The Danger of Rebirth

[Ngawang Drolma.]

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

This is where it gets tricky, because you've asserted that there is no rebirth (though in the beginning you stated a little differently), which would mean that death of rupa is the end of the story. That being the case, it's an indirect way of saying that there is a self to be anihiated when the body dies and decays. If there were truly no independent self then death of rupa would be illusory. We would continue on after death in with a different set of clinging aggregates due to the causes and conditions we created with actions and volition in this life. Do you see where I'm going?

[Ngawang Drolma.]

As for gandhabba, this could just be sperm

For birth to occur two things must be in place:

A male and female having intercourse.
A being ready to enter into a womb.

This is true for all womb births, including the animal realm.

Though as Tilt pointed out gandhabba may not be a spirit that spends much time in an intermediary state, I'm somewhat sure it is still a description of the birth-process set into motion by causes and conditions for becoming.

[clw_uk]

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

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

I have answered, so please answer mine, when does dependent origination beging as taught by the buddha in this sutta, in the womb or when the child is developed and old enough?

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

Because kamma needs intention, intention needs self-view, a fetus does not have self view since it doesnt have the craving or clinging needed for self view only the potential for it

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.

Gandhabba is a vague term, it could be spem, it could be kamma

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 buddha states when, if you want exact age you will have to decide yourself

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.

I admit that rebirth was taught in the suttas so this is a reason for my confidence however there is some evidence to support the view that there isnt rebirth

[clw_uk]

This is where it gets tricky, because you've asserted that there is no rebirth (though in the beginning you stated a little differently), which would mean that death of rupa is the end of the story. That being the case, it's an indirect way of saying that there is a self to be anihiated when the body dies and decays. If there were truly no independent self then death of rupa would be illusory. We would continue on after death in with a different set of clinging aggregates due to the causes and conditions we created with actions and volition in this life. Do you see where I'm going?

If there is no rebirth there still is dukkha in this life, the buddhas teaching was to end all dukkha. This applies if there is rebirth or not.



It isnt an indirect way saying there is a self to be anihilated, all things are not-self. There wasnt a permanent self in the first place, ignorance just asserts there is. Rupa death is the end off all these aggregates either way.

When an arahant view rupa death he sees it as the end of the aggregates, this isnt annihilationism because it doesnt include a view of self.

If there were truly no independent self then death of rupa would be illusory

There is no independent self in reality, the only illusion is to view rupa death as death of self, its not its just rupa death.

[clw_uk]

For birth to occur two things must be in place:

A male and female having intercourse.
A being ready to enter into a womb.

This is true for all womb births, including the animal realm.

Though as Tilt pointed out gandhabba may not be a spirit that spends much time in an intermediary state, I'm somewhat sure it is still a description of the birth-process set into motion by causes and conditions for becoming.

Thats if you take gandhabba as having that meaning, it could mean anything though, no one was there to know its original meaning

[tiltbillings]

Because kamma needs intention, intention needs self-view, a fetus do not have self view since it doesnt have the craving or clinging needed for self view only the potential for it

Self view is not a verbal concept, though it certainly can be expressed verbally. At its most fundamental it is basis of how we perceive the world in relationship to ourselves. Having the potential is a conditionally arisen process.

Because kamma needs intention, intention needs self-view, a fetus do not have self view since it doesnt have the craving or clinging needed for self view only the potential for it

Already answered.

Gandhabba is a vague term, it could be spem, it could be kamma

Sperm? Not according to the text.

I admit that rebirth was taught in the suttas so this is a reason for my confidence however there is some evidence to support the view that there isnt rebirth

Well, let us not confuse yours and Buddhdasa's limited, incorrect definition of rebirth with how the Buddha is using the term.

Thats if you take gandhabba as having that meaning, it could mean anything though, no one was there to know its original meaning

The context is a good guide; your sperm isn't it.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Because kamma needs intention, intention needs self-view, a fetus do not have self view since it doesnt have the craving or clinging needed for self view only the potential for it

The fetus in the womb is a human being that's alive. How could the fetus possibly not be in samsara, in the desire realm?

Sentient beings, samsaric beings, are here due to ignorance and clinging. That is the nature of samsara. It's just not making sense to me that craving and desire come about due to birth or conception. It's repeatedly taught craving is the cause of becoming. And it's not a metaphor, as others have pointed out suttas in which birth and death are described quite literally.

The problem is that the Buddha's explanation of the cycles of birth and death are more coherent than what you're presenting. Adopting the view of not-self, but thinking that the end of conventional self will be the end of dukkha, or if the human race avoids procreating will eliminate dukkha just doesn't fit with the rest of the story. And again, it turns the Buddha's teachings into some sort of weird psychological technique in which you really only need to consider your current jumble of deluded aggregates.

Respectfully,
Drolma

[Prasadachitta]

Hi Craig,

We can agree that experience of characteristics is occurring for each being can we not? I also think that we can agree that I cannot know the experience occurring to you and you cannot know the one occurring to me. How do you explain this within your understanding of Annata?

Metta

Gabriel

[mikenz66]

Hi Craig,

Thats if you take gandhabba as having that meaning, it could mean anything though, no one was there to know its original meaning

So we can make up any meaning we like?

Regarding this, and the general issue of the meanings of various terms used in the Suttas, it might be helpful to pay some attention to those who have actually studied the Suttas in detail.

For example, in a link I gave earlier Ajahn Brahm discusses the meanings of various Pali terms by referring to various Suttas (no Abhidhamma, you'll be happy to hear...).
http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=65

For me, the useful thing about this thread is that it inspired me to read that article again, along with several of the Suttas in SN 12 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .html#sn12 and Bhikkhu Bodhi's analysis in "In the Buddha's Words". Everything I read seems self-consistent, is consistent with the detailed expositions here by Tiltbillings and others, and points to liberation...

In this essay, I have attempted to describe what Paticca-samuppada is all about. I began by presenting the standard sequence of the twelve factors, and then their meaning as defined by The Buddha Himself. It should have been clear from these definitions that Paticca-samuppada, as The Buddha meant it to be understood, spans more than one life.

I then went on to discuss a Western model of causality, the necessary and sufficient conditions, and how these slotted so neatly into Idappaccayat, The Buddha's model of causality. I later used the 'necessary and sufficient conditions' model to throw more light on the different forms of causal relationships between each pair of factors.

A digression on the meaning of sanditthika-akalika, and a section called 'Misreading the Suttas', were meant to address some objections (misconceived, as I hope that I have proved) to the fact that Paticca-samuppada in the suttas does span more than one life. Although the argument here was somewhat technical, it highlighted the importance of kamma and rebirth to The Buddha's Dhamma. Kamma and rebirth are obviously not a mere cultural accretion, as some modern misinformed authors would have us believe, but are essential to the central teaching of Paticca-samuppda.

Lastly, I introduced a section rarely mentioned in essays about Paticca-samuppada - What is its purpose? I have shown that the purpose of Paticca-samuppada is much more than mere food for intellectual debate. Indeed, Paticca-samuppada demonstrates how there can be rebirth without a soul, it reveals what life is, and it explains why there is suffering together with the way suffering is totally ended. Paticca-samuppda answers the big questions.

It is no exaggeration to state that Paticca-samuppda is at the very heart of the Dhamma. As The Buddha stated, one who understands Paticca-samuppada accurately, also sees the Dhamma. And the one who sees the Dhamma fully, is one who has entered the stream and will soon put an end to all suffering. May that be you!

Metta
Mike

[clw_uk]

Self view is not a verbal concept, though it certainly can be expressed verbally. At its most fundamental it is basis of how we perceive the world in relationship to ourselves. Having the potential is a conditionally arisen process.

No its not a verbal concept.

The fetus is without self view because it hasnt got the right conditions for developing it yet which is clinging, it has no clinging, ignorance or craving developed yet

Self-view comes about through clinging because clinging leads to becoming and birth of sense of mine or me

the buddha states in mn 38 when all this happens

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.

This is after the fetus is born and developed before this it has no sense of self or mine

It only has the potential to develop it

[clw_uk]

Drolma said

The fetus in the womb is a human being that's alive. How could the fetus possibly not be in samsara, in the desire realm?

Sentient beings, samsaric beings, are here due to ignorance and clinging. That is the nature of samsara. It's just not making sense to me that craving and desire come about due to birth or conception. It's repeatedly taught craving is the cause of becoming. And it's not a metaphor, as others have pointed out suttas in which birth and death are described quite literally.

The problem is that the Buddha's explanation of the cycles of birth and death are more coherent than what you're presenting. Adopting the view of not-self, but thinking that the end of conventional self will be the end of dukkha, or if the human race avoids procreating will eliminate dukkha just doesn't fit with the rest of the story. And again, it turns the Buddha's teachings into some sort of weird psychological technique in which you really only need to consider your current jumble of deluded aggregates.

The buddhas teachings are all about the mind so in a way it is all psychological

Samsara is the spining of the mind, it does not mean to literal earth and universe all though you can take it this way as well if you like

The buddha states that the world is the mind

Dukkha arises in the mind, its not brought on by the aggregates themselves but by clinging to the aggregates and to say that jati as birth of "I" as a metaphor is incorrect, it isnt a metaphor because it is real birth and death of self. "We" all get born and die everymoment, this is samsara.

Metta

[clw_uk]

Hi Craig,

We can agree that experience of characteristics is occurring for each being can we not? I also think that we can agree that I cannot know the experience occurring to you and you cannot know the one occurring to me. How do you explain this within your understanding of Annata?

Metta

Gabriel

Sorry i dont understand the question could you rephrase it?

Metta

[clw_uk]

Mike

I dont know if you have already done so but it would be good to look at Buddhadasa explanation of paticcasamuppada so you can compare the two versions of it and see which one makes more sense, that way you will have good knowledge of the two versions and stronger conviction in which one you feel best describes paticcasamuppada correctly



http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... uppada.htm

[Prasadachitta]

Hi Craig,

We can agree that experience of characteristics is occurring for each being can we not? I also think that we can agree that I cannot know the experience occurring to you and you cannot know the one occurring to me. How do you explain this within your understanding of Annata?

Metta

Gabriel

Sorry i dont understand the question could you rephrase it?

Metta

Given What I have said above. Is there any significant reason why I cant know the experience which occurs to you and you cannot know the experience which occurs to me?

Metta
Gabriel

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Greetings Craig,

You keep banging the drum about emptiness, but fail to see the emptiness of death.

Metta,
Retro.

Best post in this entire thread IMHO.

[mikenz66]

I dont know if you have already done so but it would be good to look at Buddhadasa explanation of paticcasamuppada so you can compare the two versions of it and see which one makes more sense, that way you will have good knowledge of the two versions and stronger conviction in which one you feel best describes paticcasamuppada correctly

Yes, I've read that and several of his books...

I agree with much of what he says, and I think his approach is very practical and useful. However, I don't see any reason to accept the argument that Dependent Origination can ONLY act "In a flash".

As I've said before, teachers such as Ajahns Buddhadasa and Chah were often trying to break down eternalistic views that can easily arise in a culture where rebirth has been accepted without question for millenia. My impression is that some Western students take their iconoclastic statements out of context and take them much too seriously.

Mike

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

rebirth is just a word. All words subtly impute existence. The wise use words without this intention.

Very true but then why isn't it called re-death?

[clw_uk]

Hi Craig,

We can agree that experience of characteristics is occurring for each being can we not? I also think that we can agree that I cannot know the experience occurring to you and you cannot know the one occurring to me. How do you explain this within your understanding of Annata?

Metta

Gabriel

Sorry i dont understand the question could you rephrase it?

Metta


Given What I have said above. Is there any significant reason why I cant know the experience which occurs to you and you cannot know the experience which occurs to me?

Metta
Gabriel

All experiences are not-self,

If your question relates to if they are not-self why cant others experience them the only reason you cannot know mine is because we have different conditions acting on us at different times and so experience is always varied for each psycho-physical organism.

Anatta states that whatever is experienced or conditioned is not-self its just the experiences differ for different beings in some slight reguards (i.e. a blind man, a deaf man etc)

The only experience that all beings know is birth, ageing sickness and death because these are inherent to conditionality of which we are all a part of

Does this answer your question?

[clw_uk]

clw_uk wrote:
I dont know if you have already done so but it would be good to look at Buddhadasa explanation of paticcasamuppada so you can compare the two versions of it and see which one makes more sense, that way you will have good knowledge of the two versions and stronger conviction in which one you feel best describes paticcasamuppada correctly

Yes, I've read that and several of his books...

I agree with much of what he says, and I think his approach is very practical and useful. However, I don't see any reason to accept the argument that Dependent Origination can ONLY act "In a flash".

As I've said before, teachers such as Ajahns Buddhadasa and Chah were often trying to break down eternalistic views that can easily arise in a culture where rebirth has been accepted without question for millenia. My impression is that some Western students take their iconoclastic statements out of context and take them much too seriously.

Mike

You are correct mike his approach is very practical and useful which is why i feel it is in line with how the buddha would have wanted it taught since it greatly helps one end dukkha and of course i will admit there is no reason why dependent origination cant cover three lives, there is no hard fact to say it doesnt only interpretations however it is more useful to be viewed as moments and not three lives wouldnt you agree?


i cant question him on his intended meaning so yes maybe i do take some of buddhadasa statements out of context, i never met him so can only go on audio talks and printed works

[clw_uk]

Tiltbillings incase you missed my question because of all the posts


when does dependent origination begin as taught by the buddha in sutta MN 38, in the womb or when the child is developed and old enough?