The Danger of Rebirth

[tiltbillings]

He says "gandhabba" but this doesnt really make clear to what is referenced

gandhabbas are devas or something arent they in mythology of india at the time

And kamma (literal meaning, action) at the time of the Buddha referred to ritual action, not ethical action, and the Buddha used it, like he used a lot of words, giving them different meaning in the contexts of his teachings. SN IV 400 will help clarify the meaning. Gandhabba is a figurative (I thought you liked figurative speech) way of talking about consciousness that is necessary for conception.

[mikenz66]

So how did they come to be from any previous existence

SN IV 400 (CDB ii 1393) Also, see MN I 265-6.

I guess the first is : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The second is MN38 to Sati, as quoted above:
http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

[Ben]

Dear friends

For the sake of readability, please refrain from reproducing entire suttas in a post when only a statement or paragraph from the text will suffice.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Ben

[robertk]

Just to add, I actually don't think that anatta can be understood and digested, and certainly not 'seen' without the wisdom of rebirth. I don't know if I learned things backwards, but this is how I see it. Anatta fails to make much sense without rebirth and frankly I think it reduces these teachings to a cheap psychology of sorts.

I hope I don't get struck down by lightening for saying that about the problem of the reducing the Buddha's teachings in this way.

Respectfully,
Drolma

Why would you get struck down, what you say is absolutely correct. Anatta implies rebirth as anatta is about conditionality.
Anyone who thinks there is no rebirth is by an anihilationist who rejects anatta.

[kc2dpt]

From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming

It states everytime there is clinging there is becoming

It doesn't state that at all. You're getting it backwards again. Read again my analogy with fire and wood.

it doesnt state there is a temporal gap

It doesn't state there isn't either.

[tiltbillings]

Mike:

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

Actually, the discourse I was referring to ends on SN iv 400; the one you linked to starts on SN iv 400.

SN IV (339-)400 (CDB ii 1393):

Just as a fire burns with fuel, not without fuel, so Vaccha, I declare rebirth for one with fuel, not for one without fuel. . . . When, Vaccha, a being has laid down his body but has yet been born in another body, I declare that it is fuelled by craving. For on that occasion craving it is fuel."

Ven Bodhi in using the word fuel is punning on the double meaning of upādāna, which also means clinging. In the elided section the Buddha talks about the fuel, upādāna, of a fire, which gets carried over to the fuel for rebirth.

Craig keeps going on about consciousness needing a base and after death, there is no longer a base, and he keeps saying things about some sort of impossible free floating consciousness thing, which he maintains is not the Buddha's teachings. No one here is advocating a free floating consciousness thing. It is worth repeating Ven Nyanatiloka's translation of Buddhaghosa:

"Neither has this (rebirth-) consciousness transmigrated from the previous existence to this present existence, nor did it arise without such conditions, as karma, karma-formations, propensity, object, etc. That this consciousness has not come from the previous existence to this present existence, yet that it has come into existence by means of conditions included in the previous existence, such as karma (q.v.), etc., this fact may be illustrated by various things, such as the echo, the light of a lamp, the impression of a seal, or the image produced by a mirror. For just as the resounding of the echo is conditioned by a sound, etc., and nowhere a transmigration of sound has taken place, just so it is with this consciousness. Further it is said: 'In this continuous process, no sameness and no otherness can be found.' For if there were full identity (between the different stages), then also milk never could turn into curd. And if there were a complete otherness, then curd could never come from milk.... If in a continuity of existence any karma-result takes place, then this karma-result neither belongs to any other being, nor does it come from any other (kamma), because absolute sameness and otherness are excluded here" (Vis, XVII 164ff).

[mikenz66]

OK, thanks, here's Thanissaro's translation then: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike

[Ngawang Drolma.]

He says "gandhabba" but this doesnt really make clear to what is referenced

gandhabbas are devas or something arent they in mythology of india at the time

Gandhabba:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rcN ... #PPA105,M1

[tiltbillings]

MN I 265-6: Bhikkhus, with the coming together of three things a descent to the womb comes about: Here the mother and father come together. It is not the season of the mother. The gandhabba does not attend. Then there is no descent to the womb. Here, mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother. The gandhabba does not attend. Then there is no descent to the womb. Here mother and father come together. It is the season of the mother and the gandhabba attends. Then there is a descent to the womb. That mother protects the womb for nine or ten months with great anxiety and trouble. After nine or ten months that mother gives birth with great anxiety and trouble.

This is in the middle of a discourse that starts with the Buddha taking to task Sati who held the wrong view that …this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'. So, one of the subjects of this discourse is rebirth, and we see that the Buddha rejects the idea of consciousness moving from life to life. Also, a central part of this discourse is paticcasamuppada. Gandhabba is probably best understood as a way of talking about the collective forces that fuelled by craving that give rise to rebirth.

This presents a bit of a different view in direct relationship with paticcasamuppada:

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

"No, lord."

"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"

"No, lord."

"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off, would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"

"No, lord."

"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

- DN II 62-3.

Again, it is not consciousness that is a thing that moves from life to life.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Gandhabba is probably best understood as a way of talking about the collective forces that fuelled by craving that give rise to rebirth.

Well said

I actually got that article from Chris (cooran) here at Dhammawheel.

But I think what you wrote above is a great way to describe rebirth in general. /\

[puthujjana]

A) Dependent Origination cannot cover three lives

Could you please explain why?

Thank you in advance.

with metta

[puthujjana]

Just to add, I actually don't think that anatta can be understood and digested, and certainly not 'seen' without the wisdom of rebirth. I don't know if I learned things backwards, but this is how I see it. Anatta fails to make much sense without rebirth and frankly I think it reduces these teachings to a cheap psychology of sorts.

I hope I don't get struck down by lightening for saying that about the problem of the reducing the Buddha's teachings in this way.

Respectfully,
Drolma

Thank you Drolma.

[Ceisiwr]

Robert

Why would you get struck down, what you say is absolutely correct. Anatta implies rebirth as anatta is about conditionality.
Anyone who thinks there is no rebirth is by an anihilationist who rejects anatta

An anihilationist is someone who holds there is a self to be anihilated, dont assume that because someone says there is no rebirth one is an anihilationist

[Ceisiwr]

This is going to be a quick response

Tiltbillings

In that Sutta it states the begining of the round of dependen origination doesnt it, which is when a child is old enough and there is six-sense bases, external forms and contact


As the the DN teaching on D.O. it seems to be a later addition or distortion since it doesnt fit with all the other suttas that discuss D.O.

As for gandhabba, this could just be sperm


Also in that sutta of MN-38 it states

Bhikkhus,from what do these four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop?

These four supports originate, rise, take birth and develop from craving.

Bhikkhus, from what does craving originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Craving originates, rises, takes birth and develops from feelings.

Bhikkhus, from what do feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Feelings originate, rise, take birth and develop from contact.

Bhikkhus, from what does contact originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Contact originates, rises, takes birth and develops from the six mental faculties.

Bhikkhus, from what do the six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop?

The six mental faculties originate, rise, take birth and develop from name and matter.

Bhikkhus, from what do name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop?

Name and matter originate, rise, take birth and develop from consciousness.

Bhikkhus, from what does consciousness originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Consciousness originates rises, takes birth and develops from determinations.

Bhikkhus, from what do determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop? .

Determinations originate, rise, take birth and develop from ignorance

Since one is already born, it shows that Jati means birth of sense of "I" or birth of parts of the chain, not physical birth

[kc2dpt]

As the the DN teaching on D.O. it seems to be a later addition or distortion since it doesnt fit with all the other suttas that discuss D.O.

Or it's an earlier addition predating certain standardizations. One can't tell.
But it is awfully convenient to dismiss any scripture that doesn't agree with you as a "later addition", don't you think?