the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Hi Tilt,

In response to your post above:

Rebirth is very much part of the teaching of dukkha, which means it is also part of the teaching of anicca and anatta, making it very much part of the teaching of paticcasamuppada.
My understanding is dukkha as the 2nd characteristic is not the same as the dukkha of paticcasamuppada. Dukkha as the 2nd characteristic is the ‘unsatisfactoriness’ of impermanent phenomena, as described in the Maggavagga of the Dhammapada, whereas the dukkha of paticcasamuppada is mental torment, or psychic irritants, as explained to to Nakulapita in SN 22.1

An ocean of tears

"Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?... This is the greater: the tears you have shed...

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
— SN 15.3

My understanding is the Buddha did not use the word “transmigration”. Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the word ‘roaming’. My understanding of this sutta is the ‘four great oceans’ is a simile. One person being able to cry more tears than the four great ocean is an impossibility because the water cycle recirculates. To accept this sutta literally would mean 6 billion human beings have cried more tears than the four great oceans.

My thoughts are that this sutta is referring to how a person mentally repeatedly experiences the death of a loved one. My understanding is that it is not related to comprehending the Four Noble Truths because comprehending the Four Noble Truths results in the cessation of suffering rather than crying & weeping.

This sutta shows how the mundane right view leads to asava and acquisitions. Because of the right view that mother & father loved us and mother & father are “beings”, crying & weeping is the result of this “good karma”.

This precious human birth

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.

"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: 'This is stress...This is the origination of stress...This is the cessation of stress...This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" — SN 56.48


Why do we wander in samsara?

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating four things that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. Which four?

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble virtue that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble concentration that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble discernment that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.

"But when noble virtue is understood & penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood & penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving & attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming."

AN 4.1

I disagree with your opinion that inferences of rebirth in these suttas are tied directly to the Four Noble Truths. My opinion is the very opposite.

Human minds wander in samsara because they have not understood & not penetrated the Four Noble Truths. These suttas show what I posted earlier about two kinds of right view. Minds with the mundane right view wander in samsara, whereas minds with transcendent right view of the Four Noble Truths are liberated from spinning around in samsara.

So to conclude, to me, the explanation you have provided isn't convincing, as these suttas are about minds that have not realised the Four Noble Truths.

with kind wishes,

Aloka
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

SN and AN Suttas are often bereft of context, in this case the audience. I expect these Suttas were quite motivating to those who believed the proto-Hindu metaphysics of transmigration, and the teaching is therefore skillfully ad hoc in that it accepts this metaphysics (as, indeed, a certain right view with asava) and then, using metaphor, tenderly insists that right view without asava is the solution. Indeed, it seems to me that the proto-Hindu worldview saw samsara as a given fact and that it was the best one could do to obtain favorable abodes within that system; here, the Buddha is highlighting that samsara is appropriately seen as predicated on dukkha, and therefore it is to be escaped, as opposed to pursued in the hopes of maximizing the good bits.
  • "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
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Aloka wrote:Hi Tilt,

My understanding is that rebirth belief promotes morality but isn't a factor of the noble path. See MN 117
And so you are saying sila, morality, plays no important role in the practice? Are you really willing to argue that position?
MN 117: "And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the other world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
What interesting here is that rebirth, literal rebirth, is taken as a given and is a real as "mother and father." There is no denial of literal rebirth here. If anything it is affirmed, and it is affirmed as part of Right View that leads to awakening.
"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.
As Ven Bodhi says about this in his footnote( p 1322): "We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realizing Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view." In other words, you cannot have supramundane right view without some degree of awakening. Until that time it is all mundane Right View. This text does not dismiss kamma or rebirth. Don’t forget the Buddha stated:

"This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond."
SN I, 38.
aloka wrote:
I wrote:Rebirth is very much part of the teaching of dukkha, which means it is also part of the teaching of anicca and anatta, making it very much part of the teaching of paticcasamuppada.
My understanding is dukkha as the 2nd characteristic is not the same as the dukkha of paticcasamuppada. Dukkha as the 2nd characteristic is the ‘unsatisfactoriness’ of impermanent phenomena, as described in the Maggavagga of the Dhammapada, whereas the dukkha of paticcasamuppada is mental torment, or psychic irritants, as explained to to Nakulapita in SN 22.1
This is a distinction without a difference. “the ‘unsatisfactoriness’ of impermanent phenomena,” vs “mental torment, or psychic irritants”
"What is the noble truth of suffering? Birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering; in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering." - SN SN 56:11
What do we see here? Mental torment and psychic irritations driven by grasping after that which changes.
My understanding is the Buddha did not use the word “transmigration”. Bhikkhu Bodhi uses the word ‘roaming’. My understanding of this sutta is the ‘four great oceans’ is a simile. One person being able to cry more tears than the four great ocean is an impossibility because the water cycle recirculates. To accept this sutta literally would mean 6 billion human beings have cried more tears than the four great oceans.
And the Buddha did not use the word roaming. The point is that samsara, the word the Buddha did use, involves a greatness of time, far exceeding one’s mere singular lifetime. Trying to read this text in terms of a singular lifetime requires a contortionism that makes the Buddha look stupidly inept at explaining what he is teaching.
My thoughts are that this sutta is referring to how a person mentally repeatedly experiences the death of a loved one. My understanding is that it is not related to comprehending the Four Noble Truths because comprehending the Four Noble Truths results in the cessation of suffering rather than crying & weeping.
Huh? This makes no sense.
This sutta shows how the mundane right view leads to asava and acquisitions. Because of the right view that mother & father loved us and mother & father are “beings”, crying & weeping is the result of this “good karma”.
”mundane right view” If it is right view, albeit mundane, it will lead to awakening, if acted upon as the Buddha taught. If mundane right view leads only to “asavas and acquisitions” then there is no way out. This is a very strange position for a Buddhist to take. What the heck does that say about the Buddha’s teachings?
I disagree with your opinion that inferences of rebirth in these suttas are tied directly to the Four Noble Truths. My opinion is the very opposite.
There is no inference. In SN 56.48 the connexion is quite straightforward.
Human minds wander in samsara because they have not understood & not penetrated the Four Noble Truths. These suttas show what I posted earlier about two kinds of right view. Minds with the mundane right view wander in samsara, whereas minds with transcendent right view of the Four Noble Truths are liberated from spinning around in samsara.
And, of course, this makes no sense. If it is Right View, and it is acted upon as the Buddha taught, it leads to awakening, which is where supramundane Right View is realized.
So to conclude, to me, the explanation you have provided isn't convincing, as these suttas are about minds that have not realised the Four Noble Truths.
That is the attempt at de-rebirthing the suttas, but that is a modern phenomenon, which requires a great deal of unneeded, unnecessary effort to try to fit what is straightforward into a modern point of view.
daverupa wrote: SN and AN Suttas are often bereft of context, in this case the audience. I expect these Suttas were quite motivating to those who believed the proto-Hindu metaphysics of transmigration, and the teaching is therefore skillfully ad hoc in that it accepts this metaphysics (as, indeed, a certain right view with asava) and then, using metaphor, tenderly insists that right view without asava is the solution. Indeed, it seems to me that the proto-Hindu worldview saw samsara as a given fact and that it was the best one could do to obtain favorable abodes within that system; here, the Buddha is highlighting that samsara is appropriately seen as predicated on dukkha, and therefore it is to be escaped, as opposed to pursued in the hopes of maximizing the good bits.
Well, that is one way to try to dismiss these texts.

The problem for the de-rebirthers is that the Buddha described his awakening in terms of being liable to birth, death and rebirth and becoming free of that. What the de-rebirthers try to do is say that the ONLY way to understand rebirth is to take it figuratively -- ONLY. There is no support for such an extreme position in the suttas.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:The problem for the de-rebirthers is that the Buddha described his awakening in terms of being liable to birth, death and rebirth and becoming free of that. What the de-rebirthers try to do is say that the ONLY way to understand rebirth is to take it figuratively -- ONLY. There is no support for such an extreme position in the suttas.
It's an awfully complicated issue. Much of it seems to hinge on how key Pali terms are translated.

If one is translating key sutta terms from a 'transmigratory' perspective, the translated suttas read as being self-evident that transmigration is intended.

If one is translating them from a perspective of bhava (existence/becoming) being not a physical incarnation or manifestation, but a dependently originated phenomenon (based on ignorance) instead, then such a translated sutta would in no way read as being validation of (the English term with no clear parallel in the suttas) "(literal) rebirth"

... and no, "punabhava" (repeated becoming) doesn't count, because it can be translated in either of the two ways I mention above.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
tiltbillings wrote:The problem for the de-rebirthers is that the Buddha described his awakening in terms of being liable to birth, death and rebirth and becoming free of that. What the de-rebirthers try to do is say that the ONLY way to understand rebirth is to take it figuratively -- ONLY. There is no support for such an extreme position in the suttas.
It's an awfully complicated issue. Much of it seems to hinge on how key Pali terms are translated.

If one is translating key sutta terms from a 'transmigratory' perspective, the translated suttas read as being self-evident that transmigration is intended.

If one is translating them from a perspective of bhava (existence/becoming) being not a physical incarnation or manifestation, but a dependently originated phenomenon (based on ignorance) instead, then such a translated sutta would in no way read as being validation of (the English term with no clear parallel in the suttas) "(literal) rebirth"

... and no, "punabhava" (repeated becoming) doesn't count, because it can be translated in either of the two ways I mention above.
It is not very complicated at all. One of the major problems is that the de-rebirthers are drawing a far too sharp of a line in order to make their point, which from what I have seen tends to distort the teachings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It is not very complicated at all. One of the major problems is that the de-rebirthers are drawing a far too sharp of a line in order to make their point, which from what I have seen tends to distort the teachings.
Yet one could say exactly the same of "pro-rebirthers" (indeed, just look at the extract from the Bhikkhu Bodhi supplied in the article above)

Hence, it's only "not very complicated at all" if you've already made your mind up about which mode of translation is the appropriate one.

The mode of translation of key terms fashions the teachings in very different ways - one is ontological, one is phenomenological.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It is not very complicated at all. One of the major problems is that the de-rebirthers are drawing a far too sharp of a line in order to make their point, which from what I have seen tends to distort the teachings.
Yet one could say exactly the same of "pro-rebirthers" (indeed, just look at the extract from the Bhikkhu Bodhi supplied in the article above)

Hence, it's only "not very complicated at all" if you've already made your mind up about which mode of translation is the appropriate one.

The mode of translation of key terms fashions the teachings in very different ways.
I have done
Pali translation. No, it is not a matter of making up one's mind before hand; it is about openly exploring the texts themselves. The de-rebirthers, as incarnated in this thread, tend to make a far sharper contrast than is necessary. The Pali terminology is more than rich enough to accommodate both the rebirth position and the "dependently originated phenomenon." These are not at all mutually exclusive positions. I find it rather puzzling and disheartening to see this unnecessary dichotomy drawn, given the actual nature of the texts/teachings.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:The Pali terminology is more than rich enough to accommodate both the rebirth position and the "dependently originated phenomenon." These are not at all mutually exclusive positions.
That is essentially the point I am making.

Things become problematic when one side holds so ardently to their views that they fail to see the lack of mutual exclusion involved with the two positions.

I think it's somewhat imbalanced though to imply that only one side is guilty of this tendency... because pro-rebirthers do it too.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:The Pali terminology is more than rich enough to accommodate both the rebirth position and the "dependently originated phenomenon." These are not at all mutually exclusive positions.
That is essentially the point I am making.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Things become problematic when one side holds so ardently to their views that they fail to see the lack of mutual exclusion involved with the two positions.

I think it's somewhat imbalanced though to imply that only one side is guilty of this tendency... pro-rebirthers do it too.
Over all, it is the de-rebirthers who are at greater fault here by failing to see the mutual inclusion of both sides, as if there were two side to begin with.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
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 »

tiltbillings wrote: The Pali terminology is more than rich enough to accommodate both the rebirth position and the "dependently originated phenomenon."
So in your view did the Buddha intend to convey both these positions?

Spiny
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

Hi Tilt,
And so you are saying sila, morality, plays no important role in the practice? Are you really willing to argue that position?
MN 117 is straightforward. It lists both mundane morality and noble morality. It states the mundane right view side with asava and acquisitions (burdens)
What interesting here is that rebirth, literal rebirth, is taken as a given and is a real as "mother and father." There is no denial of literal rebirth here. If anything it is affirmed, and it is affirmed as part of Right View that leads to awakening
Mundane right view is about the “view” that sides with morality rather than what is “real”. This is the same as transcendent right view being “right” because it leads to Nibbana. “Right” (samma) does not mean “real”. It means what is skilful; what is foremost.
As Ven Bodhi says about this in his footnote( p 1322): "We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realizing Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view." In other words, you cannot have supramundane right view without some degree of awakening. Until that time it is all mundane Right View. This text does not dismiss kamma or rebirth. Don’t forget the Buddha stated:

"This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond."
SN I, 38
Falling back on Bhikkhu Bodhi places your interpretation in a precarious position because Bhikkhu Bodhi does not translate SN 1,38 the same as you. Bhikkhu Bodhi, consistent with mundane dhamma, translates SN 1,38 as “a being enters upon samsara, Kamma determines his destiny” (p. 129). Mundane right view cannot directly lead to awakening. The Buddha has said it leads to asava and acquisitions. My opinion is your translation of SN 1,38 is wrong.
This is a distinction without a difference. “the ‘unsatisfactoriness’ of impermanent phenomena,” vs “mental torment, or psychic irritants”
This is without doubt a distinction with a difference. My understanding is arahants do not experience mental torment but they do experience the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self of conditioned things. The Maggavagga in the Dhammapada states: “All conditioned things are unsatisfactory — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.” Experiencing “unsatisfactoriness” is the path to purification rather than the path to mental torment.
For example, my ex-husband was unsatisfactory so I left him. Despite my liberation from him, his unsatisfactoriness does not change.

What do we see here? Mental torment and psychic irritations driven by grasping after that which changes.
Yes. But when mental torment ends, change does not end. Similarly, when mental torment ends, the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned things does not end. Conditioned things remain unsatisfactory, whether they are attached to or not (just like my ex-husband remains unsatisfactory).
And the Buddha did not use the word roaming. The point is that samsara, the word the Buddha did use, involves a greatness of time, far exceeding one’s mere singular lifetime. Trying to read this text in terms of a singular lifetime requires a contortionism that makes the Buddha look stupidly inept at explaining what he is teaching.
SN 22.99 describes samsara as running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness...assuming the five aggregates to be the self. I find your interpretation materialistic and your personal opinion about what you think the Buddha said unconvincing. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated the text as roaming. Patrick Kearney translates it as “running” (in his translation of MN 38) .

I have been told this Pali word “sandhāvati” (saŋ+dhāvati: to run through) is related to “dhāve”, which is used in MN 65 in reference to a horse “galloping”.
Huh? This makes no sense.
What I said makes perfect sense. When a loved one dies, we often repeatedly cry & weep about them, sometimes many years later, sometimes for the entirety of our lives.
”mundane right view” If it is right view, albeit mundane, it will lead to awakening, if acted upon as the Buddha taught. If mundane right view leads only to “asavas and acquisitions” then there is no way out. This is a very strange position for a Buddhist to take. What the heck does that say about the Buddha’s teachings?
What the Buddha taught seems clear to me. The Buddha taught by following the mundane right view there is no way out. But the noble right view provides the way out.

with metta,

Aloka
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by chownah »

Mundane right view leads to noble right view.....right?.....
chownah
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by kirk5a »

I'm pretty sure the distinction between "right view with effluents" ('mundane' right view) and noble right view is not at all the notion that mundane right view is for Hindus and noble right view for those who are seeking liberation. Nobody can just 'decide' to have noble right view. It's noble precisely because, as Tilt said, there is some degree of awakening to the "view" which is the way things actually are. It's not a "view" in the 'mundane' sense of an idea that one believes. In the realm of ideas, right view is "there are spontaneously reborn beings" and so forth.
the path factor of right view of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from effluents
It is curious to me that those who claim to have no need for a view on rebirth, apparently need so many other views to explain away what the Buddha said about rebirth. I'm still waiting for actual agnosticism to show up here.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

Aloka wrote:Hi Tilt,
And so you are saying sila, morality, plays no important role in the practice? Are you really willing to argue that position?
MN 117 is straightforward. It lists both mundane morality and noble morality. It states the mundane right view side with asava and acquisitions (burdens)
Ah, but if it is “Right View,” if it is put into practice by the worldling (one with “asavas and acquisitions”), it would not lead to “asavas and acquisitions.” And, as the text makes quite clear, in order to start with on the path to awakening, one starts with “mundane Right View.” And let us not forget, the Buddha taught only what was useful and true.
What interesting here is that rebirth, literal rebirth, is taken as a given and is a real as "mother and father." There is no denial of literal rebirth here. If anything it is affirmed, and it is affirmed as part of Right View that leads to awakening
Mundane right view is about the “view” that sides with morality rather than what is “real”. This is the same as transcendent right view being “right” because it leads to Nibbana. “Right” (samma) does not mean “real”. It means what is skilful; what is foremost.
Morality is not “real?” Mundane Right View leads to Nibbana. Can’t get there without it. “Transcendent” Right View is indicative of some degree of insight attained. In other words, you cannot have transcendent Right View until you attained some degree of Ariya status. Until then you are working with mundane Right View, and having been taught by the Buddha, mundane Right View is both useful and true. As I said: “There is no denial of literal rebirth here. If anything it is affirmed [as being useful and true], and it is affirmed as [as being useful and true] part of Right View that leads to awakening.”
As Ven Bodhi says about this in his footnote( p 1322): "We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realizing Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view." In other words, you cannot have supramundane right view without some degree of awakening. Until that time it is all mundane Right View. This text does not dismiss kamma or rebirth. Don’t forget the Buddha stated:

"This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond."
SN I, 38
Falling back on Bhikkhu Bodhi places your interpretation in a precarious position because Bhikkhu Bodhi does not translate SN 1,38 the same as you. Bhikkhu Bodhi, consistent with mundane dhamma, translates SN 1,38 as “a being enters upon samsara, Kamma determines his destiny” (p. 129). Mundane right view cannot directly lead to awakening. The Buddha has said it leads to asava and acquisitions. My opinion is your translation of SN 1,38 is wrong.
And you think Ven Bodhi is really saying something different from me on this? Not at all.

satto sa.msaaramaapaadi, kamma.m tassa paraayanan ti - SN i 38

The late and former (obviously) president of the Pali Text Society, I.B. Horner, translates this as:

"This being is bound to samsara, karma is his means for going beyond." BUDDHIST TEXTS THROUGH THE AGES, page 80, selection 67.

Ven Bodhi's translation:

A being enters upon samsara; Kamma determines his destiny. CDB I 129.

Without seeing Horner's first, Ven Bodhi's translation is a little weak, missing something of the significance of paraayana, which can easily signify awakening as a goal - destiny vs going beyond. Also, "is his means" vs "determines." I think, as well as I can understand the grammatical structure of this verse, Horner's is by far the better translation.

And to futher make my point here: There is a short sutta in the same collection as our text in contention called The Destination, SN IV 373, CDB II 1379. The Destination, in Pali: Paraayana Sutta. What is quite nice here is that the Buddha defines quite clealy what he means by paraayana, destiny/going beyond:
And what, bhikkhus, is the destination [the going beyond (which is more literal)]? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the destination [paraayana] [the going beyond].
And to drive home the point a bit further:
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana/nirvana. -- S.N. IV 251 and IV 321

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata/the conditioned. -- S.N. IV 359 and S.N. 362
In other words - and very clearly - the destination/the going beyond is nibbana/the "unconditioned"/awakening.

The point is that Ven Bodhi and I.B. Horner’s translation are saying the same thing; karma is a means for awakening. I just happen to prefer Horner’s translation. It is a bit more literal and clearer.

In regard to your opinion about the translation I used, that translation is spot on as is the point that the passage makes.
Mundane right view cannot directly lead to awakening. The Buddha has said it leads to asava and acquisitions
The Buddha said nothing of the sort. That is your eisegetical interpretation of MN 117. As Ven Bodhi stated: "We may understand that the conceptual comprehension of the four truths falls under mundane right view, while the direct penetration of the truths by realizing Nibbana with the path constitutes supramundane right view."
This is a distinction without a difference. “the ‘unsatisfactoriness’ of impermanent phenomena,” vs “mental torment, or psychic irritants”
This is without doubt a distinction with a difference.
Not that you have shown.
What do we see here? Mental torment and psychic irritations driven by grasping after that which changes.
Yes. But when mental torment ends, change does not end. Similarly, when mental torment ends, the unsatisfactoriness of conditioned things does not end. Conditioned things remain unsatisfactory, whether they are attached to or not (just like my ex-husband remains unsatisfactory).
If your husband is still dukkha to you, that is because you are still clinging to him. Don’t cling to what changes, no dukkha. What is compounded is dukkha to cling to. Dukkha is an experiential quality -- that is, it is has meaning only in terms of someone experiencing it. Cling to what changes and you get dukkha, thus all compounded this are dukkha.
And the Buddha did not use the word roaming. The point is that samsara, the word the Buddha did use, involves a greatness of time, far exceeding one’s mere singular lifetime. Trying to read this text in terms of a singular lifetime requires a contortionism that makes the Buddha look stupidly inept at explaining what he is teaching.
SN 22.99 describes samsara as running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness...assuming the five aggregates to be the self. I find your interpretation materialistic and your personal opinion about what you think the Buddha said unconvincing. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated the text as roaming. Patrick Kearney translates it as “running” (in his translation of MN 38) .

I have been told this Pali word “sandhāvati” (saŋ+dhāvati: to run through) is related to “dhāve”, which is used in MN 65 in reference to a horse “galloping”.
You find it materialistic and unconvincing, but you have made no reasoned, exampled argument to support your assertion. On the other hand:
Saŋsāra
Saŋsāra [fr. saŋsarati] 1. transmigration, lit. faring on D i.54; ii.206 (here=existence); M i.81 (saŋsārena suddhi); S ii.178 sq.; A i.10; ii.12=52; Sn 517; Dh 60; J i.115; Pv ii.1311; Vism 544 (in detail), 578, 603 (˚assa kāraka); PvA 63, 243. For description of saŋsāra (its endlessness & inevitableness) see e. g. S ii.178, 184 sq., 263; iii.149 sq.; VbhA 134 (anta -- virahita) & anamatagga (to which add refs. VbhA 45, 182, 259, 260). -- 2. moving on, circulation: vacī˚ exchange of words A i.79.
-- cakka [cp. BSk. saŋsāra -- cakra] the wheel of tr. Vism 198, 201; VvA 105=PvA 7. -- dukkha the ill of tr. Vism 531; VbhA 145, 149. -- bhaya fear of tr. VbhA 199. -- sāgara the ocean of tr. J iii.241.
SN 15.9
PTS: S ii 184
CDB i 656
Danda Sutta: The Stick
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration [samsara]. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Just as a stick thrown up in the air lands sometimes on its base, sometimes on its side, sometimes on its tip; in the same way, beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, transmigrating & wandering on, sometimes go from this world to another world, sometimes come from another world to this.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."[/b]
SN 20.2
PTS: S ii 263
CDB i 706
Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail
translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Staying at Savatthi. Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings reborn among human beings. Far more are those reborn elsewhere. Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will live heedfully.' That's how you should train yourselves."
There is no question that the Buddha meant for us to see samsara in terms large amount of time and multiple lifetimes. He states so here directly. I’ll go with a more traditional translation of samsara.
What I said makes perfect sense. When a loved one dies, we often repeatedly cry & weep about them, sometimes many years later, sometimes for the entirety of our lives.
But that really does not address the fullness of the text in question.
”mundane right view” If it is right view, albeit mundane, it will lead to awakening, if acted upon as the Buddha taught. If mundane right view leads only to “asavas and acquisitions” then there is no way out. This is a very strange position for a Buddhist to take. What the heck does that say about the Buddha’s teachings?
What the Buddha taught seems clear to me. The Buddha taught by following the mundane right view there is no way out. But the noble right view provides the way out.
If there is no way out following mundane Right View, then it would not be Right View, but the Buddha called it Right View. Your explanation makes absolutely no sense: Right View that is not Right View.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by tiltbillings »

chownah wrote:Mundane right view leads to noble right view.....right?.....
chownah
Yes. No other way to do it.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply