[feroiodpiop]

...Can one be a Buddhist and take the position that birth is entirely unrelated to prior actions of body, speech, mind? I don't see how. Seeing the 12 links a representing a single lifespan breaks the chain at death. Since the Buddha specifically taught that actions can manifest in results after death (see above) it makes no sense to turn what is cyclical and logical (in terms of there being a cause, an effect of that cause, that effect becoming the cause for some subsequent effect, etc.) into a a straight line terminating in death. I'm not worried about whether or not the "Buddhist" label applies to me, but I do take much of what the Buddha taught as guidance.

If you take 'birth' literally, then the prior actions of one's parents set up the conditions leading to the physical birth. No broken chain, after all. If the literal interpretation includes 'your' body, speech and mind, it's a good chance to look for the owner of the body, speech and mind. Is it a discrete, isolated entity that retains a single identity over time? If so, then how are we to understand anatta? If not, then there's no problem with not injecting 'you' and 'your' into the formula. Body, speech and mind need not be strictly interpreted as 'yours', though linguistic conventions may make it seem otherwise.

If you take it metaphorically, then more possibilities open up. You can see the life experience as a stream of momentary conditions that arise out of previous conditions, uninterrupted by the apparent individuality of those doing the experiencing. That feeling of individuality seems to be the source of the atman error. Rebirth may be the cyclical arising and dissipating of awareness of being (not beings), or of the habitual mental act of identifying oneself as a discrete entity. Each time that happens, the 'entity' that does the act is not the same one as the one it identifies with through memory. That's a perceptual illusion.

Rebirth may even have a more mundane meaning, in the sense that one person plays many different roles in everyday life: sibling, friend, student, parent, worker, etc. If we take out the illusory 'your' of experience, then when the awareness of a farmer fills the consciousness, rebirth as a farmer occurs.

If this formula holds, then there's ultimately nothing supernatural or mystical about seeing "one's former lives". Take the "one" out and the conflict dissolves, I think. It may simply be the arising of the knowledge that those apparently 'others' are not so 'other' at a deeper level of understanding and experience.

9. The king said: 'When you speak of transmigration 1, Nâgasena, what does that mean?'

'A being born here, O king, dies here. Having died here, it springs up elsewhere. Having been born there, there it dies. Having died there, it springs up elsewhere. That is what is meant by transmigration.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'It is like the case of a man who, after eating a mango, should set the seed in the ground. From that a great tree would be produced and give fruit. And there would be no end to the succession, in that way, of mango trees.'

'Very good, Nâgasena!' Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3510.htm

5. The king said: 'Where there is no transmigration, Nâgasena, can there be rebirth?'

'Yes, there can.'

'But how can that be? Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?'

'Certainly not.'

'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'

'Give me a further illustration.'

'Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse or other from your teacher?'

'Yes, I recollect that.'

'Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher?'

'Certainly not.'

'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'

'Very good, Nâgasena!'

____________________

6. The king said: 'Is there such a thing, Nâgasena, as the soul 1?'

'In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing 2.'



p. 112

'Very good, Nâgasena!'

____________________

7. [72] The king said: 'Is there any being, Nâgasena, who transmigrates from this body to another?'

'No, there is not.'

'But if so, would it not get free from its evil deeds.'

'Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no 1.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose, O king, a man were to steal another man's mangoes, would the thief deserve punishment?'

'Yes.'

'But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why would he deserve punishment?'

'Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.'

'Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or impure, and by that Karma another name-and-form. is reborn. And therefore is it not set free from its evil deeds?'

'Very good, Nâgasena!' Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3509.htm