the great rebirth debate

[Lazy_eye]

After having followed this debate (and sometimes participated in it) for years, I'm still not clear on why belief in rebirth is considered necessary for awakening. What exactly is its role in bringing this about?

From what I can see, the arguments for rebirth being necessary often hinge on the following:

1. It is included in some (but not all) definitions of Right View.
2. Since the Buddha taught it, not believing it amounts to lack of saddhā, and thus poses a barrier to stream entry since one has not overcome skeptical doubt regarding the Dhamma.

I'll leave it to others to debate the validity of either 1 or 2 -- what I want to know is whether rebirth-belief has a part in the ultimate, liberating insight that Buddhists strive for.

The "three watches of the night" account of the Buddha's awakening seems to suggest that it doesn't, since rebirth is not mentioned in relation to the third watch of the night. We don't say the Buddha reached nibbana during the first or second watch, where rebirth is mentioned explicitly.

Just wondering. I've run into people who claim that one can make a certain amount of progress without accepting rebirth, but will be blocked from higher attainments. But to me the opposite makes more sense: rebirth/kamma are a foundation for sila and a way of approaching causality, but the belief would eventually pose an obstacle as it is a clinging to view. I can see that outright rejection of rebirth would also constitute a clinging to view and thus pose an obstacle, but this is not the same thing as saying that a rebirth belief is needed to become awakened.

[Alex123]

After having followed this debate (and sometimes participated in it) for years, I'm still not clear on why belief in rebirth is considered necessary for awakening. What exactly is its role in bringing this about?

Because without it, one is simply not motivated enough to practice hard (if effort on the path is required). One's conception of dukkha would only extend to this life, and one would still think within the context of this one life only. Ultimately, for some, worldly matters might override Dhamma. I am being realistic here. It might not be apparent to some people for now, but eventually it will.

Of course, it is great if one can fully practice, to the max, the path without belief in rebirth.

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will relentlessly exert ourselves, [thinking,] "Gladly would we let the flesh & blood in our bodies dry up, leaving just the skin, tendons, & bones, but if we have not attained what can be reached through human firmness, human persistence, human striving, there will be no relaxing our persistence."' That's how you should train yourselves."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Lazy_eye]

Because without it, one is simply not motivated enough to practice hard (if effort on the path is required). One's conception of dukkha would only extend to this life, and one would still think within the context of this one life only.

Yes, I have made a similar argument before. But still, it doesn't relate to nibbana per se -- just to the motivation of the practitioner.

Ultimately, for some, worldly matters might override Dhamma. I am being realistic here.

Isn't that true even for many Buddhists who do believe in rebirth? Don't lay Buddhists almost by definition fall into this category?

[Alex123]

Yes, I have made a similar argument before. But still, it doesn't relate to nibbana per se -- just to the motivation of the practitioner.

It relates to the development of the path. I've added two quotes in my above message about the level of motivation

Isn't that true even for many Buddhists who do believe in rebirth? Don't lay Buddhists almost by definition fall into this category?

They don't believe it enough. Just saying "I believe" doesn't always mean that deep down in the gut, and they need to fear hell just like you fear jumping into the cage with hungry tigers.

[Lazy_eye]

Yes, I have made a similar argument before. But still, it doesn't relate to nibbana per se -- just to the motivation of the practitioner.

It relates to the development of the path. I've added two quotes in my above message about the level of motivation.

So we can agree, then, that rebirth-belief is not connected with liberating insight, but rather with motivation? And in theory, a sufficiently motivated person could practice fully without that belief?

They don't believe it enough. Just saying "I believe" doesn't always mean that deep down in the gut, and they need to fear hell just like you fear jumping into the cage with hungry tigers.

But they don't need to reach nibbana in order to avoid hell; sotapanna is enough. So again this rebirth question seems to be associated with earlier stages on the path.

[Alex123]

So we can agree, then, that rebirth-belief is not connected with liberating insight, but rather with motivation? And in theory, a sufficiently motivated person could practice fully without that belief?

I do not know if belief in rebirth is required.
However, I doubt that many people will put in effort if one is agnostic about rebirth.
I do not know how believing "there is no rebirth" will prevent awakening. In suttas this is wrong view. But how that works, I don't know.

But they don't need to reach nibbana in order to avoid hell; sotapanna is enough. So again this rebirth question seems to be associated with earlier stages on the path.

It depends on the difficulty of "attaining" sotapatti.

[Lazy_eye]

I do not know how believing "there is no rebirth" will prevent awakening. In suttas this is wrong view. But how that works, I don't know.

Right, yeah, I am not referring to outright rejection of a "next life". That would be an obstructive view -- the suttas are clear on this point.

[Mkoll]

But they don't need to reach nibbana in order to avoid hell; sotapanna is enough. So again this rebirth question seems to be associated with earlier stages on the path.

Using this logic, the entire Dhamma teaching is not necessary because the entire "raft of Dhamma" is abandoned in the end. The practice of the Dhamma is associated with all the earlier stages on the path and in the end, it's abandoned because one has reached the far shore.

[Lazy_eye]

Hi James,
I don't think this follows from what I wrote earlier. I didn't call for throwing out any part of the path; I suggested that rebirth belief is not part of the liberating insights that result in nibbana. It may be beneficial for other reasons, such as generating the motivation to seek nibbana in the first place, but nibbana is not attained through contemplating rebirth; it is attained through other means, which the Buddha has outlined (e.g. Satipatthana).

There are various suttas, notably DN 11, in which the Buddha summarizes different kinds of meditative practices that bring about different results, including past life recollection, mind reading, and the ability to walk through walls. Most of these practices are tangential at best. But one of the meditation practices -- directing attention to the ending of mental formations -- is right on the mark. Thus we can see that although the Dhamma as it has come down to us includes a variety of teachings -- each of which may have its purpose -- not all of these teachings are connected with nibbana.

Likewise, there is the much-discussed MN 117 with its distinction between two kinds of Right View, one leading to acquisitions and the other to release.

[Nikaya35]

The day science proves without doubt death is the end , this would be a fatal blow to all religions including buddhism. This scenario ( death is the end ) would make the dharma pretty irrevelant in the long run. The goal of the dharma is to end dukkha but if death is the end, all living beings will end dukkha naturally at death. Maybe science will never find out the answer of what happens to us after death. Maybe scientists will found out someday.( death being the end) That would make the Buddha seriously wrong in this important matter. ( what happens to us after death) The Buddha was seriously deluded when he declared the destinations of beings after death and when he recorded his past lives. Or the Buddha was telling the truth.

[Nikaya35]

After having followed this debate (and sometimes participated in it) for years, I'm still not clear on why belief in rebirth is considered necessary for awakening. What exactly is its role in bringing this about?

From what I can see, the arguments for rebirth being necessary often hinge on the following:

1. It is included in some (but not all) definitions of Right View.
2. Since the Buddha taught it, not believing it amounts to lack of saddhā, and thus poses a barrier to stream entry since one has not overcome skeptical doubt regarding the Dhamma.

I'll leave it to others to debate the validity of either 1 or 2 -- what I want to know is whether rebirth-belief has a part in the ultimate, liberating insight that Buddhists strive for.

The "three watches of the night" account of the Buddha's awakening seems to suggest that it doesn't, since rebirth is not mentioned in relation to the third watch of the night. We don't say the Buddha reached nibbana during the first or second watch, where rebirth is mentioned explicitly.

Just wondering. I've run into people who claim that one can make a certain amount of progress without accepting rebirth, but will be blocked from higher attainments. But to me the opposite makes more sense: rebirth/kamma are a foundation for sila and a way of approaching causality, but the belief would eventually pose an obstacle as it is a clinging to view. I can see that outright rejection of rebirth would also constitute a clinging to view and thus pose an obstacle, but this is not the same thing as saying that a rebirth belief is needed to become awakened.

According to the sutras the Buddha attained 3 knowledges. In the first watch of the night , he remembered many past lives . In the second watch of the night , he understood how beings are reborn after death according to their actions. This is the second knowledge the Buddha attained. In the last watch of the night the Buddha understood the way leading to the cessation of taints. So yeah rebirth is pretty revelant to understand the buddha's enlightenment.

[Mkoll]

Hi James,
I don't think this follows from what I wrote earlier. I didn't call for throwing out any part of the path; I suggested that rebirth belief is not part of the liberating insights that result in nibbana.

Then what do you make of the stock phrase that is often repeated in the suttas about the arahant's knowledge of enlightenment?

Ven. Thanissaro:

He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven. Angulimala became another one of the arahants.

Ven. Bodhi:

He directly knew: "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being." And the venerable Angulimāla became on of the arahants.

EDIT: added emphasis to sutta quotes

[Lazy_eye]

According to the sutras the Buddha attained 3 knowledges. In the first watch of the night , he remembered many past lives . In the second watch of the night , he understood how beings are reborn after death according to their actions. This is the second knowledge the Buddha attained. In the last watch of the night the Buddha understood the way leading to the cessation of taints. So yeah rebirth is pretty revelant to understand the buddha's enlightenment.

Yes, the first two knowledges specifically refer to rebirth and kamma, whereas the third does not. And only the third knowledge actually constitutes the breakthrough that results in nibbana.

There isn't much that is specifically "Buddhist" about the first two knowledges, in any case. Jainism is much older than Buddhism and it also teaches about kamma and transmigration of beings. The third knowledge is what really sets the Buddha apart.

[Nikaya35]

According to the sutras the Buddha attained 3 knowledges. In the first watch of the night , he remembered many past lives . In the second watch of the night , he understood how beings are reborn after death according to their actions. This is the second knowledge the Buddha attained. In the last watch of the night the Buddha understood the way leading to the cessation of taints. So yeah rebirth is pretty revelant to understand the buddha's enlightenment.

Yes, the first two knowledges specifically refer to rebirth and kamma, whereas the third does not. And only the third knowledge actually constitutes the breakthrough that results in nibbana.

There isn't much that is specifically "Buddhist" about the first two knowledges, in any case. Jainism is much older than Buddhism and it also teaches about kamma and transmigration of beings. The third knowledge is what really sets the Buddha apart.

The third knowledge sets the Buddha's teachings apart but the first 2 knowledges are part of the buddha's enlightenment according to the sutras. I think ignoring the first 2 knowledges of buddha's enlightenment is incorrect. The Buddha claim to have 3 knowledges after all.

[Lazy_eye]

Hi James,
I don't think this follows from what I wrote earlier. I didn't call for throwing out any part of the path; I suggested that rebirth belief is not part of the liberating insights that result in nibbana.

Then what do you make of the stock phrase that is often repeated in the suttas about the arahant's knowledge of enlightenment?

Ven. Thanissaro:

He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus Ven. Angulimala became another one of the arahants.

Ven. Bodhi:

He directly knew: "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being." And the venerable Angulimāla became on of the arahants.

EDIT: added emphasis to sutta quotes

Birth (jati) in this context doesn't simply refer to physical birth, but rather to the proliferation of mental suffering caused by ignorance and craving. If the stock phrase were to be taken literally, it would mean the Dhamma is concerned primarily with the proliferation of physical bodies, but that's not the case.