the great rebirth debate

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:26 am Boo. Not convincing. It says the other world. T
Nibbana is not a "world". The suttas literally say this:
There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

Nibbāna Sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .irel.html
The sutta says:
There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world...
The Brahmins called heaven the "other world". It seems the Buddha called "hell" the "other world" which was to be feared as dangerous (MN 26), as follows:
I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach, and some who dwelt seeing fear and blame in the other world.

MN 26 https://suttacentral.net/mn26/en/bodhi
Above, from MN 26, it seems the "other world" feared & blamed cannot be Nibbana.

We can look back on history or at the current world, how good actions created good societies and how those same societies via bad actions became hell worlds. For example, last year all the riots & burnings of properties in the USA because of one murder. How did does this country become like this? :shrug:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mjaviem »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:39 am ...
Nibbana is not a "world". ..
I agree
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:39 am The Brahmins called heaven the "other world".
Yes, possibly those bhikkhus had the "brahmin mindset". It could be. :shrug:
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:39 am ...
Above, from MN 26, it seems the "other world" feared & blamed cannot be Nibbana. ...
It could be my english but I read there that they could be in fear of Nibbana... I know that there are those who are afraid of Nibbana that think life would lose its flavor and can't bear it
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by DooDoot »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:45 am
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:39 am ...
Above, from MN 26, it seems the "other world" feared & blamed cannot be Nibbana. ...
It could be my english but I read there that they could be in fear of Nibbana... I know that there are those who are afraid of Nibbana that think life would lose its flavor and can't bear it
MN 26 compares the smart people with the dusty people. It says:
And I saw sentient beings with little dust in their eyes, and some with much dust in their eyes; with keen faculties and with weak faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach. And some of them lived seeing the danger in the fault to do with the next world, while others did not.

Addasaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhikkhave, buddhacakkhunā lokaṁ volokento satte apparajakkhe mahārajakkhe, tikkhindriye mudindriye, svākāre dvākāre, suviññāpaye duviññāpaye, appekacce paralokavajjabhayadassāvine viharante, appekacce na paralokavajjabhayadassāvine viharante.

https://suttacentral.net/mn26/en/sujato
Above, the "seeing the danger & fault of the other world" applies to the smart people.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mjaviem »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 3:45 am ...
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:39 am The Brahmins called heaven the "other world".
Yes, possibly those bhikkhus had the "brahmin mindset". It could be. :shrug:
...
Yet "... there is mother and father..." doesn't seem to be brahmin's language. Too obvious if this were the case. No one could hold the wrong view that there are no mothers and fathers.
mjaviem wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:26 am
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:10 am
mjaviem wrote: Tue Aug 31, 2021 10:11 pm I still interpret "the unconditioned" when I read in MN117 paraloka. What then if not the unconditioned can be "realised for themselves by direct knowledge" by "the virtuous"?
Its not the unconditioned. Its another world, of either 'heaven' or 'hell'.
... The realization of the virtuous is not heaven or hell. They achieve direct knowledge of something and this something is not a conditioned world.
:goodpost:
Or perhaps it should have said lokuttara but it was wrongly compiled? :shrug:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Aloka »

.

Regarding "the Unconditioned", This is a quote from Ven. Ajahn Chah in chapter 35 "Towards the Unconditioned" in The Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah" :

Asankhata dhamma , the unconditioned, refers to the mind which has seen Dhamma, the truth, of the five khandhas as they are, as transient, imperfect and ownerless. All ideas of `me' and `them', `mine' and `theirs', belong to the determined reality. Really, they are all conditions. When we know the truth of conditions, as neither ourselves nor belonging to us, we let go of conditions and the determined. When we let go of conditions we attain the Dhamma, we enter into and realize the Dhamma. When we attain the Dhamma we know clearly. What do we know? We know that
there are only conditions and determinations, no being, no self, no `us' nor `them'. This is knowledge of the way things are.

Seeing in this way the mind transcends things. The body may grow old, get sick and die, but the mind transcends this state. When the mind transcends conditions, it knows the unconditioned. The mind becomes the unconditioned, the state which no longer contains conditioning factors.

The mind is no longer conditioned by the concerns of the world, conditions no longer contaminate the mind. Pleasure and pain no longer affect it.
Nothing can aect the mind or change it, the mind is assured, it has escaped all constructions. Seeing the true nature of conditions and the determined, the mind becomes free. This freed mind is called the `unconditioned', that which is beyond the power of constructing infuences.

https://www.abhayagiri.org/media/books/ ... n_Chah.pdf

:anjali:
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mjaviem »

Aloka wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:43 pm .

Regarding "the Unconditioned", This is a quote from Ven. Ajahn Chah in chapter 35 "Towards the Unconditioned" in The Collected Teachings of Ajahn Chah" :
...

:anjali:
Thank you, very nice quote. My reading of MN117 is the unconditioned, but it's certainly true that it is not a world as defined and taught by the buddha. So to justify my reading it could be:

* my lack of understanding
* a way of saying by the Buddha to refer to the unconditioned
* A bad compilation where it should say lokuttara instead of paraloka (sorry for my pali and for my english)
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Stream enterer have more than 7 times rebirth !

Post by DooDoot »

Ontheway wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:14 am As pointed out in Ratana Sutta, a Sotapanna will not go further 7 lives.

"Those who fathom the noble truths
taught by the one of deep wisdom,
do not take an eighth life,
even if they are hugely negligent.
This sublime gem is in the Saṅgha:
by this truth, may you be well !" - Ratana Sutta
The Pali above is "bhava". "Bhava" does not generally mean "life".
un8- wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:41 am Bhava and Jati are not synonymous. There will not be an eighth bhava in any form, but there can be several jati per one bhava. Dependent Origination says as long as there is bhava there is jati, so one bhava can have several jati. It doesn't say there is only one jati per one bhava.
Really. Please say more. Thanks :thanks:
Last edited by DooDoot on Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Stream enterer have more than 7 times rebirth !

Post by un8- »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:06 am
un8- wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:41 am Bhava and Jati are not synonymous. There will not be an eighth bhava in any form, but there can be several jati per one bhava. Dependent Origination says as long as there is bhava there is jati, so one bhava can have several jati. It doesn't say there is only one jati per one bhava.
Really. Please say more. Thanks :thanks:
Credit goes to Hillside Hermitage and Ven Ninoslav Nanamoli. They recently talked about this, I'm still learning their interpretation of Paṭiccasamuppāda.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Stream enterer have more than 7 times rebirth !

Post by DooDoot »

un8- wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:43 pm I'm still learning their interpretation of Paṭiccasamuppāda.
A wise person would learn my explanation of Paṭiccasamuppāda. :mrgreen:

Otherwise Thanissaro's Shape of Suffering, pages 3 to 6, ignoring whatever is said about "rebirth".

These are the only accurate explanations of sutta I have read & heard. :ugeek:
Last edited by DooDoot on Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Stream enterer have more than 7 times rebirth !

Post by samseva »

DooDoot wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 4:44 am A wise person would learn my explanation of Paṭiccasamuppāda. :mrgreen:
That you have your own explanation/interpretation—that no one else holds—already says enough...
Otherwise Thanissaro's Shape of Suffering, pages 3 to 6, ignoring whatever is said about "rebirth".

These are the only accurate explanations of sutta I have read & heard. :ugeek:
Everyone but... "Thanissaro, if you ignore all the parts I don't agree with."
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by cappuccino »

DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:14 am "seeing the danger & fault of the other world"
next world
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mjaviem »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:39 pm
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:14 am "seeing the danger & fault of the other world"
next world
You'll benefit from reading other than Sujato's translations. His are somewhat biased to fit his views.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:28 pm
cappuccino wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:39 pm
DooDoot wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 4:14 am "seeing the danger & fault of the other world"
next world
You'll benefit from reading other than Sujato's translations. His are somewhat biased to fit his views.
That’s every translator.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by mjaviem »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:29 pm
mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:28 pm
cappuccino wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:39 pm

next world
You'll benefit from reading other than Sujato's translations. His are somewhat biased to fit his views.
That’s every translator.
True. So I'd say that three translations from translators of different views would be good to understand a sutta.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
shoenhad
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2021 10:16 am

Re: the great rebirth debate

Post by shoenhad »

I was reading The truth of rebirth by Thanissaro and came across these passages that stirred some questions. I've highlighted that which was of particular concern.

'So if a worldview demands an explanation of the "what" behind rebirth — as we find not only in the worldviews of ancient India but also in many modern worldviews as well — it's simply a form of inappropriate attention that perpetuates suffering. If you want to put an end to suffering, you have to put the metaphysical demands of your worldview aside.The Buddha found it more appropriate and fruitful to focus instead on the process of how birth is repeatedly generated by factors immediately present to awareness throughout life, and directly experienced by factors in the present moment. This is because these factors lie enough under your control to turn them toward the ending of repeated rebirth.
These views about self and world then become objects of clinging, which in turn gives rise to becoming: the act of taking on an identity within a particular world of experience defined around the craving underlying that clinging. Becoming, in turn, is the condition for repeated birth.The antidote to this process is to direct attention appropriately to identifying the four noble truths as they're experienced. This form of attention enables you to see the act of view-formation as a process, to see the drawbacks of the process, and so to abandon any clinging to the content of those views. This removes the conditions for further becoming and birth

A second modern argument against accepting the canonical accounts of what's known in awakening — and in particular, the knowledge of rebirth achieved in awakening — is that one can still obtain all the results of the practice without having to accept the possibility of rebirth. After all, all the factors leading to suffering are all immediately present to awareness, so there should be no need, when trying to abandon them, to accept any premises about where they may or may not lead in the future.
This objection, however, ignores the role of appropriate attention on the path. As we noted above, one of its roles is to examine and abandon the assumptions that underlie one's views on the metaphysics of personal identity. Unless you're willing to step back from your own views — such as those concerning what a person is, and why that makes rebirth impossible — and subject them to this sort of examination, there's something lacking in your path. You'll remain entangled in the questions of inappropriate attention, which will prevent you from actually identifying and abandoning the causes of suffering and achieving the full results of the practice.

In addition, the terms of appropriate attention — the four noble truths — are not concerned simply with events arising and passing away in the present moment. They also focus on the causal connections among those events, connections that occur both in the immediate present and over time. If you limit your focus solely to connections in the present while ignoring those over time, you can't fully comprehend the ways in which craving causes suffering: not only by latching on to the four kinds of nutriment, but also giving rise to the four kinds of nutriment as well.
This narrow focus places an obstacle in your ability to develop right view — and in particular, your ability to see dependent co-arising as a self-sustaining process. If, in line with the standard materialist view, you regard consciousness as a mere by-product of material processes, then there's no way you can appreciate the full power of consciousness and craving to generate the food that can sustain the processes of suffering indefinitely. And if you don't fully appreciate this power, there's no way that you can effectively bring it to an end.'


First off I understand his initial rebuttal to the 'second modern argument' insofar as how a view where one does not accept the possibility of rebirth because of a clinging to a metaphysical notion or identity of some sort may become an obstacle in one’s practice unless one is willing to step back from said view.

However concerning the second part of the rebuttal it appears to me he goes on to make a statement that is contradictory.He goes on to say that in addition, the terms of appropriate attention, the four noble truths, are not only concerned with events in the present moment but they also focus on the causal connections among those events, connections in the immediate present and over time and says if you limit your focus solely to connections in the present while ignoring those over time you cant fully comprehend the ways in which craving causes suffering in relation to giving rise to the four kinds of nutriment. It places an obstacle in developing right view if you regard consciousness from a materialist view.

Judging by the rest of his writing his use of ‘over time’ refers only to the literal rebirth of beings. The problem with this, as it appears to me, is that his whole argument consists of stepping away from preconceived views precisely by employing the antidote of only concerning oneself with directing attention appropriately to identifying the four noble truths as they’re experienced and that this form of attention enables you to see the act of view-formation as a process and ultimately abandon clinging to the content of those views which in this instance would be the materialist view he described. It almost appears as if he is undermining his own argument here or perhaps even suggest an a priori assumption of literal rebirth. Ignoring the notion of literal rebirth is not the same as not accepting it. You could argue that the former could be viewed as not engaging in speculative view which is not a bad thing. Perhaps he means to say that ‘limiting your focus’ in this context implies having a materialist view by default which would refer back to the initial rebuttal concerning getting caught in them. What to make of this?
Post Reply