The Danger of Rebirth

[kc2dpt]

So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour and renown or with the thought "Let people know me to be thus" that when a disciple had died, the Tathagata declares his reapperance thus: So and so has reappeared in such and such a place. Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time

This explains why he says such things, because they encourage others to practice As to what happens to the sotapanna after rupa death, i have no reason to disagree with how the buddha taught it

This doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you why he taught it. We know from MN 58 the reason the Buddha says anything is because he considers it beneficial for the listener. We can also infer from MN 58 that the Buddha does not consider false speech to be beneficial, which is consistent with his teaching that lying is an unwholesome verbal action.

I asked you, Craig, how we are to understand this teaching. Since you insist any mention of birth can only refer to birth of "I-making" in this life, then what can a reference to "7 more lives" mean for one after rupa death? Answer me plainly please. The time for stalling and procrastinating is over.

And the point is that when jati is read in suttas it seems to always be interpreted as meaning rebirth after rupa death

Which seems to me perfectly reasonable since the sutta define birth as a physical process (involving woman and man and sperm and ovum and womb, etc.) and yet never, not even once, define birth as "I-making". This, coupled with the fact that death is also defined as a physical process and never as a mental one and the fact that the whole problem the Buddha sought to solve is the endless rounds of birth and death... it really makes it hard to fathom why one would insist on interpreting these teachings as referring to "I-making".

[Ceisiwr]

So, Anuruddha, it is not for the purpose of scheming to deceive people or for the purpose of flattering people or for the purpose of gain, honour and renown or with the thought "Let people know me to be thus" that when a disciple had died, the Tathagata declares his reapperance thus: So and so has reappeared in such and such a place. Rather, it is because there are faithful clansmen inspired and gladdened by what is lofty, who when they hear that, direct their minds to such a state and that leads to their welfare and happiness for a long time

This explains why he says such things, because they encourage others to practice As to what happens to the sotapanna after rupa death, i have no reason to disagree with how the buddha taught it

This doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask you why he taught it. We know from MN 58 the reason the Buddha says anything is because he considers it beneficial for the listener. We can also infer from MN 58 that the Buddha does not consider false speech to be beneficial, which is consistent with his teaching that lying is an unwholesome verbal action.

I asked you, Craig, how we are to understand this teaching. Since you insist any mention of birth can only refer to birth of "I-making" in this life, then what can a reference to "7 more lives" mean for one after rupa death? Answer me plainly please. The time for stalling and procrastinating is over.

Any use of the word jati in dependent origination or in the context of right view without effluents it refers to birth of self in moments, since the right view without effluents is about how "I" making comes about and how to end it so one can quench all dukkha, its not concerned with rupa birth and death

When the buddha says one has seven more lives after rupa death I have no reason to doubt him that on a mundane level there is 7 more rupa births

In the context of this teaching, since its not concerned with dependent origination or higher dhamma concepts of "I" births, so its mundane and about rupa birth of the stream-winner

[Ceisiwr]

Peter what is the origin of identity?

..It is craving which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust and delights in this and that, that is craving for sensual desire, craving for being and craving for non being

Is there not craving all the time in life, not just once in one life and one in the next

Contact leads to craving
Craving leads to clinging
Clinging leads to becoming
Becoming leads to birth i.e. birth of identity, of "I"

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

By giving up craving you stop becoming and birth of "I"

Is not nibbana the end of all "I" making

You attain the deathless in this life, no need to wait for aggregates to die




The buddha was concerned with putting dukkha out here and now, when one sees how it arises in the here in now one can then move to remove it in the here and now



In order to end I making one needs to know how it arises, so if you deny that it arises all the time at moments, what alternative do you put forward

Do you deny that there is unmindful contact all the time? I dont think you would so therefore the sense of "I" is born and dies all the time

[Ceisiwr]

'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.

"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Now, monk, you should remember this, my brief analysis of the six properties."

When one puts the end to all "I" making, there is no more intentional kamma because kamma needs a sense of self

There is no death because there is no more "I" or sense of self, so how can there be death?


How does one end I-making, giving up pleasure in reguard to feelings, being mindful

He seeing a form with the eye does not greed for a pleasant form, nor become averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. To him neither delighted, nor pleased and not appropriating those feelings the interest for them ceases. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness. ceases. Hearing a sound with the ear, cognising a smell with the nose, cognising a taste with the tongue, cognising a touch with the body, cognising an idea with the mind, does not become greedy for a pleasant idea. Does not become averse to a disagreeable idea. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant. Neither delighted nor pleased with those feelings does not appropriate them. Then the interest for those feelings cease. When interest ceases the holding ceases. When holding ceases being ceases. When being ceases birth ceases. When birth ceases decay and death, grief, lament, unpleasantness, displeasure and distress, cease. Thus the complete mass of unpleasantness ceases. Bhikkhus, remember this as the destruction of unpleasantness in short. As for the bhikkhu Sàti the son of a fisherman is bound in a net of much craving.

If you dont delight in feelings then there will be no craving, clinging, becoming and birth of "I"

With no birth of "I" there is no more craving ever again so no dukkha

One is in the deathless, no "I" or "me" no death or birth because there is no sense of "I" to born or die

One is free

[kc2dpt]

..It is craving which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust and delights in this and that, that is craving for sensual desire, craving for being and craving for non being

Is there not craving all the time in life, not just once in one life and one in the next

Craving arises at many times. But it is a logical error to conclude from the above teaching that every time craving arises just then there must immediately follow a renewal of being. That is getting the teaching backwards. It does not say "craving is always followed by being" but rather says "being is always preceded by craving". It is as if I said "Fire comes from wood" and you interpreted it as "wood causes fire" and then pointed to a pile of wood and said "there is the wood but there is no fire so you must've been wrong when you said 'fire comes from wood'. What Buddhism teaches is that if during one's life one reinforces the habit of craving then at the end of one's life there will arise the craving that brings a renewal of being.

Contact leads to craving
Craving leads to clinging
Clinging leads to becoming
Becoming leads to birth

Sorry, but the Buddha did not teach that. He taught this:

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

If contact always led to craving, for example, then there would be no arahants, no Buddha.
Without contact there could not be craving. But there can be contact without craving, for example in an arahant.
We call this an example of a necessary but not sufficient condition. Contact is necessary for craving to arise but it is not sufficient.

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

By giving up craving you stop becoming and birth of "I"

Funny, I don't see birth mentioned there at all.

Is nibbana the end of all "I" making?

Yes.

The buddha was concerned with putting dukkha out here and now

The Buddha was concerned with putting out the cause of dukkha here and now.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving." — SN 56.11

In order to end I making one needs to know how it arises, so if you deny that it arises all the time at moments...

I do not deny it. I-making occurs all the time. I-making only causes birth, however, at death.

[kc2dpt]

Any use of the word jati in dependent origination or in the context of right view without effluents it refers to birth of self in moments, since the right view without effluents is about how "I" making comes about and how to end it so one can quench all dukkha, its not concerned with rupa birth and death

This is circular logic.

[nathan]

Nathan

There is plenty of consciousness apart from a sense support. Plenty of being without bodies. A plague of it.

This is not the Buddhas teachings, there is no consciousness without six sense media for support, external forms, sounds etc and contact to meet all three

Honestly, what good would a hundred more sutta citations do considering how you've already distorted and convoluted the meanings of so many which have been referenced by others in this thread?

The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should be known.

"'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. 'The six internal media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the first sextet.

"'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium. 'The six external media should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet.

"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet.

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


This is all the consciousness that is taught in the buddhas teachings, no re-linking and no consciousness without the support of six-sense media, external objects and contact

Considering how you would like to do away with so much of the Tipitaka, how would you know what is or is not the Buddha's teaching or even how it is correctly applied? The discussion of consciousness has many different contexts. When it is in reference to beings with no body, it is in terms of beings with only consciousness and mental qualities and conditions. Your oversimplifications of many things will not hold up to serious scrutiny.

Rebirth isn't a big deal. The body dies, the aggregates fall apart and life ends, completely, consciousness ceases. Then, a moment later, another consciousness arises and this consciousness is also only momentary, just as the last was only momentary and only the last in a series of moments of consciousness. The ignorance and kamma of the previous aggregate beings are the causes for the maintenance of desire and desire is the cause of yet another consciousness arising when the previous relationships between mentality/materiality have ended. When a new set of aggregates is assembled this always begins with a new consciousness, if a given consciousness craves a gross material or a fine material body this new series of consciousness moments will have to seek one out and form a new association. No body of any kind arises first, apart from the presence of a series of moments of clinging consciousness, not ever.

Could you quote where the buddha says this in the suttas?

No, I am not going to play your games.

There are a lot of links or conditioning in many past lives which conditions many future lives. All of that is a kind of linking. This new consciousness continues arising and disappearing in relation to a series of contacts with it's own consciousness quality

There is no consciousness without support, id be careful here you seem to be going towards a view Sati had

At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anàthapiïóika in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. At that time to a bhikkhu named Sàti the son of a fisherman this view had arisen: As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Many bhikkhus, heard that this evil view had arisen to a bhikkhu, named Sàti the son of a fisherman: 'As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'. Then those bhikkhus approached, bhikkhu Sàti the son of a fisherman and asked: Friend, Sàti, is it true, that such an evil view has arisen to you: 'As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'Yes, friends, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Then those bhikkhus, desirous of dissuading the bhikkhu Sàti from that evil view, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied with him: Sàti, do not say that, do not blame the Blessed One. It is not good to blame the Blessed One. The Blessed One did not say this. The Blessed One has said in various ways, that consciousness arises dependently. Without a cause there is no arising of consciousness. Even when those bhikkhus, cross questioned, asked for reasons and studied together with him, he held on to his evil view tenaciously and would not give it up and said. 'As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else'

http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... ta-e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No I am not leaning towards this view, you misunderstand my point entirely.

I'm forming the impression that you are tending towards the thinking that a sense of self pertains only to the concept of "I", which is pretty easy to dispose of as these things go. Assuming you have done so (about as hard as snapping your fingers), how is the dukkha situation looking now?

If it were so easy to be rid of then we would all be in nibbana since it is the end of all "I" making and sense of self, if i had rid all "I" making id be an Arahant

Ah, so this is your thinking then; the I or 'sense of self' is merely conceptual. Well, friend, I suggest you put all the books away and do the real work. Find out some things directly and see how much of your house of cards survives that holocaust. A discussion like this will be much more profitable at some time when you are further along in that process. I have never tried to compose some kind of "unified theory of dhamma", that kind of effort always brings disaster. I try to apply the teachings and see where that leads. I speak from that POV, our kinds are like oil and water, for sure, in the interests of overall harmony, I will leave you to your conceptual entertainments. I will do my best to avoid threads like this on this board as well, I have already read more than enough 50 page rebirth threads. Everyone is free to waste their time with them all they like. Be well and happy, and play nice. My apologies if I have offended yours or anyone's sensibilities.

[Ngawang Drolma.]

There is plenty of consciousness apart from a sense support. Plenty of being without bodies. A plague of it.

This is not the Buddhas teachings, there is no consciousness without six sense media for support, external forms, sounds etc and contact to meet all three..

Craig,

I thought that the 6 realms and 32 planes of existence were taught by the Buddha. There are other kinds of sentient beings besides humans. So beings in the formless realms have no consciousness?

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Craig,
So we enter the womb free of craving, but at some later point the 12 links kick in? At what point does that happen?

Ignorance, craving and clinging are not developed in the womb, its only when the child experiences sight, touch, smell etc that allows for the rising of consciousness and therefor contact to leads on to feeling, craving, clinging, becoming etc does dependent origination start in a life

When the baby is in the womb it has no ignorance, craving etc only the potential for it

Hi Craig,

Birth isn't the cause of craving. Craving is the cause of birth.

You're reverting back to the argument that it's all dependent upon rupa. Following this logic, then birth is the cause of dukkha and death is the cessation. If this is so, why did the Buddha go to so much trouble and teach so much? Why do we have to do so much mind-training in meditation? We could be free of dukkha in just a matter of years, not a timeless cycle.

[Ceisiwr]

Contact leads to craving
Craving leads to clinging
Clinging leads to becoming
Becoming leads to birth
Sorry, but the Buddha did not teach that. He taught this:

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

Correct i did type it out wrong

If contact always led to craving, for example, then there would be no arahants, no Buddha.
Without contact there could not be craving. But there can be contact without craving, for example in an arahant.
We call this an example of a necessary but not sufficient condition. Contact is necessary for craving to arise but it is not sufficient.

Contact and feeling always leads to craving when one is ignorant and unmindful

He seeing a form with the eye does not greed for a pleasant form, nor become averse to a disagreeable form. Abides with mindfulness of the body established and with a limitless mind, knowing the release of mind and the release through wisdom as it really is, where thoughts of demerit cease completely. Dispelling agreeing and disagreeing feels whatever feeling, pleasant, unpleasant, or neither unpleasant nor pleasant

When one has supreme mindfulness, one is no longer ignorant about feelings and so doesnt crave or cling

no more craving or clinging means no more idenitiy view can arise or be "born" again, no more i-making because dependent origination is stopped at contact because one sees the truth, so it does not progess along to feelings of aversion or pleasure, so no becoming and birth of I or mine.

What is identity, or to think "I am"? Is it not craving and clinging

Your crave something so take it as self, i.e. rupa or perception

Craving leads to becoming of "I" or "mine"

"'The cessation of self-identification, the cessation of self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which cessation of self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"

"The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving: This, friend Visakha, is the cessation of self-identification described by the Blessed One."

By giving up craving you stop becoming and birth of "I"
Funny, I don't see birth mentioned there at all.

Correct it isnt but when one knows craving you see it leads to becoming and birth

The Buddha was concerned with putting out the cause of dukkha here and now.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving." — SN 56.11

Correct again and good quote

you let go of craving, there is no becoming and birth of "I"

There is the ending of all "I" making

There is the deathless

I do not deny it. I-making occurs all the time. I-making only causes birth, however, at death.

If I making occurs all the time then there is birth of a false sense of self, of Craig, all the time

birth and death all the time

Craving arises at many times. But it is a logical error to conclude from the above teaching that every time craving arises just then there must immediately follow a renewal of being.

The buddha states it, to borrow your type out of it/

From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming

It states everytime there is clinging there is becoming
it doesnt state there is a temporal gap

Dependent origination happens in flashes, even those who take it as three lives say that it does, therefore everytime there is clinging there is becoming

[tiltbillings]

Me: Well, be kind enough to clearly restate it again in clear lucid English so that we all understand what you are saying, which obviously does not seem to be the case.

Craig: I have no reason to doubt that unless craving has ceased there will be more of the same but Dependent origination is not a model for this from what i understand, as nanavira stated the buddha just says it will be not how it will be, there is never detail about the process

Cool. So, there is rebirth after death for those who are unawakened. As for what you understand, do keep in mind the core teaching of the Buddha, things do not arise independent of causes and conditions.

[tiltbillings]

Craig:

Dependent origination happens in flashes

That is an Abhidhamma teaching, not a sutta teaching.

[nathan]

There is plenty of consciousness apart from a sense support. Plenty of being without bodies. A plague of it.

This is not the Buddhas teachings, there is no consciousness without six sense media for support, external forms, sounds etc and contact to meet all three..

Craig,

I thought that the 6 realms and 32 planes of existence were taught by the Buddha. There are other kinds of sentient beings besides humans. So beings in the formless realms have no consciousness?

Yes this is so, and Craig's comment about consciousness is not even true of human beings in the context of the ongoing functionality of consciousness. Such long and intractable debates are largely pointless and endless when they involve those who have not carefully examined their own consciousness. I will not revisit the thread again. Peace out.

[Ceisiwr]

Hi Craig,

Birth isn't the cause of craving. Craving is the cause of birth.

You're reverting back to the argument that it's all dependent upon rupa. Following this logic, then birth is the cause of dukkha and death is the cessation. If this is so, why did the Buddha go to so much trouble and teach so much? Why do we have to do so much mind-training in meditation? We could be free of dukkha in just a matter of years, not a timeless cycle.

Hi drolma

Im talking in terms of birth and death of "I" at moments through dependent origination not about rupa birth

[Ngawang Drolma.]

Nathan,

Thanks I hesitated because I wasn't sure if it was specific to Mahayana.

An even more simple example of the complexity of consciousness is human beings when they're asleep and dreaming. There's a lack of sensory input from outside, yet the mind has vivid experiences.