[BenWired306]

refer to my previous post....

you seem to be asserting and inferring what the Buddha said when we do not even know what the Buddha said ...

You are the one who agreed that the text was properly translated and was authentic; are you now asserting it was neither properly translated nor authentic? That's why I asked you specifically about those aspects. Authenticity implies it was stated by the Buddha; properly translated implies that whatever was stated in Pali has been rendered in English to the best of our current ability to do so. If there are better translations please point me to them and I'll read them. Make sure they are by highly regarded translators, please.

So, assuming you are now arguing that the translation is NOT correct and/or that there are issues with the authenticity of this Sutta, what am I to do; ignore the purported words of the Buddha and instead work from a praxis which denies the possibility of rebirth and then find a way to fit the words into it, basing it all on alleged ambiguity of terminology?

I'd rather examine the words, start with their plain and ordinary meaning and work with that. All I'm doing is reading the 4 corners of the Sutta and making my assertion based on that. This Sutta's message is very clear--- that Karma/kamma is certain, the time of ripening is not, and speculating about when kamma/karma will ripen and making blanket assertions based on that is improper. If you have special knowledge which disproves the plain meaning of the quote, the intent of the Buddha in giving this particular teaching and the meaning of this Sutta by all means, share it with us.

you are reifying a Pali term and creating a materialistic perception of what you regard "rebirth" to be I asked you if you approved of the translation and you stated you did. Therefore, the terms I am referring to are English terms. I have no facility with Pali; I do know English fairly well. I do know the meaning of rebirth in English. I do know the meaning of "some subsequent existence" in English. I certainly do know the meaning of "on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears...", in English. So I'm doing no such thing. I'm reading the plain English and making the same conclusion anyone proficient in English would make. Nor am I reifying anything. I'm not taking some abstraction and groundlessly giving it solidity. None of these terms in English is an abstractions. They all have commonly accepted meanings. If they are wrong why did the translator(s) use them? Why not use "in subsequent mental formations" occurring this this current life, or words to that effect; why would the translator use words and phrases which point to one and only one unmistakable conclusion---in English at least.

I think I may have an answer for that. Context. If you examine the context of this entire Sutta it seems to be discussing an entire lifetime engaged in by a person, not a short period of time, not a particular act or behavior, or thought. The text makes far more sense that way. One can engage in many unskillful deeds throughout an entire lifespan and, in the next existence (the text says rebirth) appear to be enjoying a comfortable existence; or one can engage in a lifetime of giving and helping sentient beings and, in their next existence, manifest great suffering. However, the text goes on to state (I'm paraphrasing here, of course) that, by the operation of kamma/karma the result from engaging in unskillful acts (bad existences, realms or circumstances) will always be manifest in either one's rebirth or some subsequent existence.

you seem picture a being being born from a woman's womb In this Sutta the Buddha, not I, refers to a "person" engaging in certain conduct. So, by "person" the only commonly accepted meaning for that would be "human being"; then he states "And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell". Well, again this refers either to a human or preta or hell being or perhaps animal. So, I certainly don't assume womb-born birth. Hell beings are not born of a womb. If this human is reborn as a human I assume that it's a womb-based birth. I also assume that "after death" refers to physical death of the body. Once again we may be said to die an infinite number of times in each life; however, we do not undergo dissolution of body more than once; therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the death referred to here, especially given the context in which it's presented, is the end of corporeal existence for that being.

Does this mean I believe there are hell beings, pretas, and various exotic realms that I can't relate to except through reading? You might now claim that so I'll answer. No, I'm simply trying to understand what the Buddha is saying. He's clearly using the conventionally accepted realms of his day. He's asserting possible "reappearance" in these places after this person who had right view and abstained from killing dies and after dissolution of his body. Once again I am not asserting any of this. He is.

Does any of this mean that I accept rebirth. Not at all. I never said I did. I said that the Buddha seems to accept it, no I. Do I reject rebirth. No---why should I; there's some anecdotal evidence that's not strong enough for me to accept this as truth and too strong for me to rule it out.

where as i picture a mental state born as a result of kamma (action) I am not going to speculate that the meaning of "after dissolution of the body after death, he reappears in .....[various realms and types of existence]" is, in fact a reference to a hellish type of mental formation or dream state or the like that can occur in someone who is still alive and refrains from killing and has correct view. Why do I refrain from asserting or even considering this? Because I would have to contort my own mind far too much to read this into the Buddha's very plain and matter of fact words. Once again I see no ambiguity. I may not agree but I think the words are clean and so is their meaning.