Chula wrote: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
[i]"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.'
Thank you for taking the time to answer, Chula.
But there is a big difference between the nihilist view in your example above, and "no view". The Buddha taught us not to cling to views; this is not the same as having a nihilistic view. The nihilist clings to a view that there is no <this or that>. The Buddha's way is to not cling to views of things you haven't actually experience for yourself*; it is viewless, not nihilistic.
* Once you have experienced something and given it an accurate look with the tools the Buddha gave you, it should not be a "view" anymore -- for example, seeing that thoughts come and go and are impermanent is not a "view" it's an understanding of how things are based on experience.
"What" is reborn would be the wrong question. The question should be "how" is there rebirth.
And yet you answer this question below, with the words: "Craving is what takes one to rebirth." Should I then ask you, "How is craving?" Craving is a *what*.
nowheat wrote:*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
[i]"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,...
However, I am not bringing in self-view. Just because I use common language like "what" does not mean I am saying the "what" has self. There is no "implicit" self in the word "what" -- "what" -- like everything else, has no self. You are not alone here in having the view that words that can cover objects must always cover objects (like the word "what" which can cover a rock, but also covers craving, which is not an object), but this is a view that is in the mind of the readers.
I could ask the same question and substitute for "something" the made-up word "someUnknownX" and I will still have the same question. If it's a process, not a thing, well, the word "something" covers a process as well, as seanpdx noted back here: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3527&start=80#p51873
If craving is what takes one to rebirth, then is it craving that carries the information that lets a Buddha recall his past life? Or what (process?) does that?