The Danger of Rebirth

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist

So something that now exists will be annihilated?

[tiltbillings]

“Jumped the shark” is an expression when a TV series has lost its way, going off into the realm of the silly and should be cancelled.

This thread, which has become remarkably repetitive, jumped the shark when it was suggested that the notion of the gandhabba in MN I 256-6 refers to sperm as a way of deflecting the significance of its usage. A gandhabba in the Buddhist and Brahmanical mythic structure refers to a low level celestial spirit. That the Buddha chose to use this word in the context of MN I 256-6 suggests that likely gandhabba had something of a wider meaning not found in any extant literature. In the very least, taking only what we have, in a sutta that deals at length with paticcasamuppada, the use of gandhabba suggests a way of talking about the causal conditions, beyond the merely physical, necessary for rebirth.

The gandhabba is sperm? Oh, gawd, it is time to move on. Considerable effort has been expended here to carefully, logically, and repeatedly explain the traditional Theravadin point of view, which has been repeatedly brushed aside for a highly idiosyncratic belief that, among other things, holds that rebirth must always entail a unchanging self agent notion, for which no amount of evidence otherwise makes a difference.

On E-Sangha I stayed far, far away from anti-rebirth threads for just this reason. Some lessons one learns the hard way.

[robertk]

Robert

Why would you get struck down, what you say is absolutely correct. Anatta implies rebirth as anatta is about conditionality.
Anyone who thinks there is no rebirth is by an anihilationist who rejects anatta

An anihilationist is someone who holds there is a self to be anihilated, dont assume that because someone says there is no rebirth one is an anihilationist

Of course he is, you can claim not to belive in self till the cows come home but the fact is you think that somehow life springs forth from a material process - which is self view to the nth degree.
Buddhists with strongly held self view are either eternalists like Thannisaro or anihiliationists like yourself. It is of course normal that people hold worng views but not good when you try to equate these views to what the Buddha taught.

[cooran]

Hello Rob,

At the monastery I attend on Sundays, Bhante Dhammasiha advised me to read some of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's articles on Not-Self .... would you be so kind enough as to point out how Ven. Thanissaro is an eternalis?

metta and respect
Chris

[tiltbillings]

Hello Rob,

At the monastery I attend on Sundays, Bhante Dhammasiha advised me to read some of Thanissaro Bhikkhu's articles on Not-Self .... would you be so kind enough as to point out how Ven. Thanissaro is an eternalis?

metta and respect
Chris

If you want to discuss the supposed eternalism of Ven Thanissaro, please start a new thread. Thanks.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist

So something that now exists will be annihilated?

[clw_uk]

Once again this is going to be a quick response to the ones that need shorter answers

clw_uk wrote:
The aggregates expire, as in they break down and cease to function and so exsist


So something that now exists will be annihilated?

The aggregates arent an illusion, the view of self in relation to them in an illusion (as is any self view)

If any rupa in the future arises its new, when the rupa here ceases it wont rise again, so it ceases to exsist

When eye consciousness falls, it ceases to exsist, until another form comes into contact with the eye and a new eye consciousness is "born"

When the conditions supporting something fall, that object or aspect thats being supported also falls and ceases


Annihilation is holding the aggregates as self and stating that when they expire, "I" also expire. In reality there is no "I" to expire only the aggregates

When an arahant sees the break-up of the aggregates he sees them as ending and so ceasing to exists, does this make the arahant an annihilationist?

Maybe your picking up on the word exisist as me refering to a self, which i am not im using it for the aggregates only.

Of course he is, you can claim not to belive in self till the cows come home but the fact is you think that somehow life springs forth from a material process - which is self view to the nth degree.
Buddhists with strongly held self view are either eternalists like Thannisaro or anihiliationists like yourself. It is of course normal that people hold worng views but not good when you try to equate these views to what the Buddha taught.

When have i stated that without question life springs forth from a completely material process? The points i have put forward are valid points to be discussed, simply holding rebirth straight away without question is not in line with the buddhas spirit of inquiry

I have stated that i dont hold the aggregates to be self, and that any view or sense of self is an illusion. Of course i havent got rid of self view completely otherwise i would be a stream-winner, this will only be done by complete insight, all i have at the moment is right view in reguards to the aggregats just without true, deep insight

Just to state again, an annihilationist is some one who sees self with the aggregates in some way and sees the ending of aggregates as death of self

[Peter]

I don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this.

That some people who believe in rebirth have eternalist leanings doesn't really matter. All unawakened people have either eternalist views or nihilist views. The fact is the Buddha taught rebirth AND the end of rebirth. Ultimately, nihilist views are wrong because there IS rebirth for the unawakened and eternalist views are wrong because there IS the end of rebirth for the awakened.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

When eye consciousness falls, it ceases to exsist, until another form comes into contact with the eye and a new eye consciousness is "born"

Yes, and this has not been going on since beginningless time because ...?

When an arahant sees the break-up of the aggregates he sees them as ending and so ceasing to exists, does this make the arahant an annihilationist?

When an arahant sees the coagulation and dissolution of the aggregates he sees them as unendingly being born and unendingly dying, does this make the arahant an eternalist?

Maybe your picking up on the word exisist as me refering to a self, which i am not im using it for the aggregates only.

Something exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.

I'm with Tilt these endless rebirth threads should permanently "expire".

[David N. Snyder]

I'm with Tilt these endless rebirth threads should permanently "expire".

That's why I normally do not respond to these rebirth threads . . . they just go on and on and on . . . sort of like samsara.

[clw_uk]

I don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this

It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevant

Something exists. Which then permanently ceases to exist. But you're not an annihilationist.

If there is rebirth is it the same rupa? is it the same perception through moments? is it the same conscious awareness through moments? no, when they arise its brand new and when they cease they cease forever, the cognition of forms through eye is new when arising, when the form goes that consciousness dependent on the eye-form ceases forever, if a form comes into view again its a new conscious awareness


When a feeling arisies its new, when its supporting conditions go that feeling ceases forever, any feeling that arises again is brand new, unless you hold one of the aggregates or more is permanent and eternal?

To say that these aggregates cease forever is correct, since anything that arises in the future will be brand new, there is no permanency in conditionality


As the old saying goes

"you cant step into the same river twice"

[clw_uk]

Heavenstorm said

Nevertheless if the OP is willing to argue less and listen more, perhaps he won't continue to be so "puzzled" or even surprised at the seeming endless number of posters opposing him.

Im discussing relevant points, would you prefer it if i just accepted something blindly without investigating so i can know for myself? and just because a lot of people oppose a view or understanding doesnt make it wrong

[Peter]

I don't see what the objection is to paticcasamuppada covering three lives. Whether it covers three lives or one the process of ending suffering is still the same: eradicate ignorance so that feeling doesn't give rise to craving. Nothing about the three lives model or the one life model changes this

It doesnt really matter if it is three lives or not, its the paticcasamuppada happening right now thats important and needs focusing on, three lives is irrelevant

This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.

[clw_uk]

Gabriel

Just wanted to state that when i say ours or i its for convenience. Also im answering your questions in reguards to Dhamma language

Where did my love of red cars come from? Why do I really enjoy life? Do you think the tendencies of beings are purely a function of the experience which happens from conception to this moment?

I used red cars and life enjoyment just as a way of showing how experience can vary, its not to say that you do like red cars and i hate life

The tendencies of beings come from different factors, such as kamma and level of wisdom, which will effect how they react to certain situations or experiences

What about experience is experienced by aggregates? In what way do the aggregates experience?

In what way do the aggregates experience? Perception percieves, consciousness cognizes and so is aware, feeling feels, as buddha said, when there is painful feeling, its just painful feeling

How are you defining "self

Self is an error, an illusion, in reality there is no such thing as I or mine and so no craig. Self comes to be through craving and clinging "This is mine" so through clinging there has been birth of self and self grasping in a moment. This is why there is birth and death constantly and not when refering to the end of the body

If there is an experience of perception which is totally unique to the aggregates which result in my loving red cars

"You" dont love red cars, the ignorant craving has lead to a birth of "I" or "me" who loves red cars through craving/clinging to the pleasure that red cars bring to the senses because of ignorance

So I hear you saying that at different times different conditions act on "us". Well I may begin to dislike red cars but there will still be residual influence from craving red cars which will effect the experience of red cars. There appears this succession of apparent events none of which are completely without influence.

The "us" bit was for convention. To dislike red cars is still craving and your right there is succession of events, this is conditionality

How is coming forth different from ending?
What is it that birth comes forth to and death is the end of?
If they are interconnected as you say, at what point do they connect?
If there is a point at which death becomes birth is there a transition from death to birth or does death instantaneously become birth

Coming forth is different from ending because it is the birth of something new, ending is the expiring

Birth is the begining of whatever you like, you can say a new perception has been "born" or "I" have been born etc so birth is the coming forth of any new feeling, perception, idea etc which can in turn be a bases for something else, death can refer to the end of that which is generated

They are connected or i should say, related via there dependencies, death depends on birth for exsistence, birth depends on death because without death there can be no birth, also but they arent the cause of each other directly, i.e. birth doesnt cause one to die, its just a condition for it so when there is birth, there will be death because of that condition that has been set forward. When something is born it must die, when it has died, if conditionality continues there will be a birth of something new. There cant be birth if there is no death and there cant be death if there is no birth


Death does not become birth, its just that death allows for something new to rise if conditionlity continues, if there was no death there could be no more birth of "I" or "me" so there would be a permanent sense of self. This is illogical since all things that are conditioned are impermanent and subject to rise and fall.

If death didnt lead to birth then there would have been nibbana years ago

How many years ago? How are you defining nibbana here?

Nibbana is the end of all I-making and so the end of sense of self. If after the first time my sense of self or view of "I" died and that was the end of conditionality then there would be no more I-making and so it would be nibbana, the first time in this exisistence when my sense of self died for the first time was obviously as a child or younger. However because of dependent origination which is occuring in moments the death of "I" is not the end, since dependent origination has not been stopped a sense of self or "I" will be born again, therefore there can be birth after a death

[clw_uk]

This is progress. You've gone from saying it is wrong and not taught by the Buddha to saying it is irrelevant. And it may be it actually is irrelevant for your practice. It is relevant for many other people's practice, though, and you should understand that before telling people what they should or shouldn't focus on. If you do not find thinking of the endless rounds of birth and death relevant to your practice, there is nothing wrong with that. The Buddha knew different students would benefit from focusing on different parts of his teachings. We should not make the mistake of thinking only the part we are focusing on is good Buddhadhamma and the parts other people focus on are bad, or false, or mundane, or worldly. Nor is it particularly useful to rant about how other people don't practice right. Focus on your own practice. And if someone comes up to you and says they are stuck and ask for your advice, then you can see if maybe they need to change their focus.

You speak with wisdom

For me dependent origination works best when looking at moments because its very practical but i can see how in some way others may need the three lives in some way, just i hope they dont forget that its happening right now. To me i still dont see that the buddha did teach it as three lives since its more practical in the here and now where it has more meaning, thats not to say though three lives is completely impossible.

I did mean well with all of the posts in this thread but i can see how i have forgotten how the buddha taught different ways to different people. If he had taught me himself he would have hardly ever used rebirth because that wouldnt benefit my practice, but i can see how he would have taught it to others because it would benefit them. I wasnt really ranting but i feel my zeal for wanting to help others, mixed with my forgetfulness about how there are different way to approach the dhamma, have made it seem this way.


Besides, its been an interesting and healthy debate dont you think?

[Heavenstorm]

Im discussing relevant points, would you prefer it if i just accepted something blindly without investigating so i can know for myself? and just because a lot of people oppose a view or understanding doesnt make it wrong

Relevant to you perhaps, our responses are just enough to let you know that your novel interpretations of the rebirth had been rejected by the Buddhists in this forum and I can't think of one in the outside Buddhist communities that actually agree with you. Sorry pal, but thats the real and current situation, you are on your own.

[Heavenstorm]

Heavenstorm, you seem to be developing aversion towards me, i would advise against this for your own benefit

No, not at all. As with rebirth, you like to interpret stuffs too much and wrongly.

[Peter]

...just i hope they dont forget that its happening right now. To me i still dont see that the buddha did teach it as three lives since its more practical in the here and now where it has more meaning, thats not to say though three lives is completely impossible.

I will say it again: The three lives teaching teaches its happening right now. It also teaches that it happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. But there is nothing about this teaching which moves one's practice out of the here and now. That would be impossible. Practice can only happen in the here and now.

Ignorance and formations have arisen in the past... and they also arise in the present and will arise in the future.
Feelings and clinging arise in the present... and they also have arisen in the past and will arise in the future.

In fact, these two lines are really just two different ways of saying the same thing.

Why did I only focus on those bits? Because those bits represent causes. They are the bits where our practice must focus. We can't do anything about results (other than understand how they came to arise) but we can do something about causes. Seeing feelings as just feelings, seeing all phenomena as annica/dukkha/anatta, leads to the eradication of ignorance. With no ignorance there can be no craving. With no craving there can be no karmic formations.

I did mean well with all of the posts in this thread but i can see how i have forgotten how the buddha taught different ways to different people. If he had taught me himself he would have hardly ever used rebirth because that wouldnt benefit my practice, but i can see how he would have taught it to others because it would benefit them. I wasnt really ranting but i feel my zeal for wanting to help others, mixed with my forgetfulness about how there are different way to approach the dhamma, have made it seem this way.

I'm glad you understand.

Besides, its been an interesting and healthy debate dont you think?

No, I do not think so. When one damages something and others have to step in to make repairs... it is good that the repairs were done but it would have been better still if the damage was not done in the first place. When one slanders the Dhamma in a public forum it does much harm to many people. Saying "Buddhists for centuries have gotten the teachings wrong and only I have got it right" is no where near as healthy as saying "I do not understand this teaching which has endured for centuries. Can someone explain it to me?" That is a healthy way to inquire.

[clw_uk]

Im glad your not wasnt trying to offend it just seemed that way, thats one of the problems of internet chat, sometimes hard to see ones meaning or context

[Peter]

To illustrate my point...

Once I came across a teaching about rain gods. I was totally baffled as to what this teaching had to do with the suffering and the ending of suffering. But instead of saying "This obviously can't be a teaching of the Buddha; it must have been added later" or saying "The Buddha taught this but only to stupid people" I asked a knowledgeable teacher "I do not see how this teaching fits in with the rest of the teachings; can you explain it to me?" And guess what? He explained it to me and now I understand. And I did it without slandering the Buddha (calling him a liar or a trickster), the Dhamma (by saying some bits were worthless) or the Sangha (by saying unscrupulous monks changed the teachings). I did it without causing anyone to doubt or lose faith. I did it without causing arguments or insults or divisions.

I think questions are wonderful, but I think there are better and worse ways to ask questions.