Is there "rebirth" without self-view ???

[DooDoot]

Dear DW forum

I was reading some translated suttas and found the following translations by the independent Australian monk named Sujato:

“Mendicants, transmigration has no known beginning.

“Anamataggoyaṁ, bhikkhave, saṁsāro.

No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.

Pubbā koṭi na paññāyati avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ sandhāvataṁ saṁsarataṁ.

What do you think? Which is more: the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time—weeping and wailing from being united with the unloved and separated from the loved—or the water in the four oceans?”

Taṁ kiṁ maññatha, bhikkhave, katamaṁ nu kho bahutaraṁ, yaṁ vā vo iminā dīghena addhunā sandhāvataṁ saṁsarataṁ amanāpasampayogā manāpavippayogā kandantānaṁ rodantānaṁ assu passannaṁ paggharitaṁ, yaṁ vā catūsu mahāsamuddesu udakan”ti?

https://suttacentral.net/sn15.3/en/sujato

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings.

So evaṁ samāhite citte parisuddhe pariyodāte anaṅgaṇe vigatūpakkilese mudubhūte kammaniye ṭhite āneñjappatte sattānaṁ cutūpapātañāṇāya cittaṁ abhininnāmesiṁ.

With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings, however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings are reborn according to their deeds.

So dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atikkantamānusakena satte passāmi cavamāne upapajjamāne hīne paṇīte suvaṇṇe dubbaṇṇe sugate duggate yathākammūpage satte pajānāmi: ‘ime vata bhonto sattā kāyaduccaritena samannāgatā vacīduccaritena samannāgatā manoduccaritena samannāgatā ariyānaṁ upavādakā micchādiṭṭhikā micchādiṭṭhikammasamādānā; te kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā apāyaṁ duggatiṁ vinipātaṁ nirayaṁ upapannā. Ime vā pana bhonto sattā kāyasucaritena samannāgatā vacīsucaritena samannāgatā manosucaritena samannāgatā ariyānaṁ anupavādakā sammādiṭṭhikā sammādiṭṭhikammasamādānā; te kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā sugatiṁ saggaṁ lokaṁ upapannā’ti. Iti dibbena cakkhunā visuddhena atikkantamānusakena satte passāmi cavamāne upapajjamāne hīne paṇīte suvaṇṇe dubbaṇṇe sugate duggate yathākammūpage satte pajānāmi.

https://suttacentral.net/mn4/en/sujato

Seated to one side, Venerable Rādha said to the Buddha:

Ekamantaṁ nisinno kho āyasmā rādho bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:

“Sir, they speak of this thing called a ‘sentient being’.

“‘satto, satto’ti, bhante, vuccati.

How is a sentient being defined?”

Kittāvatā nu kho, bhante, sattoti vuccatī”ti?

“Rādha, when you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for form, then a being is spoken of.

“Rūpe kho, rādha, yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.

When you cling, strongly cling, to desire, greed, relishing, and craving for feeling …

Vedanāya …

perception …

saññāya …

choices …

saṅkhāresu …

consciousness, then a being is spoken of.

viññāṇe yo chando yo rāgo yā nandī yā taṇhā, tatra satto, tatra visatto, tasmā sattoti vuccati.

Suppose some boys or girls were playing with sandcastles.

Seyyathāpi, rādha, kumārakā vā kumārikāyo vā paṁsvāgārakehi kīḷanti.

As long as they’re not rid of greed, desire, fondness, thirst, passion, and craving for those sandcastles, they cherish them, fancy them, treasure them and treat them as their own.

Yāvakīvañca tesu paṁsvāgārakesu avigatarāgā honti avigatacchandā avigatapemā avigatapipāsā avigatapariḷāhā avigatataṇhā, tāva tāni paṁsvāgārakāni allīyanti keḷāyanti dhanāyanti mamāyanti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn23.2/en/sujato

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?

“Kiṁ nu sattoti paccesi,

Māra, is this your theory?

māra diṭṭhigataṁ nu te;

This is just a pile of conditions,

Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṁ,

you won’t find a sentient being here.

nayidha sattupalabbhati.

When the parts are assembled

Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,

we use the word ‘chariot’.

hoti saddo ratho iti;

So too, when the aggregates are present

Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,

‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

hoti sattoti sammuti.

https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato

satta 1
hanging, clinging or attached to Vin.i.185; DN.ii.246; Mnd.23, Mnd.24; Dhp.342; Ja.i.376 Cp. āsatta1 & byāsatta.

pp. of sañj: sajjati

satta 2
(m.) a living being, creature, a sentient & rational beiṅg, a person; DN.i.17, DN.i.34, DN.i.53, DN.i.82 DN.ii.68; AN.i.35 sq., AN.i.55 sq.; SN.i.135; SN.v.41; Vin.i.5; Mil.273 Vism.310 (defn: “rūp’ādisu khandhesu chandarāgena sattā visattā ti sattā,” thus = satta1); Ne.161; DN-a.i.51, DN-a.i.161; Vb-a.144
■ naraka˚; a being in purgatory (cp. niraya˚) Vism.500.
(nt.) soul (= jīvita or viññāṇa) Pv.i.81 (gata˚ = vigata-jīvita Pv-a.40).
(nt.) substance Vin.i.287. nissatta non-substantial phenomenal Dhs-a.38.
-āvāsa abode of sentient beings (see nava1 2) DN.iii.263 DN.iii.268; AN.v.53; Vism.552; Vb-a.168. -ussada (see ussada 4) teeming with life, full of people DN.i.87, DN.i.111 DN.i.131. -loka the world of living creatures Snp-a.263, Snp-a.442 Vism.205. See also saṅkhāra-loka
■ vaṇijjā slave trade DN-a.i.235 = AN.iii.208 (C.: manussa-vikkaya).

https://suttacentral.net/define/satta

Questions:

1. Is "a being" as "self-view"?

2. Can there be "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?

3. Are there any suttas explicitly saying there is "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?

Please discuss.

[un8-]

A being is by definition craving

A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be 'a being.'[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'

The Buddha is no longer a being

"Master, are you a deva?"[2]

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

[Ceisiwr]

The Buddha is no longer a being

It’s best to avoid Ven. Thanisarro’s translations. The Pali reads as “I will not be a human being” rather than “I am not a human being”. One is future tense, the other present tense.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Questions:

1. Is "a being" as "self-view"?

Yes.

2. Can there be "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?

No.

3. Are there any suttas explicitly saying there is "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?

No.

Please discuss.

"[The Buddha] advanced a novel type of solution to the problem of life and death. He pointed out that although immortal existence is impossible, one could still experience 'ambrosial' deathlessness - and that even here and now. One had to recognise fully the truths of impermanence, suffering and not-self whereby 'existence', on which both 'birth' and 'death' depend is made to cease..... Thus instead of attempting to 'stifle' death artificially by heavenly ambrosia, the Buddha saw to it that death died a natural death in a sphere of transcendental experience of a Deathless attainable in this very mortal word" - Ven. Nanananda, Magic Of The Mind, p83

Metta,
Paul.

[SarathW]

Can there be "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?

Isn't Sotapanna eliminated self view but will be reborn unless s/he attain the Nibbana in this life?

[mjaviem]

1. Is "a being" as "self-view"?

2. Can there be "rebirth" without self-view or without "a being"?
...

I think a being is a self the ultimate essence of something.

To me to call it rebirth there has to be a self which is reborn. If an old broom turns to ashes that are dispersed by the wind and not too long after there's again a broom, we only can say the broom reappeared or is reborn if we know it's the same broom because although it may not look the same we know it's the same essence, not any broom but this very broom we had identified previously. There's something that makes it unique and that's its esssence, its self.

[DooDoot]

It’s best to avoid Ven. Thanisarro’s translations. The Pali reads as “I will not be a human being” rather than “I am not a human being”. One is future tense, the other present tense.

VBB's footnote gives the impression VBB disagrees with the Commentary, which shows both are merely fondling with personal interpretations. Regardless, the meaning is found in the conversation.

Dona follows the footprints (lol) and asks himself using na bhavissantī: "Could/might this be not?"

Then Dona asks Buddha using "bhavissatī": "might/could you be a god?" etc.

Buddha replies answering the same questions of Dona: "[when you come to understand I am a Buddha], I will not be [regarded as] a god".

It appears the Buddha is not using " bhavissāmī" about his future but about the future view of him that will be formed in the mind of Dona or, in particularly, those who come to know Him.

It seems like those drunk of reincarnation (which excludes Thanissaro here), with their questionable translations and commentaries, are getting carried away.

[cappuccino]

its esssence, its self.

In Buddhism, the term anattā refers to the doctrine of "non-self" –

that no unchanging, permanent self … or essence can be found in phenomena. Wikipedia

[pegembara]

Without the "what" the question of "what gets reborn or reincarnates" doesn't arise.
Without a "this" there is no "that" ie. without a self-view there are no others either.

“When concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing has been thus developed, thus pursued, one senses a feeling of pleasure. One discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’ One senses a feeling of pain. One discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’ One senses a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. One discerns it as ‘inconstant.’ One discerns it as ‘not grasped at.’ One discerns it as ‘not relished.’

“If sensing a feeling of pleasure, one senses it disjoined from it. If sensing a feeling of pain, one senses it disjoined from it. If sensing a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one senses it disjoined from it. When sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns, ‘I' am sensing a feeling limited to the body.’ When sensing a feeling limited to life, one discerns, ‘I' am sensing a feeling limited to life.’ One discerns, ‘With the break-up of the body, after the termination of life, all that is experienced, not being relished, will grow cold right here.’

[un8-]

The Buddha is no longer a being

It’s best to avoid Ven. Thanisarro’s translations. The Pali reads as “I will not be a human being” rather than “I am not a human being”. One is future tense, the other present tense.

It's not future tense, it's grammatical style. It's like playing the board game Guess Who when you're trying to guess what the other person is, e.g. "Might you be a police officer?"

So it's not actually future tense.

A. K. Warder, in his Introduction to Pali (p. 55), notes that the future tense is often used to express perplexity, surprise, or wonder about something in the present: "What might this be?" "What on earth is this?" This seems to be the sense of Dona's questions here. His earlier statement — "These are not the footprints of a human being" — is also phrased in the future tense, and the mood of wonder extends throughout his conversation with the Buddha.

It's also possible that the Buddha's answers to Dona's questions — which, like the questions, are put in the future tense — are a form of word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings, to refer both to his present and to his future state.

The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water

[DooDoot]

So it's not actually future tense.

A. K. Warder, in his Introduction to Pali (p. 55), notes that the future tense is often used to express perplexity, surprise, or wonder about something in the present: "What might this be?" "What on earth is this?" This seems to be the sense of Dona's questions here. His earlier statement — "These are not the footprints of a human being" — is also phrased in the future tense, and the mood of wonder extends throughout his conversation with the Buddha.

It's also possible that the Buddha's answers to Dona's questions — which, like the questions, are put in the future tense — are a form of word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings, to refer both to his present and to his future state.

The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water

[Nicolas]

Friends, although the notion ‘I am’ has not yet vanished in me in relation to these five aggregates subject to clinging, still I do not regard anything among them as ‘This I am.’

Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted.

Khemaka is still fettered by "I am" (and is thus categorized as "a being") though he is rid of self-view.

[Ceisiwr]

...

As provided above, the Mahavihāravāsin analysis is that of the answers being in the future tense. This chimes well with other suttas, where freedom from all dukkha is only at the end of life (for rebirth has stopped). Two parallels were given. The first is likely of Mahāsāṃghika origin, the other from the Sarvāstivāda. The Mahāsāṃghika tended to favour a more transcendental Buddha, which would help to explain their version of this sutta. The Sarvāstivādins, as far as I'm aware, did not however given that Theravāda is well known for it's near obsession with textual analysis and precision, the Theravādin sutta comes out as the most favourable one. Combined with the commentary, this exchange likely referred to future lives.

[asahi]

The question appear irrelevant for rebirth deniers .

[un8-]

...

As provided above, the Mahavihāravāsin analysis is that of the answers being in the future tense. This chimes well with other suttas, where freedom from all dukkha is only at the end of life (for rebirth has stopped). Two parallels were given. The first is likely of Mahāsāṃghika origin, the other from the Sarvāstivāda. The Mahāsāṃghika tended to favour a more transcendental Buddha, which would help to explain their version of this sutta. The Sarvāstivādins, as far as I'm aware, did not however given that Theravāda is well known for it's near obsession with textual analysis and precision, the Theravādin sutta comes out as the most favourable one. Combined with the commentary, this exchange likely referred to future lives.

Does that mean you believe the Buddha was still a being at the time of that conversation?