Spontaneously reborn beings

[TRobinson465]

There's likely a practical benefit to believing in such spiritual beings like devas and pretas since there are lots of things that are true and real that are not included in the list of right views, so spontaneous arising is likely in there for more reason than simply that it is true. I think its included as a right view probably as a rebuke of absolute atheism. You should beleive there are spontaneously reborn beings because you should believe in some kind of spiritual side outside of the material world is the logic i think rather than just believing in rebirth and that we just go from human to animal back and forth.

A few practical things one can only do if one believes in spontaneous arising. recollection of the virtues of devas, offering merit to the pretas, inviting
devas who wish to rejoice in merit. not freaking out when one attains direct knowledge and can see spontaneously arising beings since you knew about them beforehand. Understanding various things about what the Buddha said that cant be explained solely by a belief in a next world karmic experience that is limited only to earthly positives and negatives such as why its better for immoral monks to eat hot coals than to eat almsfood of the faithful or how a gift can have a karmic result that is an immeasurable multiple greater than the gift you actually gave, etc.

[Bundokji]

There's likely a practical benefit to believing in such spiritual beings like devas and pretas since there are lots of things that are true and real that are not included in the list of right views, so spontaneous arising is likely in there for more reason than simply that it is true. I think its included as a right view probably as a rebuke of absolute atheism. You should beleive there are spontaneously reborn beings because you should believe in some kind of spiritual side outside of the material world is the logic i think rather than just believing in rebirth and that we just go from human to animal back and forth.

A few practical things one can only do if one believes in spontaneous arising. recollection of the virtues of devas, offering merit to the pretas, inviting
devas who wish to rejoice in merit. not freaking out when one attains direct knowledge and can see spontaneously arising beings since you knew about them beforehand. Understanding various things about what the Buddha said that cant be explained solely by a belief in a next world karmic experience that is limited only to earthly positives and negatives such as why its better for immoral monks to eat hot coals than to eat almsfood of the faithful or how a gift can have a karmic result that is an immeasurable multiple greater than the gift you actually gave, etc.

If i may add to your good input, such a holistic view of kama loka would reveal the limitations of any involvement in worldly affairs though "taking the right side of history". We end up being welcomed by a deluded deva on the other side.

[Dhammapardon]

I think I understand it that the world is the six sense bases. And being reborn in the world might have to do with losing track of non-clinging and reverting back to being tangled in them.


The phrase below is stated in many suttas. It describes what's included in the Buddha's world. Here's just one for reference.

AN5.30
He has made known — having realized it through direct knowledge — this world with its devas, maras, & brahmas...

Here we see where the Buddha's world comes from.

SN1.7]
In what has this world arisen?
In what does it hold concourse?
On what depending — in what respect —
Does this world get oppressed?

In the six the world arose [21]
In the six it holds concourse
On the six themselves depending
In the six it gets oppressed.

Footnote for reference

SN1.7 Footnote 21
21.'World' is defined in Buddhism directly with reference to the six senses: "That by which one is conscious of the world, by which one has conceit of the world — that is called 'world' in the Noble One's discipline. And through what is one conscious of the world? Through what has one conceit of the world? Through the eye, friends, through the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind..." (S. IV. 95).

And here is an excerpt of the explanation of the Great Six Sense-media

MN149
The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.

"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.

"Not knowing, not seeing the ear... Not knowing, not seeing the nose... Not knowing, not seeing the tongue... Not knowing, not seeing the body...Not knowing, not seeing the intellect...

So it seems to me spontaneously reborn beings are those of the world described above. Those of the senses.

[Bundokji]

So it seems to me spontaneously reborn beings are those of the world described above. Those of the senses.

That is interesting. MN117 also includes within mundane right view the following:

there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This brings us to the distinction between paññā and abhiññā. Those who attained the later had direct knowledge of other realms, and when they taught it to humans, they taught it as paññā. They describe the world as the six sense because they have insight into what lies right infront of everyone's eyes, but they see it, others do not. This is why, their faculties are said to be "surpassing the human".

[Mumfie]

Right view with effluents as explained in MN117 leads to rebirth either in higher realms within kama loka (hence with effluents

As well as rebirth in the human realm.

- desirable to those who do not see the danger).

As well as to those who do see the danger but have yet to arrive at the safety of the sekha's state.

Do you know the effects of the war between the Devas and Asuras on the human realm, if any?

The only effect that I know of is that it provided the Buddha with a few of his similes. The most famous of these, the one in the Dhajagga Sutta, remains to this day a popular paritta chanted by Buddhists when afflicted with fear.

https://suttacentral.net/sn11.3/en/bodhi

[Dhammapardon]

In your view, how best the term "spontaneous" understood through the Buddha's teachings? If biology has little to do with it, then how to understand father and mother then?

Mother and father, outside obvious biological parents, may refer to subject and object causing one's birth or rebirth. To be deathless, free of clinging and then to fixate on an object, apprehending it, craving it, clinging to it...if the eye does this, the eye and the object of the eye are mother and father to the birth of you becoming as a result. When the unattached becomes attached, it may be born there as a result of a subject and object relationship.

[Bundokji]

Mother and father, outside obvious biological parents, may refer to subject and object causing one's birth or rebirth. To be deathless, free of clinging and then to fixate on an object, apprehending it, craving it, clinging to it...if the eye does this, the eye and the object of the eye are mother and father to the birth of you becoming as a result. When the unattached becomes attached, it may be born there as a result of a subject and object relationship.

Can there be a biological view without subject and object?

For example, does Ānantarika Kamma refer to mother and father as biological, or subject and object?

[Dhammapardon]

Can there be a biological view without subject and object?

For example, does Ānantarika Kamma refer to mother and father as biological, or subject and object?

I'm not sure I understand Kamma well enough to answer that yet. Would you have any good resources explaining it I can learn from?

[Dhammapardon]

Can there be a biological view without subject and object?

For example, does Ānantarika Kamma refer to mother and father as biological, or subject and object?

Would biological mother and father just be a subclass of subject and object?
Meaning of subjects and objects, mother and father would be a biological example pertaining to whatever life requiring it?
Also I'm not seeing kamma next to the word Ānantarika in the sutta. Do you have reference to this term used? I would like to learn more.

[Bundokji]

Would biological mother and father just be a subclass of subject and object?
Meaning of subjects and objects, mother and father would be a biological example pertaining to whatever life requiring it?
Also I'm not seeing kamma next to the word Ānantarika in the sutta. Do you have reference to this term used? I would like to learn more.

Biological father and mother could be a subclass of subject and object, but i am not what conclusions we can draw from that? For example, paṭiccasamuppāda can be said to be a subclass/subset of idappaccayata, but would that make it less descriptive or accurate?

When i searched Ānantarika and kamma, i encountered the following thread which i hope you find relevant:

viewtopic.php?t=35378

[Dhammapardon]

Biological father and mother could be a subclass of subject and object, but i am not what conclusions we can draw from that?

Thank you for the clarification Bundokji.
It was to conclude understanding the previous question the way intended.

The question posed was:

For example, does Ānantarika Kamma refer to mother and father as biological, or subject and object?

By this reasoning, it could be both. Not either or.

For example, paṭiccasamuppāda can be said to be a subclass/subset of idappaccayata, but would that make it less descriptive or accurate?

If understanding idappaccayata depended on also understanding paṭiccasamuppāda, then I believe the clarification provides accuracy.

When i searched Ānantarika and kamma, i encountered the following thread which i hope you find relevant:

Yes, this was very informative.
Thanks for the clarification and be well.

[Ontheway]

The Buddha did mention that certain class of beings are born spontaneously such as Devas, Brahmas, Petas, certain Garudas, certain Nagas, Hell denizens, etc.

These beings we can't see them with naked eyes, so we need to take that with faith.

[Bundokji]

In SN 25.4, the Buddha taught:

"One who, after pondering with a modicum of discernment, has accepted that these phenomena are this way is called a Dhamma-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry"

Why the Buddha did not mention asuras along with lower realms? does that mean being reborn spontaneously does not apply to dhamma-followers?

[Mumfie]

Why the Buddha did not mention asuras along with lower realms?

Although in the six-realm scheme that's favoured in Mahayana Buddhism the asuras occupy a class of their own, the Theravada follows the five-realm scheme of the Pali suttas in which asuras are not even mentioned. The five realms are hell, petas, animals, humans, devas. Why are asuras not mentioned? Because they are not regarded as a class that's distinct from the above five. All the beings named "asuras" are either upper-class petas or lower-class devas.

That being so, to answer the question, "Can a sekha be reborn as an asura?" with an unqualified yes or no would be to over-generalize, for though the lower-class devas can be ariyans, the upper-class petas cannot.

does that mean being reborn spontaneously does not apply to dhamma-followers?

It applies if they are reborn as devas.

[Bundokji]

Why the Buddha did not mention asuras along with lower realms?

Although in the six-realm scheme that's favoured in Mahayana Buddhism the asuras occupy a class of their own, the Theravada follows the five-realm scheme of the Pali suttas in which asuras are not even mentioned. The five realms are hell, petas, animals, humans, devas. Why are asuras not mentioned? Because they are not regarded as a class that's distinct from the above five. All the beings named "asuras" are either upper-class petas or lower-class devas.

That being so, to answer the question, "Can a sekha be reborn as an asura?" with an unqualified yes or no would be to over-generalize, for though the lower-class devas can be ariyans, the upper-class petas cannot.

does that mean being reborn spontaneously does not apply to dhamma-followers?

It applies if they are reborn as devas.

Thank you for your answer.

I was referring to the Asuras as a class of the four states of woe (apaya bhaya), of which SN 25.4 omitted.

The meaning of Sekha can be ambiguous when the four noble truths is divided into pairs (dukkha and sukha). SN 25.4 seems to utilize phassa as to the knowledge of the first two marks of existence, but i am not sure if it differentiates between sotapatti maga and sotapatti phala. What constitutes a dhamma follower?

The third mark/characteristic has to do with knowledge of dhamma rather than knowledge of sankhara. Sukha on the other hand when divided into a pair can indicate knowledge of the unconditioned (nibbana) which is described as timeless, and knowledge of the path which is described as ancient (has to do with time).

Considering that sotāpanna still has work to do hence reborn up to seven times, i am not sure if SN 25.4 refers to the first two types of sainthood, or the first four, and if it includes being reborn as asura or deva. If right view involves knowledge of the workings of kamma, then how can a sage be reborn spontaneously?

I am sorry if what i am presenting is a mess.