The Danger of Rebirth

[tiltbillings]

Mike:

I guess the first is : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Actually, the discourse I was referring to ends on SN iv 400; the one you linked to starts on SN iv 400.

SN IV (339-)400 (CDB ii 1393):

Just as a fire burns with fuel, not without fuel, so Vaccha, I declare rebirth for one with fuel, not for one without fuel. . . . When, Vaccha, a being has laid down his body but has yet been born in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving it is fuel."

Ven Bodhi in using the word fuel is punning on the double meaning of upādāna, which also means clinging. In the elided section the Buddha talks about the fuel, upādāna, of a fire, which gets carried over to the fuel for rebirth.

Craig keeps going on about consciousness needing a base and after death, there is no longer a base, and he keeps saying things about some sort of impossible free floating consciousness thing, which he maintains is not the Buddha's teachings. No one here is advocating a free floating consciousness thing. It is worth repeating Ven Nyanatiloka's translation of Buddhaghosa:

"Neither has this (rebirth-) consciousness transmigrated from the previous existence to this present existence, nor did it arise without such conditions, as karma, karma-formations, propensity, object, etc. That this consciousness has not come from the previous existence to this present existence, yet that it has come into existence by means of conditions included in the previous existence, such as karma (q.v.), etc., this fact may be illustrated by various things, such as the echo, the light of a lamp, the impression of a seal, or the image produced by a mirror. For just as the resounding of the echo is conditioned by a sound, etc., and nowhere a transmigration of sound has taken place, just so it is with this consciousness. Further it is said: 'In this continuous process, no sameness and no otherness can be found.' For if there were full identity (between the different stages), then also milk never could turn into curd. And if there were a complete otherness, then curd could never come from milk.... If in a continuity of existence any karma-result takes place, then this karma-result neither belongs to any other being, nor does it come from any other (kamma), because absolute sameness and otherness are excluded here" (Vis, XVII 164ff).

[mikenz66]

OK, thanks, here's Thanissaro's translation then: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Mike

[Ngawang Drolma.]

He says "gandhabba" but this doesnt really make clear to what is referenced

gandhabbas are devas or something arent they in mythology of india at the time

Gandhabba:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rcNdDilzilMC&pg=PA105&dq=gandhabba#PPA105,M1

[tiltbillings]

MN I 265-6: Bhikkhus, with the coming together of three things a descent to the womb comes about: Here the mother and father come together. It is not the season of the mother. The gandhabba does not attend. Then there is no descent to the womb. Here, mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother. The gandhabba does not attend. Then there is no descent to the womb. Here mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother and the gandhabba attends. Then there is a descent to the womb. That mother protects the womb for nine or ten months with great anxiety and trouble. After nine or ten months that mother gives birth with great anxiety and trouble.

This is in the middle of a discourse that starts with the Buddha taking to task Sati who held the wrong view that …this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'. So, one of the subjects of this discourse is rebirth, and we see that the Buddha rejects the idea of consciousness moving from life to life. Also, a central part of this discourse is paticcasamuppada. Gandhabba is probably best understood as a way of talking about the collective forces that fuelled by craving that give rise to rebirth.

This presents a bit of a different view in direct relationship with paticcasamuppada:

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"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."

- DN II 62-3.

Again, it is not consciousness that is a thing that moves from life to life.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Gandhabba is probably best understood as a way of talking about the collective forces that fuelled by craving that give rise to rebirth.

Well said

I actually got that article from Chris (cooran) here at Dhammawheel.

But I think what you wrote above is a great way to describe rebirth in general. /\

[puthujjana]

A) Dependent Origination cannot cover three lives

Could you please explain why?

Thank you in advance.

with metta

[puthujjana]

Just to add, I actually don't think that anatta can be understood and digested, and certainly not 'seen' without the wisdom of rebirth. I don't know if I learned things backwards, but this is how I see it. Anatta fails to make much sense without rebirth and frankly I think it reduces these teachings to a cheap psychology of sorts.

I hope I don't get struck down by lightening for saying that about the problem of the reducing the Buddha's teachings in this way.

Respectfully,
Drolma

Thank you Drolma.

[clw_uk]

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

[clw_uk]

This is going to be a quick response

Tiltbillings

In that Sutta it states the begining of the round of dependen origination doesnt it, which is when a child is old enough and there is six-sense bases, external forms and contact


As the the DN teaching on D.O. it seems to be a later addition or distortion since it doesnt fit with all the other suttas that discuss D.O.

As for gandhabba, this could just be sperm


Also in that sutta of MN-38 it states

Bhikkhus,from what do these four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop?

These four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop from craving.

Bhikkhus, from what does craving originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Craving originates, rises, takes birth and develops from feelings.

Bhikkhus, from what do feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop from contact.

Bhikkhus, from what does contact originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Contact originates, rises, takes birth and develops from the six mental faculties.

Bhikkhus, from what do the six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop?

The six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop from name and matter.

Bhikkhus, from what do name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop from consciousness.

Bhikkhus, from what does consciousness originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Consciousness originates rises, takes birth and develops from determinations.

Bhikkhus, from what do determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop from ignorance

Since one is already born, it shows that Jati means birth of sense of "I" or birth of parts of the chain, not physical birth

[Peter]

As the the DN teaching on D.O. it seems to be a later addition or distortion since it doesnt fit with all the other suttas that discuss D.O.

Or it's an earlier addition predating certain standardizations. One can't tell.
But it is awfully convenient to dismiss any scripture that doesn't agree with you as a "later addition", don't you think?

[tiltbillings]

This is going to be a quick response

Tiltbillings

In that Sutta it states the begining of the round of dependen origination doesnt it, which is when a child is old enough and there is six-sense bases, external forms and contact

Actually, it really does not say what you are saying it says, but for the sake of clarification, how old would that be? Besides, things do not arise without causes and conditions. Let us not forget that you have actually admitted rebirth is true and being true what has arisen has done so based upon causes and conditions.

As the the DN teaching on D.O. it seems to be a later addition or distortion since it doesnt fit with all the other suttas that discuss D.O.

Or dear, it does not fit how you think things should be, so it is a later add-on or a distortion. Well, that explains it.

As for gandhabba, this could just be sperm

So, the father in the first two instances was wearing a condom? Your argumentation is getting a bit disparate.

Also in that sutta of MN-38 it states

Bhikkhus,from what do these four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop?

These four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop from craving.

Bhikkhus, from what does craving originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Craving originates, rises, takes birth and develops from feelings.

Bhikkhus, from what do feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop from contact.

Bhikkhus, from what does contact originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Contact originates, rises, takes birth and develops from the six mental faculties.

Bhikkhus, from what do the six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop?

The six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop from name and matter.

Bhikkhus, from what do name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop from consciousness.

Bhikkhus, from what does consciousness originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Consciousness originates rises, takes birth and develops from determinations.

Bhikkhus, from what do determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop from ignorance

Since one is already born, it shows that Jati means birth of sense of "I" or birth of parts of the chain, not physical birth

And as I said, jati is being used in more than on way in this text. That is not a problem. The Buddha often plays on words.

But since you have already admitted that rebirth is a fact, why are you continuing this bootless line of argumentation?

So, your misrepresentation of the "re-linking consciousness" as some sort of free floating thing has been shown to be an error, and your misrepresentation of the "re-linking consciousness" as some sort consciousness that moves from life to life has been shown to be an error.

[clw_uk]

Actually, it really does not say what you are saying it says. You are reading your own stuff into it.

When does the round begin in the sutta?

Or dear, it does not fit how you think things should be, so it is a later add-on or a distortion. Well, that explains it.

It doesnt seem to fit with the other suttas that explain dependent origination and the digha nikaya as a whole does seem a lot different from say the majjhima nikaya

So, the father in the first two instances was wearing a condom? Your argumentation is getting a bit disparate.

Of course not but just because two people have sex without contraception does not mean the woman is guaranteed to get pregnant, even people at the time when this teaching was discussed knew that

So the buddha could just be saying conception happens when there is mother, father, mother is in season and contact of spem

But since you have already admitted that rebirth is a fact, why are you continuing this bootless line of argumentation?

I dont accept it because there are some bits of it that dont quite make sense, i only have confidence in it because from what i see in the suttas buddha taught it and i dont hold him to be a liar

[clw_uk]

clw_uk wrote:
A) Dependent Origination cannot cover three lives

Could you please explain why?

Thank you in advance.

with metta

The buddha never taught it as three lives, ever. He wanted it to be known and seen in the present moment .It states that everymoment there is contact, there is feeling and so craving in one who is unminful and ignorant, this happens all the time so in moments all the time. The three lives version that comes from the abhidhamma and commentaries is not the way it was meant to be known and taught.

Even if it does stretch over three lives its not important, the here and now dependent origination is what is important since it shows how dukkha arises and ceases in the here and now and so lets one know how to stop it.

[clw_uk]

Tiltbillings said:

This is in the middle of a discourse that starts with the Buddha taking to task Sati who held the wrong view that …this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'. So, one of the subjects of this discourse is rebirth, and we see that the Buddha rejects the idea of consciousness moving from life to life. Also, a central part of this discourse is paticcasamuppada. Gandhabba is probably best understood as a way of talking about the collective forces that fuelled by craving that give rise to rebirth.

The subject is about Anatta and how dependent origination starts in life and how to end it in this life and how consciousness comes to be

Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it's reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it's reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it's reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it's reckoned tongue consciousness. On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it's reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it's reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cow dung is cow dung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire. In the same manner consciousness on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness on account of body and touches is body consciousness. Consciousness

Its not about rebirth, its about dukkha

Sati held consciousness to be self, and so would have dukkha

The buddha shows that consciousness dependens on things as well so is impermanent and not-self and dukkha if clung to

He then shows how dependent origination begins in life and the steps to stop it


How it begins

He seeing a form with the eye becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. [11] He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings he appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arises interest. That interest for feelings is the holding* 12) To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, becomes greedy for a pleasant idea. Becomes averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is. Not knowing how thoughts of demerit cease completely. He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings, appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arise interest. That interest for feelings is the holding. [12] To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasntness.

How to end it

He seeing a form with the eye does not greed for a pleasant form, nor become averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. To him neither delighted, nor pleased and not appropriating those feelings the interest for them ceases. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness. ceases. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, does not become greedy for a pleasant idea. Does not become averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. Then the interest for those feelings cease. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness ceases. Bhikkhus, remember this as the destruction of unpleasantness in short. As for the bhikkhu Sàti the son of a fisherman is bound in a net of much craving

All in this life, not over three lives and not about rebirth but dukkha and its quenching

[tiltbillings]

Craig:

When does the round begin in the sutta?

That is a question for you to answer, given that you first brought this up and that you are the one making particular claims about this issue. Are you claiming that before a certain age there is no interdependent conditionality shaping the child? Kamma has no bearing on the matter?

But then you just got done telling me that suffering continue for the person who dies unawake, which is to say, you have admitted rebirth takes place. If suffering continues for the one who has died and is not awake, then kamma must be a conditioning force in the matter. At least the Buddha says so, and I’ll believe the Buddha before you or Buddhadasa.

It doesnt seem to fit with the other suttas that explain dependent origination and the digha nikaya as a whole does seem a lot different from say the majjhima nikaya

“Doesn’t seem to fit” is not really an argument.

Of course not but just because two people have sex without contraception does not mean the woman is guaranteed to get pregnant, even people at the time when this teaching was discussed knew that

So the buddha could just be saying conception happens when there is mother, father, mother is in season and contact of spem

Nice try, but that is not what the Buddha said.

Because there are some bits of it that dont quite make sense, i only accept it because from what i see in the suttas buddha taught it and i dont hold him to be a liar

So, there is rebirth that does not - in the context of the Buddha’s teachings of anatta and paticcasamuppada - necessitate the assumption any sort of unchanging self agent thingie, whether we are talking about it in a conventional level or in “ultimate” terms.

[tiltbillings]

Craig:

The subject is about Anatta and how dependent origination starts in life and how to end it in this life and how consciousness comes to be

Sati’s wrong view was: ”…this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else.”

Conditionality does not end with this life, which is one of the things this text makes quite clear with its discussion of the conceptual process in the context of interdependent conditionality.

[clw_uk]

That is a question for you to answer, given that you first brought this up and that you are the one making particular claims about this issue.

Please answer my question, when does dependent origination begin in the sutta?

Are you claiming that before a certain age there is no interdependent conditionality shaping the child? Kamma has no bearing on the matter?

In reguards to kamma, it requires self-view, intentional action, a fetus has none of these so yes to a certain degree i am

If suffering continues for the one who has died and is not awake, then kamma must be a conditioning force in the matter. At least the Buddha says so, and I’ll believe the Buddha before you or Buddhadasa

Correct it must but this does contradict some other teachings

Nice try, but that is not what the Buddha said.

Neither did he say it was consciousness, a being thats just died or kamma in this sutta he just said Gandhabba which can be interpreted in so many ways

[clw_uk]

Sati's view was a view of self and so involved dukkha

The buddha taught him that consciousness is not-self because it is dependent on six-sense bases


He then goes onto state when and how dependent origination starts and so what leads to self-view and dukkha and how to end it



Its about dukkha and its quenching, its about anatta, not how rebirth happens

[clw_uk]

That mother protects the womb for nine or ten months with great anxiety and trouble. After nine or ten months that mother gives birth with great anxiety and trouble. She supports the born with her own blood. In the noble ones' dispensation mother's milk is called blood. Bhikkhus, that boy grows and his faculties mature and he plays games that boys play. Such as mock games as taking a bowl, turning somersaults, making toy wind mills with palm leaves, making small carts and bows. Bhikkhus, that boy, grows and his faculties develop and is provided with the five strands of sense pleasures, and he lives enticed by pleasing agreeable forms cognisable by eye consciousness, agreeable sounds cognisable by ear consciousness, agreeable smells cognisable by nose consciousness, agreeable tastes cognisable by tongue consciousness and agreeable touches cognisable by body consciousness.


He seeing a form with the eye becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. [11] He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings he appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arises interest. That interest for feelings is the holding* 12) To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, becomes greedy for a pleasant idea. Becomes averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is. Not knowing how thoughts of demerit cease completely. He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings, appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arise interest. That interest for feelings is the holding. [12] To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasntness.


The part in red clearly states when and how dependent origination begins by the buddha himself, not in the womb but when the child is old enough

The blue shows how dependent origination arises in this life in moments and not over three lives. There is dukkha all the time in this moment, this shows how dukkha arises and falls in accordance with dependent origination happening right now


As stated earlier, how to end it

He seeing a form with the eye does not greed for a pleasant form, nor become averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. To him neither delighted, nor pleased and not appropriating those feelings the interest for them ceases. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness. ceases. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, does not become greedy for a pleasant idea. Does not become averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. Then the interest for those feelings cease. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness ceases. Bhikkhus, remember this as the destruction of unpleasantness in short. As for the bhikkhu Sàti the son of a fisherman is bound in a net of much craving.

If one does not see how dukkha arises through dependent origination then whenever there is unmindful contact then there will always be dukkha, one wont be free from it

[tiltbillings]

Craig;

Please answer my question, when does dependent origination begin in the sutta?

I should answer your question, even though you continually do not answer questions and points I have put to you first?

In reguards to kamma, it requires self-view, intentional action, a fetus has none of these so yes to a certain degree i am

How do you know? In the very least it has all of that as latency, which is say there is kamma resultant at work.

Correct it must but this does contradict some other teachings

Not that you have shown, if we are talking about the Buddha’s teachings and not Buddhadasa.

Neither did he say it was consciousness, a being thats just died, kamma he just said Gandhabba which can be interpreted in so many ways

Gandhabba as sperm is a novel stretch; however, gandhabba as a way of talking about the kamma driven forces is reasonable, given that it is kamma that impels us forward.

Sati's view was a view of self and so involved dukkha

And it is exactly the view that you were attributing to the idea of rebirth.

Its about dukkha and its quenching, its about anatta, not how rebirth happens

According to you, but then there is that 800 lbs gorilla sitting in the room you keep ignoring.

The part in red clearly states when and how dependent origination begins by the buddha himself, not in the womb but when the child is old enough

And what age would that be?

The blue shows how dependent origination arises in this life in moments and not over three lives

But you have already, and repeatedly, admitted rebirth happens.

And you say:

If one does not see how dukkha arises through dependent origination then whenever there is unmindful contact then there will always be dukkha, one wont be free from it

And there you have it, rebirth and paticcasamuppada. Very good. It is good to see that you have let go of your truncated view of things.