the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

nowheat wrote:So what I hear you saying is that because Anathapindika was talking about what is right view, and he did not include rebirth in that right view, rebirth is not a necessary part of right view. Sariputta does the same in MN 9. Do I understand that correctly?
I would say those were examples of the point that right view has a number of ways of being correctly expressed, and that while rebirth appears to be a suitable approach, it is also suitable to take another tack.

In addition, I note that SN 35.153 does not even mention the first two of the three knowledges (faring-on according to kamma, past lives) when it teaches how a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge. In addition, observe MN 115:
16. “He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a wished for, desired, agreeable result could be produced from bodily misconduct...from verbal misconduct...from mental misconduct ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an unwished for, undesired, disagreeable result might be produced from bodily misconduct...from verbal misconduct...from mental misconduct ― there is such a possibility.’

17. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that an unwished for, undesired, disagreeable result could be produced from good bodily conduct...from good verbal conduct...from good mental conduct ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a wished for, desired, agreeable result might be produced from good bodily conduct...from good verbal conduct...from good mental conduct ― there is such a possibility.’

18. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person engaging in bodily misconduct...engaging in verbal misconduct...engaging in mental misconduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a person engaging in bodily misconduct...engaging in verbal misconduct...engaging in mental misconduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell ― there is such a possibility.’

19. He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person engaging in good bodily conduct...engaging in good verbal conduct...engaging in good mental conduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a person engaging in good bodily conduct...engaging in good verbal conduct...engaging in good mental conduct could on that account, for that reason, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world.’
Kamma is important for right view in the sense of §§16-17; §§18-19 simply apply that principle to the prevailing cosmological structure, functioning to ethicize what was otherwise a largely ritualized affair. I'm not saying this ethicized rebirth matrix does not obtain as fact, nor am I saying it does so obtain. I am saying that the principle of the efficacy of kamma is hammered home as the essential point, but that this point can be applied to, say, a Xian soteriological cosmology just as easily as it can be applied to the brahminic soteriological cosmology.

(As to the utter absence of a soteriological cosmology - annihilationism - the Buddha declared at AN 10.29 that such a view was the highest of outside speculative views because one who accepts such a view will not be attracted to existence nor averse to the cessation of existence; this view is still to be seen with disenchantment, but a rebirth-view is not held up as a proper replacement - only liberation through non-clinging.)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

A couple additions on this theme:
SN 42.11 wrote:"It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the origination & ending of stress."

"Headman, if I were to teach you the origination & ending of stress with reference to the past, saying, 'Thus it was in the past,' you would be doubtful and perplexed. If I were to teach you the origination & ending of stress with reference to the future, saying, 'Thus it will be in the future,' you would be doubtful and perplexed. So instead, I — sitting right here — will teach you sitting right there the origination & ending of stress. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," Gandhabhaka the headman replied.
---
SN 42.13 - Pāṭaliya (no online copy?)

The beginning of this Sutta is basically MN 60, but strikingly, the "because there actually is the next world..." sections are absent. The context involves a headman being perplexed over differing views, including the "there is a next world" view, and the Buddha, rather than taking it up, simply juxtaposes it in a neutral way with its opposite view, and instructs that pervading the brahmaviharas might rid him of that perplexity if he were to "attain concentration of mind in that". The Sutta also treats the efficacy of kamma via this even-handed approach.

Tellingly, the practice of the ten wholesome courses of action (kammapatha, which includes having right view) comes first; then the practice of the brahmaviharas is done as a noble disciple - described as, among other things, "unconfused" - and all this before the Buddha says to go over the various earlier views according to "lucky throw" logic.

Fascinating.

:heart:

(the kammapatha + brahmavihara practice is called, here, "dhammasamādhi", and/or "cittasamādhi" - I'm not sure)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

daverupa wrote: I would say those were examples of the point that right view has a number of ways of being correctly expressed, and that while rebirth appears to be a suitable approach, it is also suitable to take another tack.
I can see that.
(As to the utter absence of a soteriological cosmology - annihilationism - the Buddha declared at AN 10.29 that such a view was the highest of outside speculative views because one who accepts such a view will not be attracted to existence nor averse to the cessation of existence; this view is still to be seen with disenchantment, but a rebirth-view is not held up as a proper replacement - only liberation through non-clinging.)
I think we have to be a little careful in assigning the meaning of phrases like
'I should not be; it should not occur to me; I will not be; it will not occur to me.'
to annihilationism and then defining annihilationism in terms of what it would mean to us. The views presented in the canon are unlikely to be super-accurate renderings of the actual beliefs of folks of the day. We have only to read the way others distort the Buddha's views (for example, 'he an adherent of non-action') to recognize the strong possibility that the boilerplate for views in the Pali canon are also distorting what others believed.

:namaste:
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Ron-The-Elder wrote:
Spiny O'Norman wrote:
The only way to not have a view is to say "I don't know".

spiny
Hi, Spiny. Alternately, we can just dwell in emptiness abandoning all views.
I guess for me saying "I don't know" is the first step to abandoning views.
In the context of this debate, I personally have no idea whether rebirth occurs, though I'm pretty sure the Buddha taught it.

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

nowheat wrote: The views presented in the canon are unlikely to be super-accurate renderings of the actual beliefs of folks of the day.
Quite possibly. But for all we know the Buddha emphasized rebirth much more than the suttas suggest - we just don't know.

Spiny
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Buckwheat »

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: The context of saying that "disbelief in rebirth is a view" is the secondary target;
If we're talking about questions on which we're not currently certain then of course disbelief is a view. The same way that belief is a view.

The only way to not have a view is to say "I don't know".

spiny
In DN 1 - Brahmajala Sutta, "I don't know" is also a wrong view. It may be a more honest and less harmful wrong view than taking a leap to belief or unbelief, but it is still a wrong view.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Buckwheat »

Whenever we act, we come from a place of assumptions. We tend to either assume there is rebirth and act accordingly, or disbelieve rebirth and act accordingly. The third option of "I don't know" leads to a tension, acting sometimes as if rebirth is true and sometimes as if there is only this one life. Of the three possible approaches, the one that is most skillful for the elimination of suffering is belief in rebirth.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

Buckwheat wrote:In DN 1 - Brahmajala Sutta, "I don't know" is also a wrong view. It may be a more honest and less harmful wrong view than taking a leap to belief or unbelief, but it is still a wrong view.
I think that, if you check, you will not find this in that Sutta. You are probably remembering either the "dull and stupid" case, or the "confusion over whether something is wholesome or unwholesome" case, but neither of these amounts to a condemnation of simply not knowing.

[Buddha:] “It is fitting for you to be perplexed. Doubt has arisen in you about a perplexing matter."
~SN 42.13
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Ron-The-Elder
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 4:42 pm
Location: Concord, New Hampshire, U.S.A.

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ron-The-Elder »

Spiny O'Norman wrote:[I personally have no idea whether rebirth occurs, though I'm pretty sure the Buddha taught it.

Spiny
I was watching Robert Thurman's dissertations on The Triple Gem this morning and actually agreed that we have identified the mechanism of rebirth: evolution. I love it when science and the sutta's converge.
What Makes an Elder? :
A head of gray hairs doesn't mean one's an elder. Advanced in years, one's called an old fool.
But one in whom there is truth, restraint, rectitude, gentleness,self-control, he's called an elder, his impurities disgorged, enlightened.
-Dhammpada, 19, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Buckwheat wrote:Whenever we act, we come from a place of assumptions. We tend to either assume there is rebirth and act accordingly, or disbelieve rebirth and act accordingly. The third option of "I don't know" leads to a tension, acting sometimes as if rebirth is true and sometimes as if there is only this one life. Of the three possible approaches, the one that is most skillful for the elimination of suffering is belief in rebirth.
I agree that we come from a place of assumptions, but I disagree that this necessarily results in wobbling back and forth between the two, or that belief in rebirth is the most skillful for the elimination of suffering. This may be your experience, but it is not my experience.

:namaste:
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

nowheat wrote: Yes. And he tells us why he talks of where people end up, and among the reasons he gives, notably absent is "because it's the truth." He tells stories of where people go to inspire those who cared about them.

The Buddha tells what will lead where. If there is only one life, the one would automatically attain parinibbana at death. Thus it would pointless to aspire to better rebirth and pointless to deprive oneself trying to attain what will be attained at death anyhow. Without belief in rebirth, I don't see much point in being Buddhist, except for some CBT like advice of "don't desire what you can't attain. Be satisfied with what you have."

I've tried my best at trying to reinterpret rebirth in the way that I've seen it being taught here. It can't be done without ignoring many suttas,being very selective about passages used, and take them out of context.

I've seen many posts about supramundane right view (MN117) which is twisted in such a way as to sound like plain wrong view (no rebirth. no other world. etc). As far as suttas go, no kind of right view ever denies rebirth.
nowheat
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 3:42 am
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by nowheat »

Alex123 wrote:
nowheat wrote: Yes. And he tells us why he talks of where people end up, and among the reasons he gives, notably absent is "because it's the truth." He tells stories of where people go to inspire those who cared about them.
I've seen many posts about supramundane right view (MN117) which is twisted in such a way as to sound like plain wrong view (no rebirth. no other world. etc). As far as suttas go, no kind of right view ever denies rebirth.
You may be missing the point: "no kind of right view ever denies rebirth" = CORRECT! That's true, no right view ever denies rebirth. I don't know anyone who has ever said that the Buddha denies rebirth. I don't know anyone who has ever even suggested that the Buddha says one should deny rebirth.

This is not about denying rebirth. This is about something subtler. It's about not saying that belief in rebirth is a requirement. As long as folks (not limited to you, Alex) keep "hearing" others saying that the Buddha denied rebirth, no understanding is possible, because that's not what's being said.

Perhaps the confusion comes because so many people -- in this thread in particular -- argue about the likelihood of rebirth as a system (I try not to engage in those conversations as irresolvable without new evidence). But I doubt that the same people arguing that rebirth is unlikely would suggest that the Buddha was trying to tell us there is no rebirth.

But maybe you've found someone clearly saying "The Buddha preached against belief in rebirth" -- if so please send me a link, I'd like to examine their argument.

:namaste:
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Buckwheat wrote:
Spiny O'Norman wrote:
daverupa wrote: The context of saying that "disbelief in rebirth is a view" is the secondary target;
If we're talking about questions on which we're not currently certain then of course disbelief is a view. The same way that belief is a view.

The only way to not have a view is to say "I don't know".

spiny
In DN 1 - Brahmajala Sutta, "I don't know" is also a wrong view. It may be a more honest and less harmful wrong view than taking a leap to belief or unbelief, but it is still a wrong view.
Do you mean this bit? If so it looks as if the Buddha is advising against evasion and endless equivocation, which is quite different from saying "I don't know"

"But, when questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.'
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Buckwheat »

Yes, Spiny, you are correct. It had been a while since I read that sutta.
DN 1 - Brahmajala Sutta wrote:4. Doctrines of Endless Equivocation (Amarāvikkhepavāda): Views 13–16
61. "There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators.[9] When questioned about this or that point, on four grounds they resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins do so?

62. "Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, my declaration might be false. If my declaration should be false, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of making a false statement, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: "I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.' "This, bhikkhus, is the first case.

63. "In the second case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, desire and lust or hatred and aversion might arise in me. Should desire and lust or hated and aversion arise in me, that would be clinging on my part. Such clinging would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of clinging, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But when questioned about this or that point he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.' "This, bhikkhus, is the second case.

64. "In the third case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin does not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. He thinks: 'I do not understand as it really is what is wholesome and what is unwholesome. Now, there are recluses and brahmins who are wise, clever, experienced in controversy, who wander about demolishing the views of others with their wisdom. If, without understanding, I were to declare something to be wholesome or unwholesome, they might cross-examine me about my views, press me for reasons and refute my statements. If they should do so, I might not be able to reply. If I could not reply, that would distress me, and that distress would be an obstacle for me.' Therefore, out of fear and loathing of being cross-examined, he does not declare anything to be wholesome or unwholesome. But, when questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that.'

"This, bhikkhus, is the third case.

65. "In the fourth case, owing to what, with reference to what, are some honorable recluses and brahmins endless equivocators, resorting to evasive statements and to endless equivocation?

"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin is dull and stupid. Due to his dullness and stupidity, when he is questioned about this or that point, he resorts to evasive statements and to endless equivocation: 'If you ask me whether there is a world beyond — if I thought there is another world, I would declare that there is. But I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that is neither this nor that.'

"Similarly, when asked any of the following questions, he resorts to the same evasive statements and to endless equivocation:

A.
2. Is there no world beyond?
3. Is it that there both is and is not a world beyond?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not a world beyond?
B.
1. Are there beings spontaneously reborn?
2. Are there no beings spontaneously reborn?
3. Is it that there both are and are not beings spontaneously reborn?
4. Is it that there neither are nor are not beings spontaneously reborn?
C.
1. Is there fruit and result of good and bad action?
2. Is there no fruit and result of good and bad action?
3. Is it that there both is and is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
4. Is it that there neither is nor is not fruit and result of good and bad action?
D.
1.Does the Tathāgata exist after death?
2.Does the Tathāgata not exist after death?
3.Does the Tathāgata both exist and not exist after death?
4.Does the Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?
"This bhikkhus, is the fourth case.

66. "It is on these four grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and brahmins who are endless equivocators resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation when questioned about this or that point. Whatever recluses or brahmins there may be who resort to evasive statements and to endless equivocation, all of them do so on these four grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

"This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands... and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .bodh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny O'Norman »

Notron wrote:This question suggests a belief in a "permanent self" or entity that transmigrates from one lifetime to another...a belief in eternalism. Paticcasamuppada (dependent origination) describes something else entirely as explained by Ven. Buddhadasa.
If you think that the traditional understanding of DO requires a belief in eternalism then you've entirely missed the point. Buddhadasas re-interpretation is interesting but unecessary.

Spiny
Post Reply