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

**TeemFilla** · 09-27-2011, 10:11 PM

of course you are

'birth' (jati) in the Dependent Origination is something mental yet you are regarding the Pali word 'jati' as exclusively physical

we already had a thread about 'Reborn As a Worm' where Ajahn Chah explained a spiritual meaning of 'birth' and 'death'

1. a revival or renaissance the rebirth of learning
2. a second or new birth; reincarnation
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged ©

a: a new or second birth : metempsychosis
b: spiritual regeneration

i already posted the quote about two levels of truth

to interpret in the manner you are doing is fine - but it does not mean it is true

Buddha said in MN 117 such teachings side with merit but not with liberation

i already said there are numerous Pali words

when the Buddha used the word 'birth', he did not always mean birth from a womb. i already quoted the Visuddhimagga

the Pali word may be 'born again', i.e., to take birth again. to become again. 'becoming' is something mental

of course the words are not clear in the meaning

for me, the Buddha spoke as he did according to truth. buddhas do not lie

for example, a person drinks alcohol, which causes various changes to their body & mind. the result is euphoria. after the end of that body, after the death of that alcohol fueled body, the person is born into a state of deprivation, that is, a hangover from the alcohol

my interpretation is as valid as yours

both interpretations, although different, do not change the principles taught

both intepretations represent the reality of karmic inheritance

The word "birth" is not the issue. You keep using it as if it's ambiguous and, it is, in and of itself; however birth after death and dissolution is different than birth. I may experience birth many times in this life (as many moments as there are moments of mind). In the same way the Tibetans use the term Bardo not only to describe the intermediate state between gross physical death and gross physical rebirth but also between waking state and the next waking state after sleep---bardo can refer to that intermediate sleep state; I do not experience birth after death and dissolution even once in this life. You can claim that death, also is a momentary phenomena, like birth; however the word dissolution refers to the decomposition of the body. Or are you claiming that all three words, death, dissolution, rebirth (make it 4---subsequent existence), in addition to the context of this Sutta (it's about those who spend their life doing skillful or unskillful things) are all to be interpreted as you wish them to be. Yes, you can make your claims; you can say "dissolution" refers to the the dissolution of the mental formations in that instant. However, I see no reason why the Buddha would speak in this way, where the context and every single term seem to have a clear primary meaning; yet we're supposed to use secondary meanings in each case where the seeming facts don't fit your own interpretation.

Just an aside...

I think you must have me pegged incorrectly as one who ha developed conviction regarding actual (womb-based) rebirth and has faith in it. I don't. I have no faith in the Buddha's words in this Sutta as it pertains to womb-based rebirth either; . Not because I have no faith in the Buddha's teachings; not because I wish to have no faith in it; but because of my own upbringing and my own inability to make rebirth a natural and spontaneous part of my own personal (as opposed to doctrinal) tenet system. And that may be true for you as well. What I don't do is try to fit my own beliefs into scripture in the manner you are doing.

Lastly, as one who accepts that there are statements of the Buddha that may be provisional and those that are definitive, and as a believer in the two truths. (that IS part of my tenet system based on my study of psychology, scripture, etc.), it IS possible that the Buddha was speaking metaphorically when he discussed rebirth. However, I need to have proof that this was not meant literally, via statements which directly contradict the ones I've quoted; then we can agree that there is a need to interpret one in the light of the other. You've quoted many Suttas for us. I fail to see contradiction; we don't disagree on concepts of no-self, no-soul. As one who agrees that, ultimately, there is no being, no suffering, no goal, etc. (Heart Sutra)

I have no problem with examining all phenomena in light of the second truth. In that sense, of course there is no rebirth; there is nothing to be reborn, there is no womb, there are no contaminated heaps to be born either---ultimately.

However, we are examining the Sutta I quoted in light of its intended purpose; that was to teach about karma and its results; the mind stream that acts experiences those results. They can experience them immediately, later in this life, in the next life, or in a future life. I think the Buddha is clear about that. It's not a good idea to mix up the two truths in the same breath unless you are looking solely at the 2nd truth. When there's a teaching which relates to the first truth---about convention, about relativity of phenomena, about what actually arises and can be perceived then these are teachings about conduct and should be scrutinized that way; we should not apply ultimacy analysis to everything including how to sit in meditation, since, ultimately there is no meditation either.

09-27-2011, 10:11 PM	#40
TeemFilla Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 491 Senior Member	of course you are 'birth' (jati) in the Dependent Origination is something mental yet you are regarding the Pali word 'jati' as exclusively physical we already had a thread about 'Reborn As a Worm' where Ajahn Chah explained a spiritual meaning of 'birth' and 'death' 1. a revival or renaissance the rebirth of learning 2. a second or new birth; reincarnation Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © a: a new or second birth : metempsychosis b: spiritual regeneration i already posted the quote about two levels of truth to interpret in the manner you are doing is fine - but it does not mean it is true Buddha said in MN 117 such teachings side with merit but not with liberation i already said there are numerous Pali words when the Buddha used the word 'birth', he did not always mean birth from a womb. i already quoted the Visuddhimagga the Pali word may be 'born again', i.e., to take birth again. to become again. 'becoming' is something mental of course the words are not clear in the meaning for me, the Buddha spoke as he did according to truth. buddhas do not lie for example, a person drinks alcohol, which causes various changes to their body & mind. the result is euphoria. after the end of that body, after the death of that alcohol fueled body, the person is born into a state of deprivation, that is, a hangover from the alcohol my interpretation is as valid as yours both interpretations, although different, do not change the principles taught both intepretations represent the reality of karmic inheritance The word "birth" is not the issue. You keep using it as if it's ambiguous and, it is, in and of itself; however birth after death and dissolution is different than birth. I may experience birth many times in this life (as many moments as there are moments of mind). In the same way the Tibetans use the term Bardo not only to describe the intermediate state between gross physical death and gross physical rebirth but also between waking state and the next waking state after sleep---bardo can refer to that intermediate sleep state; I do not experience birth after death and dissolution even once in this life. You can claim that death, also is a momentary phenomena, like birth; however the word dissolution refers to the decomposition of the body. Or are you claiming that all three words, death, dissolution, rebirth (make it 4---subsequent existence), in addition to the context of this Sutta (it's about those who spend their life doing skillful or unskillful things) are all to be interpreted as you wish them to be. Yes, you can make your claims; you can say "dissolution" refers to the the dissolution of the mental formations in that instant. However, I see no reason why the Buddha would speak in this way, where the context and every single term seem to have a clear primary meaning; yet we're supposed to use secondary meanings in each case where the seeming facts don't fit your own interpretation. Just an aside... I think you must have me pegged incorrectly as one who ha developed conviction regarding actual (womb-based) rebirth and has faith in it. I don't. I have no faith in the Buddha's words in this Sutta as it pertains to womb-based rebirth either; . Not because I have no faith in the Buddha's teachings; not because I wish to have no faith in it; but because of my own upbringing and my own inability to make rebirth a natural and spontaneous part of my own personal (as opposed to doctrinal) tenet system. And that may be true for you as well. What I don't do is try to fit my own beliefs into scripture in the manner you are doing. Lastly, as one who accepts that there are statements of the Buddha that may be provisional and those that are definitive, and as a believer in the two truths. (that IS part of my tenet system based on my study of psychology, scripture, etc.), it IS possible that the Buddha was speaking metaphorically when he discussed rebirth. However, I need to have proof that this was not meant literally, via statements which directly contradict the ones I've quoted; then we can agree that there is a need to interpret one in the light of the other. You've quoted many Suttas for us. I fail to see contradiction; we don't disagree on concepts of no-self, no-soul. As one who agrees that, ultimately, there is no being, no suffering, no goal, etc. (Heart Sutra) I have no problem with examining all phenomena in light of the second truth. In that sense, of course there is no rebirth; there is nothing to be reborn, there is no womb, there are no contaminated heaps to be born either---ultimately. However, we are examining the Sutta I quoted in light of its intended purpose; that was to teach about karma and its results; the mind stream that acts experiences those results. They can experience them immediately, later in this life, in the next life, or in a future life. I think the Buddha is clear about that. It's not a good idea to mix up the two truths in the same breath unless you are looking solely at the 2nd truth. When there's a teaching which relates to the first truth---about convention, about relativity of phenomena, about what actually arises and can be perceived then these are teachings about conduct and should be scrutinized that way; we should not apply ultimacy analysis to everything including how to sit in meditation, since, ultimately there is no meditation either.
	Quote