the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

Lazy_eye wrote:Supposedly, since samsara is without an original cause or starting point, we have cycled through an infinite number of rebirths. But an infinite number of rebirths means that we have at some point created every possible kind of kamma, which means that any sort of vipaka could result at any time.
Per the sutta on unconjecturables, that sounds like conjecture.

The phrase usually used is "from an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration".

I've never seen it stated "samsara is without an original cause or starting point." Maybe you can provide a reference?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
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,
binocular wrote:What role does the desire to fit in with the current mainstream scientific understanding of things play in having this take on kamma and rebirth?

Inasmuch are some forms of modern Buddhism in fact sophisticated attempts to justify and further the mainstream Western consumerist way of life?
None at all. If anything, the view leaves one further disenchanted with matters pertaining to "current mainstream scientific understanding of things" and "the mainstream Western consumerist way of life".

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
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Lazy_eye »

binocular wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:Supposedly, since samsara is without an original cause or starting point, we have cycled through an infinite number of rebirths. But an infinite number of rebirths means that we have at some point created every possible kind of kamma, which means that any sort of vipaka could result at any time.
Per the sutta on unconjecturables, that sounds like conjecture.

The phrase usually used is "from an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration".

I've never seen it stated "samsara is without an original cause or starting point." Maybe you can provide a reference?
That's an interesting point you raise. It's true that "without an original cause" is not the language used in the suttas (at least in English translation).

In the Assu Sutta, the Buddha is recorded as saying (emphasis mine):
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.
So we could argue about whether this means "samsara has a beginning point, but it's not evident", or "samsara has no beginning point".

However, the Buddha then goes on to say:
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.
The same can be said of all pleasant experiences: i.e., you have repeatedly experienced all forms of happiness as well. By extension we can say that you have generated all forms of "good" and "bad" kamma, and your existence in samsara has taken you from the hells to the heavens and back many times over.

Therefore, to explain why some particular kamma ripens at some particular time is difficult. Any such explanation, it seems to me, leads to further "why" questions -- an infinite regress. The Buddha was wise to deem it an unconjecturable.
5heaps
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:19 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by 5heaps »

retrofuturist wrote:
5heaps wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Huh? Where did I say "momentary cause and effect"? I'll give you a clue... I didn't.
so you have a presentation of dependent arising that is other than the multiple life presentation and other than the succession of moments presentation. what presentation are you then using?
Non-time-delineated... i.e. not delineated by any timeframe (whether it be "moments", "lifetimes", whatever...)
In other words, structural not temporal.
the only way dependent arising could be a structure and yet not delineated by time is if it were independent of momentary dhammas ie. an atta to persons or essential natures to things.
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
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,
5heaps wrote:the only way dependent arising could be a structure and yet not delineated by time is if it were independent of momentary dhammas ie. an atta to persons or essential natures to things.
"Momentary dhammas", "essential natures" etc, commentarial notions the Buddha never spoke about... so what exactly are asking dependent origination to be independent of... commentarial notions?

:?:

Perhaps you could be a bit clearer and less haphazard in your statements?

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
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings porpoise,
porpoise wrote:
retrofuturist wrote: In other words, structural not temporal.
I'm still not clear what you mean by "structural" - could you briefly explain? Also I'm not clear about your objection to a temporal view, given that birth, aging and death are clearly temporal events ( see the nidana definitions in MN9, SN12.2, etc ).
Apologies for missing this post previously.

By structural I mean...

From a as a requisite condition comes b.
From b as a requisite condition comes c.
From c as a requisite condition comes d.

... and so on. There is a relationship at play between the nidanas, but the relationship that has been delineated in the suttas is a structural one, rather than one demarcated in temporal units (such as "moments", "minutes", "years", "lifetimes", or "aeons")

Hence, non-time-delimited.

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."
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

retrofuturist wrote: By structural I mean...
From a as a requisite condition comes b.
... and so on. There is a relationship at play between the nidanas, but the relationship that has been delineated in the suttas is a structural one, rather than one demarcated in temporal units (such as "moments", "minutes", "years", "lifetimes", or "aeons")
Hence, non-time-delimited.
Thanks Retro, but isn't "from a as a requisite condition comes b" based on a time-scale? If b arises in dependence on a, then by definition a must occur before b ( so for example birth must occur before death ).
This is one of the 2 main modes of conditionality in dependent origination, the other is "when a is, b is", which I agree can be considered independent of time because the conditionality is "simultaneous" ( for example while ignorance persists, suffering persists ).
Buddha save me from new-agers!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

retrofuturist wrote:
binocular wrote:What role does the desire to fit in with the current mainstream scientific understanding of things play in having this take on kamma and rebirth?

Inasmuch are some forms of modern Buddhism in fact sophisticated attempts to justify and further the mainstream Western consumerist way of life?
None at all. If anything, the view leaves one further disenchanted with matters pertaining to "current mainstream scientific understanding of things" and "the mainstream Western consumerist way of life".
It just so happens that some interpretations of Buddhist teachings comply with "current mainstream scientific understanding of things" and "the mainstream Western consumerist way of life."
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by binocular »

Lazy_eye wrote:Therefore, to explain why some particular kamma ripens at some particular time is difficult. Any such explanation, it seems to me, leads to further "why" questions -- an infinite regress. The Buddha was wise to deem it an unconjecturable.
Sure, there are questions that are best put aside.
But one ought to put them aside for the right reason, for a wholesome reason. It's not always easy to discern what that is.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10157
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Spiny Norman »

binocular wrote: But one ought to put them aside for the right reason, for a wholesome reason.
I agree. Merely disliking a teaching or idea isn't usually a sound basis for putting it aside.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
dharmagoat
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 4:41 am
Location: Gone Bush

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by dharmagoat »

porpoise wrote:
binocular wrote: But one ought to put them aside for the right reason, for a wholesome reason.
I agree. Merely disliking a teaching or idea isn't usually a sound basis for putting it aside.
Still, there is no benefit in persisting with a teaching that you fundamentally disagree with.
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

porpoise wrote:Thanks Retro, but isn't "from a as a requisite condition comes b" based on a time-scale?
A and B could be separated by a split second, or entire lifespan. Also A and B could be simultaneous. For example vedana, sanna, and vinnana occur at the same time.

I believe that DO could refer to one and many life interpretations, momentary, long, structural, etc.
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ben »

Alex123 wrote:
porpoise wrote:Thanks Retro, but isn't "from a as a requisite condition comes b" based on a time-scale?
A and B could be separated by a split second, or entire lifespan. Also A and B could be simultaneous. For example vedana, sanna, and vinnana occur at the same time
Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence for this assertion, Alex.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by daverupa »

For example vedana, sanna, and vinnana occur at the same time
I wonder if it makes reference to this:
MN 43 wrote:For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
The Pali term "akāliko" seems to support the non-temporal discussion.
  • "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
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Alex123 »

daverupa wrote:
For example vedana, sanna, and vinnana occur at the same time
I wonder if it makes reference to this:
MN 43 wrote:For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them."
The Pali term "akāliko" seems to support the non-temporal discussion.
Correct. Moreover, for those who believe in Abhidhammatthasaṅgaho, during every state of citta there are 7 universal cetasikas (sabbacittasādhāraṇā) which are part of 5 Khandhas.

Also, avijjā (1) being mental thing cannot occur without mind (consciousness 3, nāma 4).
Avijjā is also included in Saṅkhāra (2).
Consciousness (3) cannot exist by itself, it requires other 3 mental aggregates (saṅkhāra 2, nāma 4) and for 5 senses - body (rūpa 4, birth 11 & death 12).
rūpa 4 occurs as five of six sense bases (5) during birth 11 and it dies 12.
Contact (6) cannot occur without nāma/rūpa 4 and can occur only when six bases (5) are present
Body 11 that is born is not separate from rūpa as part of nāmarūpa 4.
etc etc.

All factors of D.O. are either included in nāma or rūpa. Only few factors could be separated by LONG time, ex: avijjā and resultant dukkha, birth and death.
But we could say that "birth" of new implies the death of old, so even here there is a way how these are nearly simultaneous.
Post Reply