Do you believe in rebirth?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Do you believe in rebirth?

Yes
21
72%
No
2
7%
Don't know/not sure
2
7%
Don't care/not important
4
14%
 
Total votes: 29

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3579
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Do you believe in rebirth?

Postby clw_uk » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:42 pm

Peter wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:When it comes to rebirth, it reminds me that very often that word "rebirth" appears to be taken for granted and everyone knows what exactly is meant.

It is taken for granted that what is meant is what the Buddha taught.

"I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details."



Past abodes, and world means the six sense bases. Basically how we perceive the world is the world in the buddhas teachings, different from a worldy understanding of the world as eart or universe

that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world - this is called the world in the noble ones discipline"

SN - 1190 - book of the six sense media


and

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "'The world, the world'1 it is said. In what respect does the word 'world' apply?

"Insofar as it disintegrates,2 monk, it is called the 'world.' Now what disintegrates? The eye disintegrates. Forms disintegrate. Consciousness at the eye disintegrates. Contact at the eye disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"The ear disintegrates. Sounds disintegrate...

"The nose disintegrates. Aromas disintegrate...

"The tongue disintegrates. Tastes disintegrate...

"The body disintegrates. Tactile sensations disintegrate...

"The intellect disintegrates. Ideas disintegrate. Consciousness at the intellect consciousness disintegrates. Contact at the intellect disintegrates. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too disintegrates.

"Insofar as it disintegrates, it is called the 'world.'"



and



It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a hell named 'Contacts Sixfold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is undesirable, never desirable; displeasing, never pleasing; disagreeable, never agreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life. I have seen a heaven named "Contacts Six Fold Base.' Whatever form one sees there with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable. Whatever sound one hears there with the ear... Whatever aroma one smells there with the nose... Whatever flavor one tastes there with the tongue ... Whatever tactile sensation one touches there with the body... Whatever idea one cognizes there with the intellect is desirable, never undesirable; pleasing, never displeasing; agreeable, never disagreeable.

"It's a gain for you, monks, a great gain, that you've gained the opportunity to live the holy life."


Khana Sutta - SN


World, other realms, cosmos, etc come from the pali word loka. In the Buddhas teachings loka means the six sense bases, how we percieve the world. Not the physical world itself so for example when one is depressed, the loka is the hell realm


metta
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
Rhino
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:09 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Do you believe in rebirth?

Postby Rhino » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:05 pm

acinteyyo wrote:...and when I say "birth" like in the sentence before, I don't just mean physical or bodily birth but also every appearance of any sankhārā depending on their cause or causes. there is birth every moment and there needn't to be physical death to be born again.

To me birth in paticcasamuppada is not equal to rebirth. I am (as you know) influenced by Nanavira Thera and that was one of his fundamental teachings. He saw birth in paticcasamuppada in relation to the 'self' and not the body. And Ajahn Chah's statements about birth are leading in the same direction. And when you believe that (as Nanavira stated): "'Dependent Origination' has—in spite of a venerable tradition—nothing whatsoever to do with 'Kamma and Re-birth'", there will be no more confusion of birth and re-birth. Maybe some original quotations from Nanavira may clear it better:
9. It will be convenient to start at the end of the paticcasamuppāda formulation and to discuss jāti and jarāmarana first. To begin with, jāti is 'birth' and not 're-birth'. 'Re-birth' is punabbhavābhinibbatti, as in Majjhima v,3 <M.i,294> where it is said that future 'birth into renewed existence' comes of avijjā and tanhā; and it is clear that, here, two successive existences are involved. It is, no doubt, possible for a Buddha to see the re-birth that is at each moment awaiting a living individual who still has tanhā—the re-birth, that is to say, that is now awaiting the individual who now has tanhā. If this is so, then for a Buddha the dependence of re-birth upon tanhā is a matter of direct seeing, not involving time. But this is by no means always possible (if, indeed, at all) for an ariyasāvaka, who, though he sees paticcasamuppāda for himself, and with certainty (it is aparapaccayā ñānam), may still need to accept re-birth on the Buddha's authority.[c] In other words, an ariyasāvaka sees birth with direct vision (since jāti is part of the paticcasamuppāda formulation), but does not necessarily see re-birth with direct vision. It is obvious, however, that jāti does not refer straightforwardly to the ariyasāvaka's own physical birth into his present existence; for that at best could only be a memory, and it is probably not remembered at all. How, then, is jāti to be understood?


10.Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...


The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of.

Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti.)

-- For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.


The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.

Source: Notes on Dhamma :: A NOTE ON PATICCASAMUPPÁDA

and
The Buddha does not explain how rebirth takes place; he states simply that, unless craving has ceased, rebirth does take place. It may be that a more detailed description of the phenomenon of rebirth than is found in the Suttas could be made, but (a) it would be irrelevant and unnecessary (because it is quite enough just to accept rebirth), and (b) it would not be in terms of 'cause and effect' (i.e. it would be strictly a description and not an explanation).

source: Letter 9


To my personal view I agree with "uniformsquare"
uniformsquare wrote:I "don't know" too, but I do believe.
With best wishes

Only in a vertical view, straight down into the abyss of his own personal existence, is a man capable of apprehending the perilous insecurity of his situation; and only a man who does apprehend this is prepared to listen to the Buddha's Teaching.
Nanavira Thera - Notes on Dhamma

User avatar
clw_uk
Posts: 3579
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1
Location: Wales, United Kingdom

Re: Do you believe in rebirth?

Postby clw_uk » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:08 pm

To me birth in paticcasamuppada is not equal to rebirth. I am (as you know) influenced by Nanavira Thera and that was one of his fundamental teachings. He saw birth in paticcasamuppada in relation to the 'self' and not the body. And Ajahn Chah's statements about birth are leading in the same direction. And when you believe that (as Nanavira stated): "'Dependent Origination' has—in spite of a venerable tradition—nothing whatsoever to do with 'Kamma and Re-birth'", there will be no more confusion of birth and re-birth. Maybe some original quotations from Nanavira may clear it better:


I agree with this, Ajahn Buddhadasa, Ajahn Sumedho and Ajahn Viradhammo teach the same thing



In Ajahn Buddhadasa's book on Dependent Origination, he emphasises that his approach has been on the paticcasamuppada as working in the moment rather than in terms of past present and future lives. When you contemplate, when you practise, you realise that that is the only way it could ever be. This is because we are working with the mind itself. Even when we are considering the birth of a human body, we are not commenting on the birth of our own bodies, but recognising mentally that these bodies were born. Then, in reflection we are noting that mental consciousness arises and ceases. So that whole sequence of Dependent Origination arises and ceases in a moment. The arising and the cessation from avijja is momentary, it is not a kind of permanent avijja. It would be a mistaken view to assume that everything began with avijja and sometime in the future it would all cease.


http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/index.p ... /eArticles

by Luang por Sumedhi

metta
“The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and undisguised." Verses on the Faith Mind, Sengcan

User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 20080
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1001

Re: Do you believe in rebirth?

Postby tiltbillings » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:59 pm

As a moderator: Please keep in mind there is already a "Great Rebirth Debate" thread that is open.
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.

dheamhan a fhios agam

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson


Return to “Open Dhamma”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lyndon taylor, mikenz66, Spiny Norman, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests