[karkinadze]

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.

Lazy

bear in mind, i did quote Mn. i. 95, which states: "the Awakened One spoke two kinds of truths...the speech wherewith the world converses is true...on account of its being agreed upon by the world"

your assertion of the literal quality is the exact worldly (materialistic) interpretation described in Mn. i. 95

for example, you take the term "rebirth" to literally mean what you reify it to be

however, the Pali does not seem to lend itself to such reification because the term used here upapajjati can simply mean to be 'born again' or to 'jati again'

further, the term upapajjati is not found in all similar passages. for example, MN 4 used the term upapannā. MN 135 includes the terms paccājāyati, upapajjati & āgacchati. MN 120 uses the terms upapatti & upapajjeyya. MN 75 also uses the term upapajjeyya.

in short, in your materialistic view, you seem to overlook the karmic or mental emphasis of the teaching, which states: "on the dissolution of the body (kaya), after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell."

to end, you are reifying words we do not even know the meaning of, given the Buddha used multiple words for which the translators offer one singular meaning

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.

the realms can be known/experienced as mental states of becoming. however, giving deferrence over what is known/experienced to post-mortem reification is both mere speculation and ignoring the known to embrace the unknown

I think we can gain insight into the Buddha's intent from examining rival teachings which he rejected. Those of Ajita Kesakambalin, for example:

i sense you have taken the quote out of context. the quote is about an entire plethora of nihilistic views, including the denial of the efficacy of karma

any objection to this doctrine by the Buddha would not have its root in the view of the elements but in the denial of the efficacy of karma

further, are you sure the words you quote were not spoken by the Buddha. i gain the impression the words were spoken by Ajita Kesakambalin

you are making an assumption to assert 100% of what was said was rejected by the Buddha

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",

yes...as i just suggested

Mundane "right view" is the view which is conducive to the ethical life and to the contemplative life.

Definitely not. The mundane right view is not conducive to the contemplative life. The Buddha made this very clear in MN 117 and suttas such as MN 2

Regards




Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations arise in him and arisen fermentations increase.

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

MN 2