the Dhamma without rebirth: amoral and what else?

[nowheat]

"Moving to a new body" is a little misleading, as the body and mind of the greater 'being' are both arisen together. But yes, the 'being' does not travel from life to life as a unified thing, but is rather the result of cause and effect on a massive scale. The six elements are impersonal in the sense that none of them is a self, but when acted on by cause and effect they are forced together to create a 'being'. This being responds to the cause and effect (kamma) which is creating it and acting on it, and so it in turn perpetuates the kamma that forces the creation of the 'being' from moment-to-moment and life-to-life.

Now we can see and measure the first five elements, but it is the inclusion of consciousness as an element which can be acted on by events which takes this whole things from the realm of mechanical materialism to the spiritual.

When people struggle with the idea of rebirth I suspect they are struggling with a very subtle perception of having a 'real' self. A 'real' self is not something that can be reconciled with all this talk on the aggregates, rebirth and nibbana.

What I am struggling with is not my perception of the self, but with what's in the suttas. *Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.

[nowheat]

"Being" is a term which is posited upon the aggregates as "I" (or sometimes outside of them, but associated with them as "mine" or "my soul"). Those aggregates however, change all the time. They change because they are conditioned. As the conditions change, they change. Even this is just an expression. Rather than "aggregate changes", which implies that it is still essentially the same thing, albeit in a different form, one may also consider it in the sense of "not even the same aggregate". However, the "essentially the same" approach leads most to fall to the extreme of eternalism, whereas the "not the same same" approach makes most fall to the extreme of annihilism.

I actually think of it as a process, not a "thing" in any way, because a process is in a continual state of flux based on what's fueling it. It seems to me this is what the Buddha was trying to get to with his metaphor of fire.

Metaphor is different. eg. "the mind is like the driver of a car". It's an even more colloquial parallel that may help one understand. But don't then examine the metaphor, find holes in it, and declare that the argument is thus invalid. It just means that the metaphor is not a 100% parallel, that is all.

I am not using the metaphor of a candle flame to poke holes in the explanation of being. I am not confusing the candle flame with the being; please notice that this is not my question to you.

My question is: Are you saying that the Buddha is not just using candle as a metaphor but that his use of the word "being" here is some kind of a metaphor entirely apart from the candle metaphor. Are you saying that he did not literally mean that a being moves out of the body sustained by craving? That "being" too was a metaphor for something else?

There is continuity of causality. That is not a "thing" which could "move" anywhere. But in the whole process, there is nothing outside of that causal process.

So it seems we agree we're talking about a process; that'll be helpful in discussion.

Then this is my problem: As I mentioned in my most recent answer to thereductor, *something* with a long lifespan must tie the current existence to all those past births and lives or the Buddha would not have been able to remember so many prior lives. It's a pretty remarkable process (or a remarkable "whatever") that is in flux but sustains detailed information inside of it. So what I am trying to understand is what this "thing or no-thing" is that is continuous from life to life to life for eons -- some part of it so unchanging as to be able to still contain the oldest information in a way that is so reliable as to be undoubted: what did the Buddha say about its beginning? How did such a thing come to exist, from what causes?

[meindzai]

I actually think of it as a process, not a "thing"

Then this is my problem: As I mentioned in my most recent answer to thereductor, *something*

First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*

The Buddha did specifically say that the question of "who _____" is incorectly phrased: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.'

So again we are talking entirely about processes without "things" for them to happen to. To phrase it linguistically (this has always helped me) we are used to thinking in terms of verbs happening to nouns - and in this case there is just a verb. I am told that non-Asian speakers have more of a problem with this as languages like Chinese can have an action with no object. (I don't know if this is true. I think I learned it from an Alan Watts talk back in the day before I realized he was often full of poop. lol)

-M

[seanpdx]

What I am struggling with is not my perception of the self, but with what's in the suttas. *Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.

The classical explanation that I've always heard is the positing of a "rebirth consciousness". This be the magical ingredient. To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha himself never explains rebirth ontologically.

[meindzai]

Nowheat,

I also would like to point out that as analytical as you seem to be you would probably benefit greatly from studying Abhidhamma. For those of us who have trouble with the rebirth process becuase we want to know "how it works," it is a great help. Also, you can never read too much about dependent origination.

-M

[seanpdx]

First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*

You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing". A flame is most certainly a thing: that thing being visible light (radiation) resulting from chemical combustion.

How does a flame move from one candle to another, as the common metaphor goes? While a flame moving from one candle to another can quite easily be explained, the rebirth phenomenon cannot. And that, I believe, is what nowheat was trying to ask.

[meindzai]

First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*

You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing".

I'm not nihlistically claiming that things do not exist at all- but because they are anicca, they are anatta. All conditioned "things" are without a self - they do not have any inherent "thing-ness" or existence about them. What we call things are just handy names we give to processes. We give them a self.

-M

[seanpdx]

First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*

You cannot simply claim "process" and submit that there isn't a "thing".

I'm not nihlistically claiming that things do not exist at all- but because they are anicca, they are anatta. All conditioned "things" are without a self - they do not have any inherent "thing-ness" or existence about them. What we call things are just handy names we give to processes. We give them a self.

-M

You may not be making any nihilistic claims of non-existence, but you do seem to be misrepresenting and disregarding the actual question. I tried to clarify what I believe nowheat is trying to ask. Do you have a response to the second paragraph I wrote in that particular post?

[meindzai]

You may not be making any nihilistic claims of non-existence, but you do seem to be misrepresenting and disregarding the actual question.

As I pointed out, and as the Buddha points out in the Sutta I mentioned - the question is wrongly phrased, which is why it has to be disregarded.

I tried to clarify what I believe nowheat is trying to ask. Do you have a response to the second paragraph I wrote in that particular post?

Again, the question is incorrectly phrased, since there is no self that moves from one place/thing. etc. to another.

The questions and answers are in the Suttas that describe dependent origination. They revolve around the central question - which is what is the cause of suffering and what is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. "What clings" or "what is born" or "what transmigrates" are all incorrectly phrased. Again:

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.1

The same can be said of any of the links of D.O.

-M

[seanpdx]

As I pointed out, and as the Buddha points out in the Sutta I mentioned - the question is wrongly phrased, which is why it has to be disregarded.

Again, the question is incorrectly phrased, since there is no self that moves from one place/thing. etc. to another.

So... does that mean you don't understand how a flame moves from one candle to another?

[nowheat]

Nowheat,

I also would like to point out that as analytical as you seem to be you would probably benefit greatly from studying Abhidhamma. For those of us who have trouble with the rebirth process becuase we want to know "how it works," it is a great help. Also, you can never read too much about dependent origination.

-M

Thanks, M. I hope "Book of Analysis: Translation of Vibhanga" is a good choice because it's the one I have on its way to me. I can't afford too many books and am too darned slow at reading "heavy" books to do well with interlibrary loan. What do you think, was there a better choice of Abhidhamma to work on?

[nowheat]

If I were to point to a "reason" why having some sort of "post-mortem continuation attitude" would be helpful, it would be to do with countering annihilationistic tendencies of the mind, not some kindergarten idea about "crime and punishment". And, of course, it needs to be taken with a dose of anatta, to counter eternalistic tendencies...

Hi Mike.

It seems to me that, without one having direct evidence that gives experiential knowledge of rebirth, faith is required to use rebirth to counter annihilationistic tendencies, faith in the Buddha's teaching on rebirth. Anatta, on the other hand, we have been taught skills to see directly for ourselves. Wouldn't it be more direct to simply have faith in the Buddha's teaching that clinging to the annihilationist view (along with the eternalist view) is unwise? In other words, the way you have it is two steps: (1) faith that the Buddha taught rebirth and that rebirth is the way the cosmos works so that (2) you can have faith that annihaltionism is as unwise as he said it is. Whereas I would skip (1) and go directly to (2).

[nowheat]

I actually think of it as a process, not a "thing"

Then this is my problem: As I mentioned in my most recent answer to thereductor, *something*

First you said it was a process, but then you said *something.* So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the "thing" is. Remember, there isn't a thing. The flame metaphor is to indicate that. A flame is not a thing (though it kind of looks like one). It's a process of *burning.*

So again we are talking entirely about processes without "things" for them to happen to. To phrase it linguistically (this has always helped me) we are used to thinking in terms of verbs happening to nouns - and in this case there is just a verb. I am told that non-Asian speakers have more of a problem with this as languages like Chinese can have an action with no object. (I don't know if this is true. I think I learned it from an Alan Watts talk back in the day before I realized he was often full of poop. lol)

-M

Thanks M, I really like that insight into this process through language.

When you said, "First you said it was a process, but then you said 'something.' So I think your problem is that you're still trying to determine what the 'thing' is." I think you were mistaking words for meaning. You had just quoted me saying that I believe we're talking about a process; I followed this with other comments in which I used a variety of words for "whatever" "it" is. Even "it" makes it sound like I believe "it" has some substance but they are just words. I said I believe what the Buddha was describing was a process, and from then on whatever words I use to describe this thing, it should remain clear that that's my position, okay?

It's also important to also stay clear on this: I am not trying to come to understand what *I* believe the Buddha said here, nor am I trying to fit it into my own experience. I am working towards understanding what those who accept that the Buddha taught rebirth believe the Buddha was saying. I'm actually not even trying to understand what the writers of the abhidharma thought the Buddha was saying about rebirth; what I want is to get clear on how the folks in this forum understand what is reborn, how rebirth works, and why it is absolutely integral to the Buddha's teaching as seen through the eyes of our own modern-day practitioners.

[nowheat]

Hi,
I think that "a being as what's generated by the five aggregates" is misleading. It is not a case of the aggregates "generating" anything, maybe as a basis for designation, though. So there is not "being that goes missing once one becomes an arahant". The only thing that goes missing are the fetters. One of these is the idea of a being, but not a being itself. As for "its the anatman" - sounds like some serious reification going on there, making an adjectival term "anatman" into a noun as "it". Likewise for a "non-self that gets reborn".

It almost sounds like the Puggalavadins, but different again. Certainly doesn't sound like what the suttas are saying to me.

Please see my note to meindzai above about language and "process". The thing about the word "being" is that in our times we give it a concreteness that I don't think applies to it in the Buddha's day, where it had more emphasis on change, on the dynamic, effervescent nature of what it referred to -- back again to "process". So for example although in our day we understand rocks to be changing, in the Buddha's day they weren't seen as particularly changeable so rocks did not have a "being".

I would ask you about your understanding of the following, then: given that we agree that "being" is meant in the illusory sense, when the Buddha said, as Kenshou quoted:

"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

in your understanding, is the Buddha here speaking literally that this "being" leaves the body and is sustained by craving until it is reborn in another body, or is this "being" a metaphor, and if so what is the metaphor saying? Please note I am not asking what the metaphor of the *candleflame* is saying, I'm saying that if we are not taking it literally, that a "being" leaves a body, if "being" here is *also* a metaphor, what is "being" a metaphor for?

<trying to extricate self from the knots of language, this may take me the rest of the day>

[Chula]

Also, I would say that for me, the thought of rebirth, if it does anything at all, makes me lazier. I think "ah well, plenty more lives to work things out, so for now I'll just bum about in samsara."

Similarly, those without the belief in rebirth may be inclined to give full effort to the path, because they only believe they have one life in which to do it.

The thought of rebirth is actually supposed to make you run for a way out - it's not a reassurance at all:
SN 15.13: Tiṃsamattasutta
"The blood you have shed when, being cows, you had your cow-heads cut off: Long has this been greater than the water in the four great oceans."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Interesting to note that after this teaching the monks became Arahants. The idea that belief in rebirth is just mundane right view to be disposed off after seeing the Dhamma finds no support here.

My view is that that view is not what he taught and in fact does his teaching a grave disservice in that it portrays his teaching as requiring that we first take a step that causes us to cling (anew if we aren't believers in rebirth in the first place, harder if we are) to a self-view that is antithetical to what he wanted us to see.

There is something called right view. Having right view doesn't mean you're trying to have no views - that would be a view in itself. About the importance of right view:
AN 10.176: Cundakammāraputtasutta
"He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'
Furthermore, as a result.., [rebirth in] hell is declared, [rebirth in] an animal womb is declared, [rebirth in] the realm of hungry shades is declared — that or any other bad destination."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Now somebody is going to come along and say "well, but this is just selfish...you don't want to make bad kamma because you personally don't want to suffer, and how does that go along with no-self and all of that?" To which my answer is, yes, most of us are not that far along the path. We need "conventional" dhamma until we get to a certain level of realization.

The not-self teaching does not mean you're not supposed to be selfish. On the contrary, the whole path is practiced because one is selfish. But this type of selfishness actually ends up helping others.
Ud 5.1: Rājasutta
"Searching all directions with one's awareness, one finds no one dearer than oneself. In the same way, others are fiercely dear to themselves. So one should not hurt others if one loves oneself."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I have come to the conclusion that I need to understand what the perception is of what it is that goes on to a rebirth "after the breakup of the body". Clearly it's not the soul/atman. Is it The Force? Is it a wave of vipaka? Is there a word in common use for it? Are there suttas that describe this {whatever}? I haven't tripped across any yet and I've been reading suttas in my free time for a couple of years now. All I ever seem to encounter is negatives and never do I see the Buddha say that anything at all -- not even a metaphor for anything at all -- goes on.

"What" is reborn would be the wrong question. The question should be how is there rebirth. Here's your simile:
SN 44.9 - Kutuhalasālāsutta:
I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without sustenance. Just as a fire burns with sustenance and not without sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance and not of one without sustenance."
"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."
"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

*Something* ties the new being to the old being and I can't figure out what that is. But something does, else how could the Buddha have seen all his past lives? I want to know what the Buddha says it is, and what it arises from, since he clearly says that nothing arises spontaneously.

Craving is what takes one to rebirth. Whenever you speak of "something" being reborn, you're implicitly bringing in self-view (sakkhāyaditthi). And that arises because of inappropriate attention (ayoniso manasikhāra):
SN 41.3: Isidattasutta
"But, venerable sir, how does self-identity view come into being?"
"There is the case, householder, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form... He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identity view comes into being."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

As I pointed out, and as the Buddha points out in the Sutta I mentioned - the question is wrongly phrased, which is why it has to be disregarded.

So... does that mean you don't understand how a flame moves from one candle to another?

The question is put aside because it leads one to a thicket of views, a tangle of views, or in other words, to suffering:
MN 2: Sabbasavasutta
"As he attends inappropriately in this way,... This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[seanpdx]

(really big post)

But do you understand all that stuff you're quoting from accesstoinsight? Do you understand why such questions, for example, lead to a thicket of views?

[meindzai]

(really big post)

But do you understand all that stuff you're quoting from accesstoinsight? Do you understand why such questions, for example, lead to a thicket of views?

It seemed pretty clear to me that Chula was giving his views and backing them up with passages from the canon, rather than just pasting quotes or espousing some personal theory. And I think that question has been answered repeatedly in this thread. Such questions lead to a thicket of views because they are the wrong question. They are inappropriate, they do not lead to awakening.

-M

[mikenz66]

Hi nowheat,

If I were to point to a "reason" why having some sort of "post-mortem continuation attitude" would be helpful, it would be to do with countering annihilationistic tendencies of the mind, not some kindergarten idea about "crime and punishment". And, of course, it needs to be taken with a dose of anatta, to counter eternalistic tendencies...

Hi Mike.

It seems to me that, without one having direct evidence that gives experiential knowledge of rebirth, faith is required to use rebirth to counter annihilationistic tendencies, faith in the Buddha's teaching on rebirth. Anatta, on the other hand, we have been taught skills to see directly for ourselves. Wouldn't it be more direct to simply have faith in the Buddha's teaching that clinging to the annihilationist view (along with the eternalist view) is unwise? In other words, the way you have it is two steps: (1) faith that the Buddha taught rebirth and that rebirth is the way the cosmos works so that (2) you can have faith that annihaltionism is as unwise as he said it is. Whereas I would skip (1) and go directly to (2).

Yes, but faith is required in any case that there is actually a way out.

E.g. see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html which we discussed recently... I can't find that discussion but here is an older one http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=854

Mike

Mike

[seanpdx]

Such questions lead to a thicket of views because they are the wrong question. They are inappropriate, they do not lead to awakening.

Why? How?

[vinasp]

Hi nowheat,

You said :
"The debate here, for me, is not about whether there is rebirth or is not rebirth, the central point I am working on is whether the Buddha *taught* rebirth as necessary to his path."

You are assuming that there is only one path and that we are all on it. Most lay followers and most monks were on the "wrong eightfold path" which is most certainly not the noble eightfold path.
Some of the Buddha's teachings are ambiguous and are understood in one way by those on the wrong path, and in another way by those on the noble eightfold path.
A belief in rebirth was expected of those on the wrong path. Since they had a "view of self" they would not ask "What is reborn?", for them, it was obvious.

Best wishes, Vincent.