What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote: Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to think the same
Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't Arya
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:42 pm
zan wrote: Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to think the same
Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't Arya
He's not? What disqualifies him?

Bhikkhu Bodhi aside, could you provide some quotes from the Abhidhamma that make it clear that I am misreading it and that consciousness is constant, and only it's content is inconstant?
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by cappuccino »

zan wrote:
cappuccino wrote:
zan wrote: Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to think the same
Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't Arya
He's not? What disqualifies him?
he said in the past

maybe that changed but

I think Buddha has the answer
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:49 pm
zan wrote:
cappuccino wrote:

Bhikkhu Bodhi isn't Arya
He's not? What disqualifies him?
he said in the past

maybe that changed but

I think Buddha has the answer
Oh, I didn't know that, thanks. I was thinking the term had multiple meanings but maybe he used it in one specific one you are referencing. My Pali is not great.

Well, anyway, as far as I know the Abhidhamma teaches in no uncertain terms that consciousness is literally inconstant, if you know of some Abhidhamma quotes that clearly state that consciousness is constant, please post them.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by cappuccino »

your interpretation may be inaccurate

I suggest it is

but I won't try to convince you
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

Some, by a careless acceptation of the Sutta-phrase - ‘completed existence within the interval’ - held that there is an interim stage where a being awaits reconception for a week or longer. The counter-argument is based on the Exalted One’s dictum that there are three states of becoming only - the Kama-, the Rupa-, and the Arupa worlds.

points of controversy

8.2. Of an Intermediate State
Controverted Point: That there is an intermediate state of existence.

Theravādin: If there be such a state, you must identify it with either the kāma-life, or Rūpa-life, or Arūpa-life, which you refuse to do… .

You deny that there is an intermediate state between the first and second, or the second and third, of these.

You affirm, indeed, that is no such thing; how then can you maintain your proposition?

Is it a fifth matrix, a sixth destiny, an eighth station for reborn consciousness, a tenth realm of beings? Is it a mode of living, a destiny, a realm of beings, a renewal of life, a matrix, a station of consciousness, an acquiring of individuality? Is there karma leading to it? Are there beings who approach thither? Do beings get born in it, grow old, die in it, decease from it, and get reborn from it? Do the five aggregates exist in it? Is it a five-mode existence? All this you deny. How then can you maintain your proposition?

You admit that every one of these categories or notions applies to each of the three planes of life named above, the only difference being that the first two—kāma life and Rūpa-life—are five-mode existences; the last— Arūpa-life—is a four-mode existence (that is, without material qualities). If then there is an intermediate stage of life, you must be able to predicate some or all of these notions or categories of it. But you say you cannot… .

But you deny also that there is an intermediate life for all beings. Hence your proposition is not universally valid.

For whom then do you deny the intermediate state? For the person whose retribution is immediate? If you assent, to that extent your proposition is for you not true. Or is it for the person whose retribution is not immediate that you affirm this state? Yes, you say. Then you must deny it for his opposite.

You deny it also for one who is to be reborn in purgatory, in the sphere of unconscious beings, in the immaterial heavens. Therefore to that extent your proposition is not universally valid. Nevertheless, you maintain that there is an intermediate stage of life for one whose retribution is not immediate, for one who is not to be reborn in purgatory, nor among the “unconscious beings,” nor in the immaterial heavens. Concerning these you have yet to state in what respect, as a plane of life, it resembles, or differs from, the three named by the Exalted One.

Pubbaseliyas and Sammitīyas: But are there not beings who “complete existence within the first half of the term?” If so, are we not right?

Theravādin: Granted that there are such beings, is there a separate interval-state between any two recognized existences? Yes, you say. But granted that there are beings who “complete existence within the second half of the term,” is there a separate state of life corresponding thereto? If you deny, you must also deny your proposition since you rest it on this basis.

The same argument applies to such cognate terms as “beings who complete existence without,” and again, “with difficulty and striving”

-Pali Canon, Abhidhamma, Kathavatthu
It is often stated that the Gandhabbas preside over conception; this is due to an erroneous translation of the word gandhabba in passages (E.g., M.i.157, 265f) dealing with the circumstances necessary for conception (mātāpitaro ca sannipatitā honti, mātā ca utunī hoti, gandhabbo ca paccupatthito hoti).

The Commentaries (E.g., MA.i.481f ) explain that here gandhabba means tatrūpakasatta - tasmim okāse nibbattanako satto - meaning a being fit and ready to be born to the parents concerned. The Tīkā says that the word stands for gantabba.

-Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, G.P. Malalasekera
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by SDC »

zan wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:47 pm If it does exist in the suttas, then it must have zero importance and be something irrelevant that cannot be interacted with or changed in any way; something that skirts the issue entirely and doesn't require us to equate it with these states from other traditions. Otherwise the Buddha would have taught on it.

The utter deficit of information on this supposed state in the suttas points to it's non-existence at most, or it's total lack of importance at least. Realistically, I think it points to something like I've written above; the way it is interpreted is key and it need not be an intermediate state in the way that other traditions speak of one.
I think other traditions tend to mystify "life after death" and fail to see that any experience after death is already the next life. The Pali suttas leave plenty of room for all sorts of short, relatively insignificant states, however none are void of experience - none are described in a materialistic sense in which the Being is somehow suspended somewhere and yet has no experience whatsoever. That is just incoherent - the fact that they are suspended or in limbo or whatever, implies that they are in some way or another. Not only is it incoherent, but it is more along the lines of how the blissful immaterial states would be described - but those states aren't there as a matter of routine (after every death), they would have to be developed beforehand.

I just don't think anyone from a Theravadin perspective could support it with any sutta. Even if they could - like you said - it would make absolutely no difference. If suffering is still there, the work has not yet been done.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

SDC wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 5:03 pm
zan wrote: Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:47 pm If it does exist in the suttas, then it must have zero importance and be something irrelevant that cannot be interacted with or changed in any way; something that skirts the issue entirely and doesn't require us to equate it with these states from other traditions. Otherwise the Buddha would have taught on it.

The utter deficit of information on this supposed state in the suttas points to it's non-existence at most, or it's total lack of importance at least. Realistically, I think it points to something like I've written above; the way it is interpreted is key and it need not be an intermediate state in the way that other traditions speak of one.
I think other traditions tend to mystify "life after death" and fail to see that any experience after death is already the next life. The Pali suttas leave plenty of room for all sorts of short, relatively insignificant states, however none are void of experience - none are described in a materialistic sense in which the Being is somehow suspended somewhere and yet has no experience whatsoever. That is just incoherent - the fact that they are suspended or in limbo or whatever, implies that they are in some way or another. Not only is it incoherent, but it is more along the lines of how the blissful immaterial states would be described - but those states aren't there as a matter of routine (after every death), they would have to be developed beforehand.

I just don't think anyone from a Theravadin perspective could support it with any sutta. Even if they could - like you said - it would make absolutely no difference. If suffering is still there, the work has not yet been done.
Yeah, well said, it's kind of a moot point. One would have to go well beyond the vinaya, suttas and abhidhamma to even find or invent in depth practices or comprehensive details on such states, at which point the suttas are irrelevant, as one has already moved completely past them. If one wished to stay firmly within the suttas one would just have to say "Such a state exists." or "No such state exists.", and either way, then just stop, because the Buddha gave zero detail and instruction on such state. So there's nothing to do with the state regardless of one's opinion about it, unless one wanted to go outside the Pali Canon which would be irrelevant to this discussion.

That said, I think the Theravadins made some good points in the above posted Point of Controversy about this issue and I'm content with leaving it at that and with our agreement that it is irrelevant, or, to use your well chosen words, that it would make absolutely no difference.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

The text in the above post originally had what appeared to be a possible sutta reference at the end of the first paragraph, but it was garbled to the point of appearing to possibly be just random text and numbers, and so I assumed it was an error and not supposed to be there at all. Then I saw another version of the same quote where the sutta reference is proper, in pts format as: "(SN ii, 3 etc)" and so I realized I omitted it incorrectly. Here is the quote, with the sutta reference where it originally was*:
Some, by a careless acceptation of the Sutta-phrase - ‘completed existence within the interval’ - held that there is an interim stage where a being awaits reconception for a week or longer. The counter-argument is based on the Exalted One’s dictum that there are three states of becoming only - the Kama-, the Rupa-, and the Arupa worlds. (SN ii, 3 etc).

points of controversy

8.2. Of an Intermediate State
Controverted Point: That there is an intermediate state of existence.

Theravādin: If there be such a state, you must identify it with either the kāma-life, or Rūpa-life, or Arūpa-life, which you refuse to do… .

You deny that there is an intermediate state between the first and second, or the second and third, of these.

You affirm, indeed, that is no such thing; how then can you maintain your proposition?

Is it a fifth matrix, a sixth destiny, an eighth station for reborn consciousness, a tenth realm of beings? Is it a mode of living, a destiny, a realm of beings, a renewal of life, a matrix, a station of consciousness, an acquiring of individuality? Is there karma leading to it? Are there beings who approach thither? Do beings get born in it, grow old, die in it, decease from it, and get reborn from it? Do the five aggregates exist in it? Is it a five-mode existence? All this you deny. How then can you maintain your proposition?

You admit that every one of these categories or notions applies to each of the three planes of life named above, the only difference being that the first two—kāma life and Rūpa-life—are five-mode existences; the last— Arūpa-life—is a four-mode existence (that is, without material qualities). If then there is an intermediate stage of life, you must be able to predicate some or all of these notions or categories of it. But you say you cannot… .

But you deny also that there is an intermediate life for all beings. Hence your proposition is not universally valid.

For whom then do you deny the intermediate state? For the person whose retribution is immediate? If you assent, to that extent your proposition is for you not true. Or is it for the person whose retribution is not immediate that you affirm this state? Yes, you say. Then you must deny it for his opposite.

You deny it also for one who is to be reborn in purgatory, in the sphere of unconscious beings, in the immaterial heavens. Therefore to that extent your proposition is not universally valid. Nevertheless, you maintain that there is an intermediate stage of life for one whose retribution is not immediate, for one who is not to be reborn in purgatory, nor among the “unconscious beings,” nor in the immaterial heavens. Concerning these you have yet to state in what respect, as a plane of life, it resembles, or differs from, the three named by the Exalted One.

Pubbaseliyas and Sammitīyas: But are there not beings who “complete existence within the first half of the term?” If so, are we not right?

Theravādin: Granted that there are such beings, is there a separate interval-state between any two recognized existences? Yes, you say. But granted that there are beings who “complete existence within the second half of the term,” is there a separate state of life corresponding thereto? If you deny, you must also deny your proposition since you rest it on this basis.

The same argument applies to such cognate terms as “beings who complete existence without,” and again, “with difficulty and striving”

-Pali Canon, Abhidhamma, Kathavatthu

*I think it may actually be SN 12.2, if we use the more modern, common classification system for the suttas, I couldn't find an SN ii, 3, only SN ii, 2 and SN ii, 4, and the only sutta near there that mentions the three bhavas is SN 12.2. For the sake of accurate quoting, I left it the same.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9062
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by SDC »

zan wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:09 pm *I think it may actually be SN 12.2, if we use the more modern, common classification system for the suttas, I couldn't find an SN ii, 3, only SN ii, 2 and SN ii, 4, and the only sutta near there that mentions the three bhavas is SN 12.2. For the sake of accurate quoting, I left it the same.
Yes it is SN 12.2.

Correct, "SN ii, 3" is the the older volume/page numbering system. The "ii" indicates that it is the second volume/chapter of the SN, the Nidāna Vaggasaṃyutta. And the "3" is the page number, not the sutta number.

The modern numbering for SN indicates a group and sutta number, the AN, a book and sutta number.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by zan »

SDC wrote: Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:12 pm
zan wrote: Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:09 pm *I think it may actually be SN 12.2, if we use the more modern, common classification system for the suttas, I couldn't find an SN ii, 3, only SN ii, 2 and SN ii, 4, and the only sutta near there that mentions the three bhavas is SN 12.2. For the sake of accurate quoting, I left it the same.
Yes it is SN 12.2.

Correct, "SN ii, 3" is the the older volume/page numbering system. The "ii" indicates that it is the second volume/chapter of the SN, the Nidāna Vaggasaṃyutta. And the "3" is the page number, not the sutta number.

The modern numbering for SN indicates a group and sutta number, the AN, a book and sutta number.
Thanks for confirming!
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
DiamondNgXZ
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:40 am

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by DiamondNgXZ »

SDC wrote: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:45 pm
Any state would be the next life, so I seriously doubt you are going to find a sutta that overrides the idea of intermediate states. One could theoretically be a hungry ghost for like a day and then be right there in the womb to be reborn as human the next. I tend to think the whole idea of "intermediate states" not being "real" rebirth comes from Tibetan notions of death. Is that what you are referring to? I'm not necessarily agreeing with Ven. Narada Therea, but even if there were these blips that were less significant (in length or intensity) than an entire human life, they are still "the next life".

Bearing that in mind, do you still want to see evidence that there is no possibility for these less significant states? Because it seems to me that one's time in "any state" is directly determined by their action. It can be 5 aeons in heaven or 15 minutes in hell. I'm just not sure that the presuppositions in your question are taking this into consideration, so I'm not sure how any answer could make a difference.

Just trying to get a little clarification? What is the difference between 5 minutes as a hungry ghost or 80 years as a human? The states are distinct. That is what matters. Would an intermediate state be something other than this?
In case you're meaning to map intermediate state to the hungry ghost rebirth, here's sutta evidence to go against that mapping.

https://suttacentral.net/an7.95/en/suja ... ript=latin

The non-returner attains to final nibbana as an arahant in between this life and the next. Since non-returners cannot be reborn as ghosts, the intermediate state really cannot be regarded as a form of rebirth as hungry ghosts.

https://suttacentral.net/an4.131/en/suj ... ript=latin
What person has given up the lower fetters and the fetters for getting reborn, but not the fetters for getting a continued existence? One extinguished between one life and the next.
This makes it crystal clear that there's an intermediate state and it's considered as continued existence, but not rebirth.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by Ontheway »

Vibhajjavada (or Theravada) rejected the intermediate existence concept.

Pubbaseliya and Sammitiya sect are the ones that supported it.

There is no evidence in Pali Tipitaka that supported intermediate existence concept in a clearcut way. Most often is just the reader miscomprehended the Pali words.

Such view will raise questions:
1) If the intermediate existence exists, is that a being or non-being? If it is a being, then it is not "intermediate existence" but rather it is already another rebirth has taken place. If it is a non-being, is it only contains one of the five aggregates? Two of aggregates? Or none of the aggregates? Yet, it doesn't align with what Buddha taught.

2) If intermediate existence happened after the death as what Pubbaseliya and Sammitiya sects stated, in what form they exist? Again, is it an apparition? A subtle ghostly body? Or consciousness floating in the air? How can it be categorised into the scope of "Pancagati" ? If it is not within "Pancagati", thus suggesting there is another "gati" not explained by the Buddha? Again such interpretation doesn't exists in either Pali Tipitaka or Atthakatha.

3) If intermediate existence occurred after death, and this being was searching for another suitable rebirth opportunity as what was believed. Then it contradicts with the teachings of Kamma. For it proposed the possibility to negate the effect of Kamma solely by one's free will during the event of rebirth taking place.

4) The problematic interpretation of Karaniyametta Sutta's Pali word of "sambhavesi" as some form of spirit that wandering in open air seeking opportunity to gain rebirth. This is a wrong interpretation of the Pali word as it suggests Eternalism and contradict with the teachings of Buddha about those Petas. Rather the meaning is this:

sambhavesī : (m.) one who is seeking birth.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/sambhavesi

Q: Who are those seeking birth?
A: Those who are not Arahants are seeking birth. Puthujjana, Sotapanna, Sakadagami, and Anagami are all subjects to birth. Only Arahants are no longer subject to birth.

5) Suppose one might say "intermediate existence" is true, he/she should be asked thus: From where such intermediate state comes about? In what way, such state originated after death? In what way, can we describe it as? Was the "intermediate state" now identical or non-identical with the dead being?

The answers cannot escape from the scope of Eternalism or Annihilationism.

6) Again, is the "Intermediate existence" a Kamavacara being? Rupavacara being? Or Arupavacara being? Since the modes of rebirth only revolve around these three planes.

7) Since "intermediate existence" was believed to be occured between two definite birth, how does it fit into scriptures such as Nimitta Sutta and Paticca Samuppada? Why there is no mention of "Antarabhava" in those scriptures?

8) The upholder of such doctrine said there's an intermediate state and it's considered as continued existence, but not rebirth. What is the "continued existence" after death occurs? Now as Arahant Sariputta Thera taught us in Saccavibhanga Suttanta,
And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
Since the aggregates passing away, disappeared, broke up...what is the "thing" that can be continued here in that particular lifetime?
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
salayatananirodha
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:34 am
Contact:

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by salayatananirodha »

mn 38
I host a sutta discussion via Zoom Sundays at 11AM Chicago time — message me if you are interested
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What suttas support the classical Theravada view of immediate rebirth?

Post by Ontheway »

MN 38 don't support intermediate existence. Instead, it double confirmed "Vinnana paccaya Namarupa". It is the consciousness that acts as a "seed" in rebirth process as taught in Pathamabhava Sutta. Nothing about "Bardo".
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Post Reply