the great rebirth debate

[Ceisiwr]

Physical hell could motivate one to practice harder because it will be worthwhile to suffer a lot in this life to eliminate much greater suffering.

I agree, but its not central

The problem is that the ideal practice is too hard: Being a bhikkhu who undertakes dhutanga practices, lives in poverty, austerity, etc, etc. It is worthwhile in the context of many lives. Otherwise, why not be a successful businessman/woman live in luxury, and practice Dhamma a bit?

Its worthwhile in any life, since it greatly reduces dukkha and can even lead to a life of no-dukkha in the here and now

Living in luxury fosters "I am" and so it is full of more dukkha than a monks life

Alex - Prove the clinging always leads to suffering in this life.

clw_uk wrote: Because there will be an "I"

Alex - I could experience pleasure...

and death

[Ceisiwr]

Which is dukkha

But a pleasant one...

but isnt satisfactory, leads to grasping at that which dies and leads to death, sorrow, lamentation

Inflating the ego

Grasping at more and more things

not getting what one wants, wanting things we cant have

Or we could follow Buddha and be free from all that

[Ceisiwr]

It seems Alex that you have failed to see the danger in sensual pleasure, and in grasping in general

[Ceisiwr]

"Both now & before is it painful to the touch, very hot & scorching, master Gotama. It's just that when the man was a leper covered with sores and infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, his faculties were impaired, which was why, even though the fire was actually painful to the touch, he had the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'"

"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of 'pleasant.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Nikaya35]

It seems Alex that you have failed to see the danger in sensual pleasure, and in grasping in general

What's your point in this debate ? You are saying that karma and rebirth aren't part of the Buddha teachings according to the sutras ?

[Ceisiwr]

It seems Alex that you have failed to see the danger in sensual pleasure, and in grasping in general

What's your point in this debate ? You are saying that karma and rebirth aren't part of the Buddha teachings according to the sutras ?

Not at all

I am saying that rebirth is not important, since we would have to practice the same even if there was no rebirth

I do say though that d.o. Is in the present moment and that birth in the suttas means birth of the ego

However if that carries on after death I don't know, and as I said it doesn't matter if it does or not


Speaking for myself personally, my practice of Dhamma is not dependent on rebirth but on the experience of dukkha

[Nikaya35]

It seems Alex that you have failed to see the danger in sensual pleasure, and in grasping in general

What's your point in this debate ? You are saying that karma and rebirth aren't part of the Buddha teachings according to the sutras ?

Not at all

I am saying that rebirth is not important, since we would have to practice the same even if there was no rebirth

I do say though that d.o. Is in the present moment and that birth in the suttas means birth of the ego

However if that carries on after death I don't know, and as I said it doesn't matter if it does or not


Speaking for myself personally, my practice of Dhamma is not dependent on rebirth but on the experience of dukkha

Well according to the analysis of dependent origination in the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha says : " What bhikkhus , is aging and death ? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings , their growing old , decline of faculties : this is call aging . The passing away of various order of beings from the various orders of beings , their perishing , break up , disappearance ,mortality , death , completion of time , the breakup of the aggregates , the laying down of the carcass : this is call death . " And what , bhikkhus is birth ? The birth of the various beings in to the various orders of beings , their being born , descent [ into the womb ] , production , The manifestation of the aggregates , the obtaining of the sense bases . This is call birth. So birth in DO means literal birth and death in DO means literal death according to the buddha . I agree with you in the practice by the present moment. I see the Alex points and see your points .

[Ceisiwr]

Well according to the analysis of dependent origination in the Samyutta Nikaya the Buddha says : " What bhikkhus , is aging and death ? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings , their growing old , decline of faculties : this is call aging . The passing away of various order of beings from the various orders of beings , their perishing , break up , disappearance ,mortality , death , completion of time , the breakup of the aggregates , the laying down of the carcass : this is call death . " And what , bhikkhus is birth ? The birth of the various beings in to the various orders of beings , their being born , descent [ into the womb ] , production , The manifestation of the aggregates , the obtaining of the sense bases . This is call birth. So birth in DO means literal birth and death in DO means literal death according to the buddha . I agree with you in the practice by the present moment. I see the Alex points and see your points .

That's fine if that works for you

To me that reads as clinging to things that die

We also have suttas that teach d.o. In the present moment, such as majjhima nikaya 37

He seeing a form with the eye becomes greedy for a pleasant form, or averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body not established and with a limited mind. Not knowing the release of mind nor the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely (*11). He falls to the path of agreeing and disagreeing and feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Delighted and pleased with those feelings he appropriates them. To him delighted, pleased and appropriating those feelings arises interest. That interest for feelings is the holding (* 12) To him holding, there is being, from being arises birth, from birth decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, thus arises the complete mass of unpleasantness.

So when there is ignorance, there is craving and clining and the whole mass of suffering


Now that's not to say that there is one life, but it does mean that it doesn't matter if there is one life or millions since this process occurs regardless


Thats why we experience dukkha

[Ceisiwr]

Also the "in the womb" is not part of the original text

[Nikaya35]

Also the "in the womb" is not part of the original text

It doesnt matter . According to the samyutta nikaya the buddha defined birth and death as a literal events. So DO isn't only about mental suffering . DO is also about physical suffering .

[nowheat]

Thanks for the clarification, Sylvester. Can you put into plainest English...

...bifurcate contact ... hedonic tone of pleasant, painful or neutral and cetasika for the emotional sequel that are triggered by the corresponding anusaya underlying the hedonic tone. IMO, kāyika feelings arise with resistance contact (paṭighasamphassa) while the cetasika feelings follow on from designation contact (adhivacanasamphassa). Interestingly, the Dharmagupta parallel to DN 15 (DA 13) has 身觸 (bodily contact) and 心觸 (mental contact) where paṭighasamphassa and adhivacanasamphassa are discussed respectively.

<chuckling> I think your idea of "plainest English" and my idea of the same may just be a universe apart.

In DN 15's treatment of these 2 types of contact, we no longer encounter the familiar Upanisadic conception of nāmarūpa as one's appearance and name (that being disposed of in the foetus and womb discussion earlier). Instead, the compound is broken down such that one needs rūpakāya in order to discern paṭighasamphassa in/with reference to the nāmakāya, and vice versa. Nāma and rūpa still retain some connection to its Upanisadic roots, insofar as I think that this bare cognitive and naming sequel analyses still require name for naming to work, and appearance/form to be present in order for the bare cognitive contact to be established. We get a sense of this "naming" function suggested in this passage -

“It was said: ’With mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness.’ How that is so, Ananda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to gain a footing in mentality-materiality, would an origination of the mass of suffering—of future birth, aging, and death—be discerned?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ananda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for consciousness, namely, mentality-materiality.

“It is to this extent, Ananda, that one can be born, age, and die, pass away and re-arise, to this extent that there is a pathway for designation, to this extent that there is a pathway for language, to this extent that there is a pathway for description, to this extent that there is a sphere for wisdom, to this extent that the round turns for describing this state of being, that is, when there is mentality-materiality together with consciousness.

per BB

I take the sequence adhivacanapatha, niruttipatha, paññattipatha, and paññāvacara as synonyms or near-synonyms communicating the naming phenomenon. This should tie in with the standard sutta definition of nāma being feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention, where perception perhaps is responsible for the naming dimension of contact.

I agree with you that the Pali list just above represents what "nama" is to the Buddha. One way of putting it would be that it is naming things; I would say it is not really even naming, but defining things (in a particular way, but more on that later).

Then there was this conversation you had with chownah:

Sylvester,
I read SN36.6 and find no use of the terms designation or resistance contact. Is resistance contact the first arrow, I.e. bodily pain and is designation contact the second arrow I.e. mental pain?

So, yes, you understand me correctly when you summarise as above.

It seems you are agreeing with the Dharmagupta you cited above, and I take this to mean that you're defining *all* bodily contact as something one experiences resistance to, resistance that is described in SN 36.6 as being reacted to with "vanta" (vomiting? -- I take to mean rejecting it "bleagh!" like bad food meeting an empty stomach)?

I ask this in an effort to lead up to answering your original question (I haven't forgotten it, honestly) and I have one more for you: do you find anything about "self" described in SN 36.6? You seem to be emphasizing the kama/sensuality, with your repeated mention of the hedonic, so I'm guessing your understanding is that is what the sutta is addressing is the activation of the senses, and a simple like/dislike of what we feel, and how we react to the unpleasant by running off looking for something nice -- rather than the sutta being about anything more complex than that?

[Ceisiwr]

Also the "in the womb" is not part of the original text

It doesnt matter . According to the samyutta nikaya the buddha defined birth and death as a literal events. So DO isn't only about mental suffering . DO is also about physical suffering .

So you didn't read my post?

As I said the interpretation of birth being birth of identity does not subtract from rebirth

It means that if there is rebirth or not, is of no matter because the practice would be the same regardless

It's only when d.o. Is seen as Rebirth only, does the dhamma become base


Also physical suffering is only suffering if there is clinging, if you don't crave things to be different then feeling is just feeling ... Not dukkha

[Ceisiwr]

Also the "in the womb" is not part of the original text

It doesnt matter . According to the samyutta nikaya the buddha defined birth and death as a literal events. So DO isn't only about mental suffering . DO is also about physical suffering .

From ajahn sumedho


"With awareness practice, however, one is not being asked to believe in anything or to operate from any theory - or even to regard ones own preferences for the afterlife - but to recognize the way it actually is at this moment.


..."So this helps me to recognize that I don't have to know what happens after physical death, because I cant know, and it doesn't really matter. I am not asking for some kind of affirmation to make me feel better"

[nowheat]

For example there is a belief that awakening is not possible in this life as it takes many lives to do that. Looking at amount of awakened monks and or lay people seems to support this... How many Arhats do you know? So if there is one life, you can't even remove most clinging as it can require many lifetimes for some people.

There is, of course, another way of looking at this.

In my understanding, the Buddha sometimes tells us that we end up living in the world we created with our own ways of thinking about the world. Sometimes this might end up looking a little like a self-fulfilling prophecy, which could be what's going on here. So from my point of view (one in which the Buddha taught that clinging to beliefs about rebirth -- whether positive or negative -- is a mistake that will hold one back) the reason we don't have a whole lot of people walking around who are awakened is due, in part, to them believing it takes many lifetimes and that they have many lifetimes in which to make it happen. Not that this makes them lazy or anything like that -- that's not what I'm saying -- but it means they are clinging to beliefs about rebirth, and that is a hindrance.

[Ceisiwr]

And from huang po and ajahn chah

Huang po - Sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it

...

If you students of the Way wish to become Buddhas, you need study no doctrines whatever, but learn only how to avoid seeking for and attaching yourselves to anything

And ajahn chah

Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing.