the great rebirth debate

[PeterB]

Daverupa wrote:
MN 117 wrote:
"And what is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path"

Thank you for the ref. for it definitely clarifies the huge contrast between a noble mind, one that "is free from effluents and fully possessed of the noble path" versus one that flatly rejects rebirth and other world.

It does no such thing.

[daverupa]

Thank you for the ref. for it definitely clarifies the huge contrast between a noble mind, one that "is free from effluents and fully possessed of the noble path" versus one that flatly accepts rebirth and other world.

Fixed.

Please note that my insistence "it isn't an essential component of Dhamma practice" is not at all saying "the very notion is to be rejected". It can only be sloppy thinking that makes such a jump. It is obvious the Buddha spoke of rebirth, that he spoke of this world and the next. This cannot be disputed at all by anyone who's read the Suttas for themselves.

Yet nowhere is it described as part of the Dhamma. Nowhere is the alleged fact of it touted as essential to accept in order to make progress. Proof of it comes as a result of meditation practice for some, and even then it is just another psychic event with no special value. A monk sitting on a hilltop and directly watching rebirth is ridiculed as wasting his time. These views are, at best, right view with effluents.

"And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming."

"Rebirth is false!" shriek some who do not know and see for themselves, and thereby craving for non-becoming is observed. "Rebirth is true!" shriek others who do not know and see for themselves, and thereby craving for becoming is observed.

[santa100]

Daverupa wrote:
santa100 wrote:
Thank you for the ref. for it definitely clarifies the huge contrast between a noble mind, one that "is free from effluents and fully possessed of the noble path" versus one that flatly accepts rebirth and other world.

Fixed.

Sure. Also, after re-visiting our previous posts and you spot anyone who just "flatly accepts" rebirth here without reason, logic, or ref. from the Suttas, please point it out.

[santa100]

Daverupa wrote:
It can only be sloppy thinking that makes such a jump.

I did not make any jump. I simply clarified my position and the exact target audience. Obviously your statement is the strongest evident of a mind still "not free from effluent". How then do you expect anyone to just jump straight into MN 117 and start practicing that "completely free of all views" approach that you advocated? That's why the Buddha taught us in steps using MN 60. Hey, the baby gotta drink milk before it grows teeth to eat solid food. Food is food, but if taken at the wrong time and wrong place, it will kill you. Plain and simple..

[Aloka]

Alex123
What are you talking about? Did I mention Nibbana or Arahants?

What I mean is that if one is to doubt rebirth merely because one has not seen it and Science cannot prove it, then why not deny other things that one has not seen and Science cannot prove such as: Nibbāna, Arhatship, etc?

Why be selective in what aspects of the suttas one accepts and what denies?

Speculative papanca Alex---- and look, I can shout in huge font too !

[Alex123]

Speculative papanca Alex-

The Buddha didn't find Rebirth, Kamma, Hell Beings to be speculation or papañca.

[Zom]

Unless you can show them to me Zom, then in my own view its all purely speculative and has no connection to my practice here and now.

Well, you see, these are called "Views", and they are not "A Knowledge". You may call "Right View" as "Right Belief" and "Wrong View" as "Wrong Belief".
This is the 1st, the starting factor of the Path - not the last one (and, by the way, suttas say that only Arahant is endowed with 9th and 10th factors, which are "Right Knowledge", "Right Release"). So at first you must have some "saddha" balanced with at least some "pannya" (wisdom). Saddha here is the belief, the ability to believe in something you've never seen. Without such a belief your way will be very difficult, if possible at all. So we first learn which views are correct, we do our best to put as much belief in Buddha's words as possible - so this will be our fuel on our path. And I'm not sure you can make it if you dismiss saddha completely, trying "to prove everything at first". You see, saddha is one of Five Powers (Indriya) that lead you to Enlightenment. You need all 5 of them - not 4 or less.

[Aloka]

Speculative papanca Alex-

The Buddha didn't find Rebirth, Kamma, Hell Beings to be speculation or papañca.

Oh - you're the Buddha now are you ?....and you keep twisting what I've said Alex and adding your own speculations about views I haven't even expressed - plus I said previously that I didn't want to engage with you because I find your posting manner aggressive.

Do you have a teacher ? Maybe it would be a good idea to find one. Having one -to-one exchanges can be very helpful.

Be well and at ease.

[PeterB]

Have you Alex ?

[Alex123]

Have you Alex ?

I believe in Rebirth, and have some logical reasons to believe in it:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=41&start=2260#p143017


If current mental state including delusional feeling of "I AM" with other underlying tendencies, requires and is conditioned by previous mental states, and previous mental states are conditioned by earlier ones, then that means that the first instance of mental state of baby-in-the-womb with its delusion of "I AM" with other underlying tendencies, had to be conditioned by previous mental state. Those previous mental states that condition the first moment of consciousness in the womb, can only be in the former lives before this baby with its body was even conceived.

If the fetters could appear without any cause, then who is to guarantee that an Arahant cannot be fettered again due to chance or whatever.
If the fetters could appear due to purely physical cause, then who is to guarantee that an Arahant cannot be fettered again when certain physical causes happen.
If we allow the possibility of material causes to be the sole reason for delusion of "I AM" and other underlying tendencies, then mental training would be useless. The solution would lie in the physical, and one would need to see psychiatrist not a psychologist or Dhamma.

[Alex123]

Do you have a teacher ? Maybe it would be a good idea to find one.

I do, the Buddha. I also read a lot on what other teachers have said to see different interpretations and points of view, but I leave the final word with Buddha Himself.

Oh - you're the Buddha now are you ?....

I've posted the quotes from the suttas. They are clear about rebirth.


The Buddha didn't borrow his teaching on Hell from others:
``Bhikkhus, I say this not hearing from another recluse or brahmin, this is what I have myself known and seen and so I say it.û
http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... uta-e.html

So much for Buddha merely accepting the doctrine that he was supposed to have heard from others, and it wasn't speculation for Him.

[PeterB]

You didnt answer my question.

[Alex123]

You didnt answer my question.

I don't have clairvoyant powers to see my rebirth or of others. I also do not have clairvoyant powers to read the mind of others and see their level of attainment.

So when it comes to the suttas, unfortunately one has to take at least some of it on reasoned faith and risk-reward analysis.

[PeterB]

Or approach the suttas with an entirely different set of questions of a non- ontological kind.
As did Ajahn Buddhadasa for example. And as does Ajahn Sumedho.

[Aloka]

Do you have a teacher ? Maybe it would be a good idea to find one.

I do, the Buddha. I also read a lot on what other teachers have said to see different interpretations and points of view, but I leave the final word with Buddha Himself.

Oh - you're the Buddha now are you ?....

I've posted the quotes from the suttas. They are clear about rebirth.

Alex, what's your problem exactly ? You are totally obsessed with rebirth... and I haven't even mentioned it once !


Goodnight.

[Alex123]

Or approach the suttas with an entirely different set of questions of a non- ontological kind.
As did Ajahn Buddhadasa for example. And as does Ajahn Sumedho.

So does it mean that one should reject those things (like Hell, rebirth, Kamma) that one doesn't like and doesn't think exist?

Should one follow one's likes in order to accept or reject something that is said in the suttas?

Should one pick and choose what one accepts and what one rejects?

[santa100]

PeterB wrote:
Or approach the suttas with an entirely different set of questions of a non- ontological kind.
As did Ajahn Buddhadasa for example. And as does Ajahn Sumedho

It's obvious that the 2 venerables did use non-ontological approach for some group of audience. But it does not mean both venerables endorsed the view that literal rebirth and moment-to-moment rebirth must be 2 mutually exclusive concepts. If they did, please provide the appropriate references.

[daverupa]

...Should one pick and choose what one accepts and what one rejects?

These are false dichotomies, as neither accepting nor rejecting views on rebirth is possible while still practicing the Dhamma.



"Oh, one world at a time!" ~Henry David Thoreau, when asked about the afterlife

[Alex123]

...Should one pick and choose what one accepts and what one rejects?

These are false dichotomies, as neither accepting nor rejecting views on rebirth is possible while still practicing the Dhamma.

Do you accept, reject or agnostic regarding Rebirth?

[PeterB]

PeterB wrote:
Or approach the suttas with an entirely different set of questions of a non- ontological kind.
As did Ajahn Buddhadasa for example. And as does Ajahn Sumedho

It's obvious that the 2 venerables did use non-ontological approach for some group of audience. But it does not mean both venerables endorsed the view that literal rebirth and moment-to-moment rebirth must be 2 mutually exclusive concepts. If they did, please provide the appropriate references.

Ajahn Buddhadasa's writings are so replete with with his eschewing of the three lifetimes model that you could stick a pin in them almost anywhere and hit a suitable passage to that end.
With Ajahn Sumedho the issue is slightly different, he simply will not become involved in such discussions.
If direct questions are put to him on the matter he shifts the emphasis and talks about the importance of not identifying with views.