DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - "the consciousness that is generated from previous lives"

**arriftell** · 09-26-2011, 09:48 PM

Now turning to whether the Buddha stated that rebirth exists I think there's no question that he did.

I agree. There are sutta passages which present it literally, and I don't see sufficient reason to speculate that he meant them otherwise. When he speaks of beings reappearing in this or that realm "after the breakup of the body, after death", the most parsimonious explanation is that he means post-mortem rebirth.

Whether we have to take it literally is another question. Certainly the realms can be regarded as mental states or allegories, and rebirth can be understood simply with reference to "becoming". For me, the most important thing is to understand the principle and intent of the teaching, rather than getting tangled up in arguments about ghosts, devils and devas. I think we can gain insight into the Buddha's intent from examining rival teachings which he rejected.

Those of Ajita Kesakambalin, for example:

Another time I approached Ajita Kesakambalin and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: 'Venerable Ajita, there are these common craftsmen... They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now... Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?'

"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.' Now, what I see here are two main concerns. One -- is there a point to morality? Second -- is there a point to the contemplative life? Ajita Kesakambalin says no, it is all meaningless. This to me is the crux of the matter.

It's not so much about whether there is an afterlife or not. It's more about statements such as "generosity is taught by idiots", "there is no fruit of good and bad actions", "the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated" and so on -- in other words, nihilism. To practice the path we have to start with the assumption that there is some purpose to it. Otherwise, why bother? The path is not easy. Sensory pleasures are fun. Bad actions can be enjoyable too, unless you get jailed for them. Generosity is expensive.

Mundane "right view" is the view which is conducive to the ethical life and to the contemplative life. That's how I understand it at least.

09-26-2011, 09:48 PM	#25
arriftell Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 411 Senior Member	Now turning to whether the Buddha stated that rebirth exists I think there's no question that he did. I agree. There are sutta passages which present it literally, and I don't see sufficient reason to speculate that he meant them otherwise. When he speaks of beings reappearing in this or that realm "after the breakup of the body, after death", the most parsimonious explanation is that he means post-mortem rebirth. Whether we have to take it literally is another question. Certainly the realms can be regarded as mental states or allegories, and rebirth can be understood simply with reference to "becoming". For me, the most important thing is to understand the principle and intent of the teaching, rather than getting tangled up in arguments about ghosts, devils and devas. I think we can gain insight into the Buddha's intent from examining rival teachings which he rejected. Those of Ajita Kesakambalin, for example: Another time I approached Ajita Kesakambalin and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: 'Venerable Ajita, there are these common craftsmen... They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now... Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?' "When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.' Now, what I see here are two main concerns. One -- is there a point to morality? Second -- is there a point to the contemplative life? Ajita Kesakambalin says no, it is all meaningless. This to me is the crux of the matter. It's not so much about whether there is an afterlife or not. It's more about statements such as "generosity is taught by idiots", "there is no fruit of good and bad actions", "the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated" and so on -- in other words, nihilism. To practice the path we have to start with the assumption that there is some purpose to it. Otherwise, why bother? The path is not easy. Sensory pleasures are fun. Bad actions can be enjoyable too, unless you get jailed for them. Generosity is expensive. Mundane "right view" is the view which is conducive to the ethical life and to the contemplative life. That's how I understand it at least.
	Quote