome, conceit ("I am") is the last

Apparently there is something in the VisuddhiMagga referring to moment-to-moment rebirth, but I can't recall anyone having found a direct quote to support this. In any case I'm pretty sure that Buddhaghosa didn't rewrite DO in the way that Buddhadasa has attempted to do, ie by redefining the nidanas.
I havent come across it either, I just heard that apparently its there.

As for Buddhadasa I dont think he "re-wrote" D.O. but simply explained it as it was, nothing he says goes against Dhamma and everything he says is aimed at non-clinging
but I wouldn't start thinking in terms of birth, ageing and death because it's just adding another layer of conceptual proliferation.
Its not about adding "conceptual proliferation" or thinking about ageing and death, or not thinking about them. Its about just experiencing things as they are, and not giving rise to identification to anything

As I said, when in pain if you just experience it as it is, then there is no aversion and no "I dont want this" and the mind is empty of self

Its no longer "my" pain but just a sensation



"'It's with possessiveness, friend Ananda, that there is "I am," not without possessiveness. And through possessiveness of what is there "I am," not without possessiveness? Through possessiveness of form there is "I am," not without possessiveness. Through possessiveness of feeling... perception... fabrications... Through possessiveness of consciousness there is "I am," not without possessivenes


So "I am" (or conciet), one of the last fetters, arises due to being possessive

How do we become possessive? Through clinging

Clinging is the cause of "I am" or self

Clinging rises and falls many times a day, therefore "I am" rises and falls many times a day

If we do not cling, then there is no "I am" and so no possession of that which ages and dies, and so no dukka

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging, are dukkha."


So " In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging, are dukkha." because when we cling, we possess the aggregates and give rise to "I am". Then where there is "I am" there is birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, grief etc.


"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.


We cling because we crave which gives rise to "further becoming", or we can say identification, and we crave because we dont understand that feelings are anicca, dukkha and anatta


"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.


When craving ceases then so does identification with the aggregates, one no longer takes them as a possession ... there is non-clinging


and the NEFP is the practice of just being aware, of developing strong mindfulness accompanied by wisdom, that leads to non-identification, non-death and a life that is dukkha free

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:08 pm, edited 6 times in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Spiny Norman wrote:
nowheat wrote: First there is an innate view of self, then there is the perception that we have a self, then there is a refined view of self, and then there are the ways those perceptions inform our thinking, and then they are expressed in action.
I broadly agree, though I think that the "innate view" of self is deep-seated and continuous, so to talk about it being "reborn" doesn't feel right. As I said before, it's the ocean, not the waves - the waves would be like desires. I find in practice that mindfulness works best when I'm experiencing stuff directly, without imposing too many ideas on the process. So I might think "Ah, there's some desire, I wonder where that came from?", but I wouldn't start thinking in terms of birth, ageing and death because it's just adding another layer of conceptual proliferation.
I agree that there is no feeling that the innate view is being reborn -- but I wasn't suggesting that it was. The point we started from was you asking Craig what he experienced as being reborn. I am saying that what I experience as being reborn is *what results from the innate view* (and the refined view). When I am pinning down what I experience at the point in the cycle of DA that is described at "birth", what I experience is action that demonstrates to the world how it is that I perceive myself and the world I live in. If I experience that "birth" I can retroactively locate where the views that brought it about were -- we might say -- "born" but that isn't jati/birth -- that's upadana/clinging (so perhaps "where the views that brought it about arose" would be more accurate). Part of the idea of practice is to get good enough at seeing what's going on to catch the forming of that refined view before it generates the me-in-action, to catch it at the moment between feeling and contact.

In my practice I never experience the birth of the further-back, innate view, because it developed long ago out of a stew that includes what the Buddha calls "an underlying tendency to self-view". I am not sure if we ever get rid of it entirely -- I would only really know this if I were a fully awakened being -- but I am sure we can short-circuit its ill-effects when they start to arise. I also tend to believe that not all of that innate view's generation of "self" is problematic. In its most basic form it is just saying "this life is worth preserving" and the Buddha does support us having the things that keep us going: food, water, shelter, clothing, medicines even. It does seem to be that there are parts of that ancient assumption that are necessary and useful, but the vast bulk of the assumptions around self preservation get us into trouble ("I am worth preserving therefore I should snare myself an extra share of the harvest to put away for lean times; who cares if someone else goes hungry at my expense." "I am a being who has existed since the beginning and I will be that same being at the end, therefore I have an innate nature and cannot change the fundamentals of my character. I am what I am.")

:namaste:
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10178
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote: How can death occur when there is no "me" to die?
But clearly there is still the physical death of the body, and still the experience of dying. As I've noted before, in the suttas death is always clearly described as a physical event.

Of course the body dies however there is no "death" for me, that is there is no "me" to experience death
I was thinking of the Arrow Sutta where there is the cessation of mental suffering ( second arrow ) but there is still the experience of bodily pain ( first arrow ). And there is inevitably the experience of bodily pain due to ageing and death. And clearly the Buddha experienced these things.

I not sure that saying there is no "me" to have these experiences really gets to the bottom of this.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

I was thinking of the Arrow Sutta where there is the cessation of mental suffering ( second arrow ) but there is still the experience of bodily pain ( first arrow ). And there is inevitably the experience of bodily pain due to ageing and death. And clearly the Buddha experienced these things.

I not sure that saying there is no "me" to have these experiences really gets to the bottom of this.

What I get from that Sutta is that the Buddha was aiming at overcoming the first arrow (which we all agree on) and the second arrow was used as a convention

That is we say "pain" to label the sensation, but it doesnt have to be dukkha (the 2nd arrow) if we don't take possession of it
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply