The Danger of Rebirth

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

"Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII. 117).
This is from the commentaries, i am only discussing the buddhas teachings as found in the canon, excluding the abhidhamma and comentries which were not taught by buddha.

Notice all forms of protecting rebirth stem from the wrong insights the commentaries put forward, remember dont believe something because it is scripture.

anattā - 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality,

is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattā doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattā-vādi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'.
Yes this is anatta.

Kammic accumulations and habitual reactions continue, until cessation
This is mundane dhamma, taught to lay people, other wanderers and brahmins, his own higher dhamma did not include it

If you can provide a sutta that shows that it is taught as higher dhamma please show me, however do not show me commentaries which as i said are not buddhas teachings and not something from the abhidhamma which was a later addition.

:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

gabriel

There are fruits & results of good & bad actions
This is mundane teaching for morality
There is mother & father
This is the same

Mundane doesnt lead to nibbana if held to

As i have said rebirth is and effluent, do you deny this?

To not have any effluents is to have supermundane right view is it not?

Therefore rebirth view is good but still needs to be abandoned.

By your line of thinking a person who holds that there are pleasant results which arise from skillful action and unpleasant results which arise from unskillful action is being held back by this view.

Not at first, but if this is all they hold to then yes. This is because it is a teaching grounded in morality and makes for future becoming not release.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

The core of the buddhas teachings is in the supermundane dhamma

Rebirth is not supermundane dhamma

Rebirth is not central to the buddhas message, it leads to delight and craving

There is no Rebirth because there is no true "I" to be reborn.

Those who cling to rebirth cling to the mundane dhamma, they wont reach nibbana
o Hold the view that there is no rebirth is just as likley to hold you back
Supermundane doesnt include rebirth.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

The point im trying to make is that mundane right view isnt wrong understanding of the buddhas teachings, only that it should be seen for what it is, a mundane teaching that one needs to eventualy let go of so one can realise the higher dhamma and be liberated.

The point is the buddha has stated rebirth is mundane view, it is not the central teachings and is something that needs to be done away with eventually. The buddha has stated that it is a view with effluents.

One who holds rebirth stays in the mundane, they hold that it is central and for this they are mistaken. To hold rebirth as central is to hold the mundane as central and is to cut one off from the higher dhamma and from nibbana.

I dont deny rebirth was taught, just that its meaning and centrality have been distorted through the centuries.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Prasadachitta »

Not at first, but if this is all they hold to then yes. This is because it is a teaching grounded in morality and makes for future becoming not release.


I agree that practice is best when one is aware that all views are provisional contingent upon confirmation through direct knowledge. I know for example that when I have acted with the intention to create harmony and bring well being to others my experience virtually always is one which is more pleasant than painful. Now you would call this a statement of "mundane right view". I would just say that it is an observation which is as true as any else I might be able to declare.

Here is what I think the Buddha is getting at in the sutta you quoted. Sometimes I act with the intention I stated above more for the purpose of recreating the results which I have come to expect from earlier similar actions. Sometimes I act this way more out of a sense of ease and confidence without expectation. This second way of acting skillfully has more to do with faith in awakening and letting go than with my limited recollection of experience.

I think this can be true of people who default to rebirth as being real or people who don't. I think our views are much more fluid and fragile than what we usually declare them to be. I think that transcendent right view is when we see this so clearly that we just naturally defer to our confidence in the potential for liberation.

Metta

Gabriel
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ben »

clw_uk wrote:The point im trying to make is that mundane right view isnt wrong understanding of the buddhas teachings, only that it should be seen for what it is, a mundane teaching that one needs to eventualy let go of so one can realise the higher dhamma and be liberated.

The point is the buddha has stated rebirth is mundane view, it is not the central teachings and is something that needs to be done away with eventually. The buddha has stated that it is a view with effluents.

One who holds rebirth stays in the mundane, they hold that it is central and for this they are mistaken. To hold rebirth as central is to hold the mundane as central and is to cut one off from the higher dhamma and from nibbana.

I dont deny rebirth was taught, just that its meaning and centrality have been distorted through the centuries.
Hi Craig

Can you please provide any canonical textual support for your contention that the doctrine of rebirth was taught to one class of disciple while a negation of rebirth was taught to another class of disciple.
Further, could you please provide analysis of the Tipitaka and commentaries by credible scholars and textual historians that support your argument.
If not, can you please reference the original source of your argument. Is it a conclusion that you have come to or is it based on the discourses of a teacher and/or writers who you hold dear?
Many thanks

Ben
“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]..
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by mikenz66 »

clw_uk wrote: One must hold certain view in order to awaken to set one in the right direction, i agree that there needs to be development in training. I didnt just pick a view and went with that, i myself started with rebirth view, ive never had a problem with it until my practice progressed to see the error in it through insight and contemplation . My point is that many buddhists take the rebirth view with them so to speak, they dont realise it was mundane and abandon it and this is a great hindrance.
As I see it, this rebirth argument only keeps coming up because you (and Element) keep stating your view on rebirth, and dismissing any attempt at discussion by simply rejecting it ("that's mundane", "that's commentary", "that's a hangover from the brahmins", etc...).

The odd thing is that as far as I can tell there is no real disagreement here about the supramundane between you and the commentaries, etc.

If you really have transcended views through insight I rejoice in your merit. However, your posts give the impression that you are clinging rather tightly to a particular view...

Metta
Mike
Element

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Element »

clw_uk wrote:Since the Buddha did not teach rebirth as part of his higher dhamma it is dangerous to hold onto it if one wants to reach nibbana.

Any comments would be appreciated.
Buddha said his Dhamma has just one taste, just like the great ocean has just one taste.

If our mind does not taste death, it will not taste those dhammas that remedy death.

Our mind will not know the Buddha's nibbana nor the Buddha.
Element

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Element »

mikenz66 wrote: In my opinion your conclusion is based on selective reading of the Suttas, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Furthermore, since no-one here, as far as I can tell, has developed supramundane right view it would be extremely dangerous to one's chance of liberation to disregard "mundane right view" and abandon the raft mid-stream.
Suttas have variety. They are not all consistent.

Regarding the supramundane, it includes the perfection of morality rather than the abandonment of morality.

Supramundane right view includes morality. Mundane right view includes morality but not the Buddha's nibbana or liberation.

Not comprehending the supramundane makes liberation impossible. The word 'dangerous' is an understatement.

One has to begin before being able to 'abandon the raft mid-stream'. Without supramundane right view, one does not begin.
Element

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Element »

gabrielbranbury wrote:There is nothing in the Sutta you quote which indicates that there is no you to be reborn and there is no rebirth.
We must be reading different suttas.

:reading:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by tiltbillings »

clw_uk wrote:Mikenz66, in order to awaken one needs to leave mundane right view, see the error and danger in it and transcend to the higher dhamma.

:namaste:
Leave "mundane right view?" Well, yeah, I suppose, but one just cannot "leave mundane right view" by saying I am leaving "mundane right view" now " anymore than one can say "I am not going to have a self-view any more"" and thusly no longer have a sense of "I am" in relation to one's experience. "Mundane right view" is part the set of tools for awakening.

As for rebirth, it was very much part of the Buddha's awakening experience.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

When talking to bhikkhus it was supermundane dhamma as taught here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .ntbb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The birth, death etc in this is the birth and death of dependent origination, the birth and death of the sense of self, about dukkha. This is in accord with the buddhas supermundane dhamma which was about emptiness and quenching of dukkha.



The fact that the buddha teaches rebirth when talking to a student of another sect can be shown here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is a teaching in rebirth and morality, mundane not connected with nibbana

There are many others these are just examples.

Forgive me for not copying and pasting but i felt they were to large.

If you really have transcended views through insight I rejoice in your merit. However, your posts give the impression that you are clinging rather tightly to a particular view...
Thank you friend but sadly i am not an arahant and have not transcended all view i freely admit this.

I do not cling to my view however, i used to hold rebirth and i did cling to it however through practice i have realised that it is a mundane teaching, you cannot deny that the buddha taught it is a view with effluents and that supermundane view does not include it.

It does not include it because it is connected with emptiness, there is no "I" or "me" to be reborn there is only birth through contact.

I disagree with the commentaries because from what i have read they place rebirth as central, as supermundane. They also teach re-linking but you know my view reguarding that so i wont go into that here.

As stated I dont deny that the buddha taught rebirth, but it was mundane and needs to be seen as a view with an error. Buddhists these days take it as central and cling all the more to it.
Further, could you please provide analysis of the Tipitaka and commentaries by credible scholars and textual historians that support your argument.
I dont go by historians and scholars I go by my understanding through experience and also through the teachings of the Ajahns. Buddhadasa covers it quite well here

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books ... ebirth.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He covers the true understanding of the higherdhamma teaching of anatta and rebirth.

If not, can you please reference the original source of your argument
Right view of rebirth is a view with effluents

Supermundane view is a view without effluents

Supermundane view does not include view of rebirth

Supermundane includes teachings on emptiness, there is no rebirth because there is no "i" to be reborn

I hold it is dangerous to hold rebirth because it is mundane, therefore it does not lead one to nibbana

:namaste:
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Ceisiwr »

As for rebirth, it was very much part of the Buddha's awakening experience.
He seen his past "abodes" not past lives

This means he seen how in the past he grasped at the aggregates as self.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by tiltbillings »

Element wrote:
gabrielbranbury wrote:There is nothing in the Sutta you quote which indicates that there is no you to be reborn and there is no rebirth.
We must be reading different suttas.

:reading:
Basically, you are telling gabrielbranbury that he/she is wrong, but without a carefully showing gabrielbranbury why the sutta supports your point of view rather than his/hers, you are merely gainsaying, which does not tell us anything at all other than you do not agree with gabrielbranbury.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Element

Re: The Danger of Rebirth

Post by Element »

Chris wrote:BUT - the Buddha also taught that this "flux of latent tendencies and kammic accumulations" (me and you)rebecomes in another form and place after the death of the current one. What is so controversial about that?
Chris

Your view is extremely controversial because it is a form of nihilism. It is depersonaling the teaching of rebirth, which is intended to promote morality. Why bother taking responsibility for the advancement of life when it can merely be passed on impersonally in a next life?

The Buddhist teachings for children, such as the Jataka stories, teach how the Bodhisatta over many lifetimes perfected his virtures. It was the same person over many lifetimes, not a different person.

In the suttas, Buddha did not generally mix the mundane and the supramundane. The anusaya or tendencies is supramundane.

In most suttas that mention rebirth, an actual person is reborn. Thus, your view Chris is very controversial.
Then Ven. Sariputta and Ven. Ananda, having given this instruction to Anathapindika the householder, got up from their seats and left. Then, not long after they left, Anathapindika the householder died and reappeared in the Tusita heaven. Then Anathapindika the deva's son, in the far extreme of the night, his extreme radiance lighting up the entirety of Jeta's Grove, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and stood to one side. As he was standing there, he addressed the Blessed One.

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Lord, that must have been Anathapindika the deva's son. Anathapindika the householder had supreme confidence in Ven. Sariputta."

"Very good, Ananda. Very good, to the extent that you have deduced what can be arrived at through logic. That was Anathapindika the deva's son, and no one else."

MN 143
Last edited by Element on Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply