the great rebirth debate

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Aloka » Sat Aug 20, 2011 11:12 am

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
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby chownah » Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Mundane right view leads to noble right view.....right?.....
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby kirk5a » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:02 pm

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
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:38 pm

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

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:45 pm

chownah wrote:Mundane right view leads to noble right view.....right?.....
chownah
Yes. No other way to do it.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:46 pm

Spiny O'Norman wrote:
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
To me this is a false dichotomy.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Spiny O'Norman » Sat Aug 20, 2011 1:50 pm

tiltbillings wrote: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.


That's the way I understand dukkha. A rock is only dukkha when you stub your toe on it. ;)

Spiny
User avatar
Spiny O'Norman
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 8:46 am
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Jonttu » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:21 pm

I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.
Jonttu
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:29 pm

Jonttu wrote:I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.
So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby chownah » Sat Aug 20, 2011 3:50 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Jonttu wrote:I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.
So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.

Oh good.....I've always thought that this sutta makes too tight of a distinction between what is noble and what is not and tends to take one away from the idea that perhaps right view does not come in two flavors but actually is one long continuum which for convenience and instruction is divided up into two general types....my view is that as one progresses along the path one starts to view things in terms of the ideas that the Buddha taught instead of the ideas that the world teaches and that this transition often comes about gradually....seeing that it has probably been corrupted with the inclusion of later views makes it more consistent with my views....thanks for pointing this out.
chownah
(Post has been edited to eliminate humor which some have found offensive, chownah)
Last edited by chownah on Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
chownah
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby Aloka » Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:44 pm

Jonttu wrote:I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.


The supramundane path-factors are listed in MN 117 as:

The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of
discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening....

MN 117


These supramundane path-factors appear everywhere in the Nikaya, such as
follows:

And what is the faculty of discernment? There is the case where a
monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with discernment
of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to the right ending
of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: '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.' This is called the faculty
of discernment.

SN 48.10

There are these five strengths. Which five? Strength of conviction,
strength of persistence, strength of mindfulness, strength of concentration
& strength of discernment. These are the five strengths.

SN 50.1


Remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes & comes to a
comprehension of that quality with discernment. When he remains mindful in
this way, examining, analyzing & coming to a comprehension of that quality
with discernment, then analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening
becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of
its development.

SN 54.13


Analayo's argument does not have merit to me because MN 60 is a sutta which,
addressed to the householder, only presents the mundane right view for the
outcome of three skillful activities: good bodily conduct, good verbal
conduct, good mental conduct.

MN 60 states the right view for the householder is that of existence.
B3. .....this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by
the wise as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a
doctrine of existence.

MN 60


This mundane right view of existence in MN 60 is contrary to the
supramundane right view in SN 12.15 of neither existence or non-existence.

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its
object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the
origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment,
'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one
sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment,
'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

SN 12.15


Analayo's arguments remain unconvincing to me.

With metta

Aloka
User avatar
Aloka
 
Posts: 3650
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:25 pm

Aloka wrote:. . . Analayo's arguments remain unconvincing to me.
What you have written does not even touch Ven Analayo's argument, and certainly does not touch my objections to your use of MN 117.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby mikenz66 » Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:59 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
Jonttu wrote:I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.
So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.

See also the references in this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 814#p23831

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10378
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:37 pm

mikenz66 wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
Jonttu wrote:I found venerable Analayo's paper about MN 117 and its parallel versions interesting. Apparently, the supramundane right view part was added later to the sutta from the Abhidharma, and the supramundane path-factors do not appear anywhere else in the Nikayas.
So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.

See also the references in this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 814#p23831

:anjali:
Mike
It certainly looks that trying to use MN 117 as an anti-rebirth text is a dismall failure.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:31 pm

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It certainly looks that trying to use MN 117 as an anti-rebirth text is a dismall failure.

Is that what anyone here has done though? (they may well have, I'm certainly not reading all the posts in this topic to check!)

Or have they just called it mundane right view?

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14672
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Aug 21, 2011 12:13 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:It certainly looks that trying to use MN 117 as an anti-rebirth text is a dismall failure.

Is that what anyone here has done though? (they may well have, I'm certainly not reading all the posts in this topic to check!)

Or have they just called it mundane right view?
Mundane right view that leads nowhere accept to more acquisitions, if we are to believe the anti-rebirthers, but it is promoted as an anti-rebirth text in this thread and especially so in this thread:


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=663#p7510
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby chownah » Sun Aug 21, 2011 2:19 am

tiltbillings wrote:So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.

tiltbillings wrote:It certainly looks that trying to use MN 117 as an anti-rebirth text is a dismall failure.

It seems to me that if one poo-poos the commentaries and the Abhidhamma and accepts the Bhikkhu's views then one might be of the view that using MN 117 is inappropriate.
It also seems to me conversely that if one denies the appropriate use of MN 117 on the grounds of the Bhikkhu's views then one is by doing this poo-pooing the commentaries and Abhidhamma. It seems to me that if one accepts the commentaries and the Abdhimma then they should accept MN 117 as appropriate to the topic and that the views of others should not change this.
So it seems to me that you are poo-pooing the commentaries and the Abdhimma...I have not been of the opinion that you poo-pooed them so I hope you can clarify my thinking on this so that in the future I will better understand your comments on this and other issues.
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Aug 21, 2011 6:30 am

chownah wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:So, in other words, this sutta really cannot be meaningfully used by those who poo-poo the commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Good stuff.

tiltbillings wrote:It certainly looks that trying to use MN 117 as an anti-rebirth text is a dismall failure.

It seems to me that if one poo-poos the commentaries and the Abhidhamma and accepts the Bhikkhu's views then one might be of the view that using MN 117 is inappropriate.
It also seems to me conversely that if one denies the appropriate use of MN 117 on the grounds of the Bhikkhu's views then one is by doing this poo-pooing the commentaries and Abhidhamma. It seems to me that if one accepts the commentaries and the Abdhimma then they should accept MN 117 as appropriate to the topic and that the views of others should not change this.
So it seems to me that you are poo-pooing the commentaries and the Abdhimma...I have not been of the opinion that you poo-pooed them so I hope you can clarify my thinking on this so that in the future I will better understand your comments on this and other issues.
chownah
The problem with this line of thought is, however, that either way MN 117 does not support the anti-rebirthers position as presented here. Just go back a few msgs and read Aloka's msgs and my responses. I have no problem with taking MN 117 as is, but the research of Ven Analayo adds an ironic twist to the ant-rebirthers use of the text.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby chownah » Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:19 am

Tiltbillings,
I'm not up to dueling the dual views here....my mouse broke and I'm navigating the glowing screen using keystrokes only....what an adventure......
But....just for the record...do you poo-poo? (the commentaries and Abhdhamma that is).
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2708
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:24 am

chownah wrote:But....just for the record...do you poo-poo? (the commentaries and Abhdhamma that is).
No; however, while important, they are open to question. Also, it is worth noting I have yet see any major translation effort of the suttas not use the commentaries as a guide. Ven Bodhi is interesting in this regard in that he will clearly note when he departs from the commentaries.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19555
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests