[Peterli]

Inspired by the 'Will I be reborn as a worm' talk from Ajahn Amaro that I listened to recently and his suggestion that getting off the Wheel of Life is disentangling the mind with the things it gets caught up in, I thought I'd start a new topic.

Is it recessary to become entangled in speculation about literal post-mortem rebirth? Is it not enough to interpret rebirth as a series of different mental states we experience in the same lifetime?

What are your opinions on this?

[videolkif]

The words reborn and rebirth is often used in this context by other Religions... (during lifetime)...like reborn Christian, reborn Muslim....which usually comes along with a portion of fanaticism in some cases. Especially when a politician uses this. If you ask me whether I ever encountered a (during the same lifetime) reborn Buddhist...I have to say: Not that I am aware of it.
Yet the talk of Ajahn Amaro made me think again of many symbolism that we try to unravel during our studies of the dharma. I do not think that speculations about post mortem rebirth lead to anything fruitful as such.

And to interpret rebirth as series of different mental states in ones lifetime may be possible for advanced Buddhist practitioners... aratha's ?
I simply do not know ...I do not feel that progress in understanding the dharma is a stepwise rebirth.

There may also be a danger that dharma students would start claiming to be reborn ( a bit and then an other bit and so on) due to some sudden new experiences...which may just be a temporary or longer lasting side effect of meditation or yoga....if this stuff of rebirth during lifetime is an official form of practice at all.
That is my opinion...but I am not sure yet.....

[Ambrakam]

I really liked what Ajahn Amaro said about the Wheel of Becoming representing mental states, it made perfect sense to me. I don't really speculate on rebirth after death despite having had some very strange experiences, it does seem to me though that if the Wheel of Becoming explains the cycle during life and we continue after death that the same "rules" should be in force.

[untostaronaf]

Is it necessary to become entangled in speculation about literal post-mortem rebirth?

No at all. When mind is stilled, aware, mindful, peaceful... the ideas and speculations of post-morten rebirth fade without leaving any trace.

Is it not enough to interpret rebirth as a series of different mental states we experience in the same lifetime? Between the many challenges that Buddha has left in his teachings there is the one about dropping all speculative views about any sort of afterlife or a previous life. The unaware mind, lacking Right View, results in cravings; from the coarse cravings of sensual pleasures to subtle and elegant ones like those about the believe in afterlives scenarios. Dropping them is not because of their existence v.s nonexistence -we can't know that- but as a fundamental condition to develop Right View and to awake from suffering.

I think it should be enough to understand rebirth as a series of different mental states in the unaware mind.

[esanamaserrn]

Hi A-D

It seems that our friends here (and I) believe that it’s not necessary to speculate about that stuff.
As for me, I used to be in coma and stayed in ICU for a month and got a lot near death experiences but never saw a light or a glimpsed of any next life. ;-)

By the way, what’s interesting is why most people still believe in the rebirth (reincarnation) even they never believe in any religions?
I believe it comes form their fears that they don’t have a second chance to do what they have to do.

Once Ajarn Payut (who wrote “Buddhadharma”, sorry I’m not good at transliteration) explained to my friends and I that it was like when someone died down here, after that there might be a plant grew up on that spot. It was not that the soul of that person became the tree. It was just a process (of conditionality.) Because this exists, so that does (Idappaccayatā.)

Another interesting is the different interpretations of paṭicca-samuppāda. And as for as I know (30 years ago) there were only Ajarn Payut and Ajarn Buddhadasa who didn’t interpreted it as the reincarnation sense.

[Sadsidioribre]

Inspired by the 'Will I be reborn as a worm' talk from Ajahn Amaro that I listened to recently and his suggestion that getting off the Wheel of Life is disentangling the mind with the things it gets caught up in, I thought I'd start a new topic.

Is this talk available online in any form?

[V8V8V8]

Is this talk available online in any form?

Yes - see the first post in the thread with the title "Will I be reborn as a worm?" in our General Buddhist Discussions forum.

and at the link with the same title (13mb) dated 21st August.

http://www.amaravati.org/abmnew/inde...eachings/audio

[jokiruss]

Another interesting is the different interpretations of paṭicca-samuppāda. And as for as I know (30 years ago) there were only Ajarn Payut and Ajarn Buddhadasa who didn’t interpreted it as the reincarnation sense.

Hi wanderer63, do you mean P.A. Payutto ? He wrote a booklet on Dependent Origination and section 5 is particularly interesting, because he gives an example from everyday life.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/coarise.htm

Also, here's a link to Buddhadasa's version:

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bh...asamuppada.htm

[bettingonosports]

Is it recessary to become entangled in speculation about literal post-mortem rebirth? Is it not enough to interpret rebirth as a series of different mental states we experience in the same lifetime?

What are your opinions on this?

Hello,

I don't think that it is necessary to become entangled in speculation about "literal post-mortem rebirth". But I also think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

To refer to future events (after death or not) as "mine", "me" or "my self" is as wrong as doing it with regard to the present or past. But unless we are at least stream-enterers, we can't help doing so (even if we think that we shouldn't, we don't know how not to do it). So as long as the present is "mine", past and future will be "mine" too.

Whether I relate to the time after the break-up of this body by means of "a new body" or by means of "no more body" - in both cases I relate to it as either "my" new body or "my" extinction - and in both cases this is equally wrong. But - and that is the important point - it is not the presence (or absence) of a another body which makes it wrong, it is the appropriation of that state as "mine, me, my self". In the same way the present body/life is not non-existent just because it is "not mine, not me, not my self" either. This body or life is just "more present" than past or future ones, so to speak.

I understand the discoures of the Buddha about past and future lives in that sense, i.e. that ignorance and suffering will be there as long as they are not eradicated, and that includes future lives (which, because of ignorance, will be as much "mine" as this one). Speculation is not necessary - but an awareness of the limits of one's (current) understanding.

Best wishes,

Phygro

[Abaanto]

Hello,

I don't think that it is necessary to become entangled in speculation about "literal post-mortem rebirth". But I also think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

But what is "the baby" here? What is "the bath water"? Seems like the Buddha's teachings of liberation from suffering would be the baby, and all this superstition and cultural accretion would be not even the water, but what the water is washing away.


To refer to future events (after death or not) as "mine", "me" or "my self" is as wrong as doing it with regard to the present or past. But unless we are at least stream-enterers, we can't help doing so (even if we think that we shouldn't, we don't know how not to do it). So as long as the present is "mine", past and future will be "mine" too. That is not a convincing assertion. Sounds a lot like a claim that we cannot help "sinning" if we are not "saved in Jeebus".

Whether I relate to the time after the break-up of this body by means of "a new body" or by means of "no more body" - in both cases I relate to it as either "my" new body or "my" extinction - and in both cases this is equally wrong. But - and that is the important point - it is not the presence (or absence) of a another body which makes it wrong, it is the appropriation of that state as "mine, me, my self". In the same way the present body/life is not non-existent just because it is "not mine, not me, not my self" either. This body or life is just "more present" than past or future ones, so to speak.
Sounds like a reincarnationist work-around. What is problematic is that either view is speculative and both are irrelevant to the Buddha's point that one can alleviate suffering here and now through understanding, self-discipline and ethical conduct.

I understand the discoures of the Buddha about past and future lives in that sense, i.e. that ignorance and suffering will be there as long as they are not eradicated, and that includes future lives (which, because of ignorance, will be as much "mine" as this one). Speculation is not necessary - but an awareness of the limits of one's (current) understanding. Assuming there will be future lives (reincarnation) is speculation. Assuming anything about the nature such lives might take is also speculation: "Will I be in the future? What will i be in the future? Will there be ignorance and suffering in the future?"

The Buddha's teachings are about the here-and-now and what we can do in the here-and-now to eradicate ignorance and suffering in the here-and-now.

[crestosssa]

Is it recessary to become entangled in speculation about literal post-mortem rebirth?

Not in the least. But the topic keeps rearing its ugly head.

Is it not enough to interpret rebirth as a series of different mental states we experience in the same lifetime?

What are your opinions on this? It is enough to disregard the term "rebirth" entirely. It is loaded with cultural and superstitious accretion and not necessary or relevant to the Buddha's teachings of liberation.

[fedelwfget]

Is it recessary to become entangled in speculation about literal post-mortem rebirth?

Most certainly! It gets Stuka posting, so it's good for something.

Is it not enough to interpret rebirth as a series of different mental states we experience in the same lifetime? ... and replace one speculative stance with another?

What are your opinions on this? Dump both and come back as a dolphin

[ancexttew]

most certainly! It gets stuka posting, so it's good for something.;d

lmao

[Deengealf]

...

[w4WBthjv]

....so long and thanks for the fish...?

[Metrujectiktus]

Dump both and come back as a dolphin

....so long and thanks for the fish...?

Indeed!






Ok,.... back to topic again

[soineeLom]

Most certainly! It gets Stuka posting, so it's good for something.


... and replace one speculative stance with another?


Dump both and come back as a dolphin

Or maybe a mouse .... memorable to me from Hitchhikers Guide

Slartibartfast - ( talking about the fate of Earth ) Best laid plans of mice.
Arthur - And men.
Slartibartfast - What ???
Arthur - Best laid plans of mice and men.
Slartibartfast - Oh. .. No, I don't think men had much to do with it.

Sorry, going off topic again.

[uncoosesoge]

It appears that in the Buddha's teaching the Wheel of Life and Death is not at all what it is in Hinduism (or in most of Buddhism today!).

Ven. Buddhadasa says,

If the desired result is obtained, there will arise a still greater desire. If the desired result is not obtained, there is bound to follow a struggling and striving until one way or another it is obtained. Keeping this up results in the vicious circle: action (karma), result, action, result, which is known as the Wheel of Samsara. Now this word samsara is not to be taken as referring to an endless cycle of one physical existence after another. In point of fact it refers to a vicious circle of three events: desire; action in keeping with the desire; effect resulting from that action; inability to stop desiring, having to desire once more; action; once again another effect; further augmenting of desire ... and so on endlessly. Buddha called this the "Wheel" of samsara because it is endless cycling on, a rolling on. It is because of this very circle that we are obliged to endure suffering and torment. To succeed in breaking loose from this vicious circle is to attain freedom from all forms of suffering, in other words Nirvana. Taken from his phenomenal book "Handbook for Mankind", which is available online and should be read by everyone on these boards. The quote above comes from the chapter entitled "Three Universal Characteristics".

I think he's dead on.

[jhfkgkfdvjk]

It appears that in the Buddha's teaching the Wheel of Life and Death is not at all what it is in Hinduism (or in most of Buddhism today!).

Ven. Buddhadasa says,



Taken from his phenomenal book "Handbook for Mankind", which is available online and should be read by everyone on these boards. The quote above comes from the chapter entitled "Three Universal Characteristics".

I think he's dead on.

Agreed.

[yharmon6614]

Agreed.

In fact, stuka him/herself put it rather nicely elsewhere:

"Samsara" according to the Buddha is not "cyclic existences". That is the pre-Buddha meaning of the term. His own use of the word, in relation to his own liberative teachings, denoted habitual patterns of distorted thinking and the cycles of misery that such distorted thinking causes. Basically, the Buddha's good ol' wheel ain't nothing but highly sophisticated "psychology". The pre-Buddha wheel, on the other hand, is the institutionalized and extremely speculative cosmology of pan-Indian civilization.