[MFSSCW2c]

The Milinda Panha Sutta was probably written around the turn of the first century B.C. It depicts a conversation between a monk, Nagasena, and an Indo-Greek king named Menander (which becomes Milinda in Pali), who wanted to learn about Buddhism.

The Milinda Panha is quite long and goes into great detail on a wide range of issues about what the Buddha taught. However, Nagasena's teachings about rebirth are particularly interesting to me. He gives similes about how rebirth can happen without transmigration (reincarnation).

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm

I'll post the part that I found most interesting, and I hope others will offer their kind insights and responses to it:

5. The king said: 'Where there is no transmigration, Nâgasena, can there be
rebirth?'

'Yes, there can.'

'But how can that be? Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be
said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?'

'Certainly not.'

'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'

'Give me a further illustration.'

'Do you recollect, great king, having learnt, when you were a boy, some verse
or other from your teacher?'

'Yes, I recollect that.'

'Well then, did that verse transmigrate from your teacher?'

'Certainly not.'

'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'

'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
6. The king said: 'Is there such a thing, Nâgasena, as the soul 1?'

'In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing 2.'
p. 112
'Very good, Nâgasena!'
___________________
7. [72] The king said: 'Is there any being, Nâgasena, who
transmigrates from this body to another?'

'No, there is not.'

'But if so, would it not get free from its evil deeds.'

'Yes, if it were not reborn; but if it were, no 1.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose, O king, a man were to steal another man's mangoes, would the thief
deserve punishment?'

'Yes.'

'But he would not have stolen the mangoes the other set in the ground. Why
would he deserve punishment?'

'Because those he stole were the result of those that were planted.'

'Just so, great king, this name-and-form commits deeds, either pure or
impure, and by that Karma another name-and-form. is reborn. And therefore is it
not set free from its evil deeds?'

'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
8. The king said: 'When deeds are committed, Nâgasena, by one name-and-form,
what becomes of those deeds?'

'The deeds would follow it, O king, like a shadow that never leaves it 2.'

'Can any one point out those deeds, saying: "Here are those deeds, or
there"?'

'No.'
p. 113
'Give me an illustration.'

'Now what do you think, O king? Can any one point out the fruits which a tree
has not yet produced, saying: "Here they are, or there"?'

'Certainly not, Sir.'

'Just so, great king, so long as the continuity of life is not cut off, it is
impossible to point out the deeds that are done.'

'Very good, Nâgasena!'
____________________
9. [73] The king said: 'Does he, Nâgasena, who is about to be reborn
know that he will be born?'

'Yes, he knows it, O king.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose a farmer, O king, a householder, were to put seed in the ground, and
it were to rain well, would he know that a crop would be produced.'

'Yes, he would know that.'

'Just so, great king, does he who is about to be reborn know 1 that he will be
born.'

'Very good, Nâgasena 2!'
____________________
10. The king said: 'Is there such a person as the Buddha, Nâgasena?'

'Yes.'

'Can he then, Nâgasena, be pointed out as being here or there?'

'The Blessed One, O king, has passed away by that kind of passing away in
which nothing remains which could tend to the formation of another
p. 114
individual 1. It
is not possible to point out the Blessed One as being here or there.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'Now what do you think, O king? When there is a great body of fire blazing,
is it possible to point out any one flame that has gone out, that it is here or
there?'

'No, Sir. That flame has ceased, it has vanished.'

'Just so, great king, has the Blessed One passed away by that kind of passing
away in which no root remains for the formation of another individual. The
Blessed One has come to an end, and it cannot be pointed out of him, that he is
here or there. But in the body of his doctrine he can, O king, be pointed out.
For the doctrine 2
was preached by the Blessed One?'

'Very good, Nâgasena!'

[Caursedus]

For the opening of the dialogue:

Most of the illustrations, at least now, are quite beyond my understanding because the level of abstraction. The easiest one is the case of the poem.

Why does it do not transmigrate?

How can be understood that a poem given by a teacher or a written teaching that is understood and realized by the student of such Dhamma is a case of rebirth?

In this conext, I ignore the difference of transmigration and rebirth. Where does the poem rebirth?

Now, the very last example, that of the passing away of the Blessed One, is clear that even when the Buddha has died as all nama-rupa goes under disruption of khandas, has left a teaching that can transform a human into an enlightened being.

Is that a rebirth? If so, why?

[SergeyLisin]

Reincarnation/transmigration requires some sort of substance that continues from one dead/dying being into a new body. This has never been demonstrated, only alleged and believed on faith. The Buddha apparently looked inside himself for something that could transmigrate and found nothing.

And yet, this life is not impotent. What we do here has countless effects into the future, so we need to behave ethically if peace is to be achieved. What then, carries on if it's not one's consciousness or spirit?

Something passes from the poem teacher to the student. It's just sound waves, but they're in a very particular pattern, so they have certain effects on the listener. The listener experiences those effects and passes them on to others by recreating the sound patterns. That's rebirth without transmigration, as I understand it so far.

What else is there to a human being except the input from the 5 physical senses and one's mental consciousness? All of these things depend upon the body for existence, and when the body breaks down, those things dissipate, too. Nevertheless, it is important what one says and does, because the effects are potentially endless.

[Sydneyfonzi]

The Buddha apparently looked inside himself for something that could transmigrate and found nothing.

This is a fact that I consider as such. Also, if the Buddha didn't found nothing, it has to be considered to be relevant for the rebirth ideas.

And yet, this life is not impotent. What we do here has countless effects into the future, so we need to behave ethically if peace is to be achieved. No need to bring this, necessarily, into the after death realm. It can be framed in a single life time. The theory [as a body of proved facts] of Complex Systems can give light into this fact.

What then, carries on if it's not one's consciousness or spirit? Yes. But this spirit is "transcribed" into actions and behaviors that influence social order and has an impact in behaviour and social construction of behavior patterns.

Something passes from the poem teacher to the student. It's just sound waves, but they're in a very particular pattern, so they have certain effects on the listener. The listener experiences those effects and passes them on to others by recreating the sound patterns. That's rebirth without transmigration, as I understand it so far.

What else is there to a human being except the input from the 5 physical senses and one's mental consciousness? All of these things depend upon the body for existence, and when the body breaks down, those things dissipate, too. Time needed to digest this concepts...

Nevertheless, it is important what one says and does, because the effects are potentially endless. True but with certain caution. Effects are not so stable or completely under accurate prediction. Like Milinda case number 8, as far as I understand it.

[Wachearex]

This is a fact that I consider as such. Also, if the Buddha didn't found nothing, it has to be considered to be relevant for the rebirth ideas.

Ah. I should have been more careful with my wording. Not "found nothing", but found nothing except the body, the various sensations and what we make of them, and the ongoing stream of consciousness. No spirit, soul, homunculus or anything that can zip out of the body at death and enter another body.

No need to bring this, necessarily, into the after death realm. It can be framed in a single life time. The theory [as a body of proved facts] of Complex Systems can give light into this fact. True. There is nothing that remains constant or unchanged throughout a single lifetime, and the effects of one's actions can be experienced before this consciousness dissipates. There's no telling how many times rebirth occurs in this lifetime. But the effects do continue after the breakup of this body. We are all subject to the actions of people we've never met nor even knew existed.


Yes. But this spirit is "transcribed" into actions and behaviors that influence social order and has an impact in behaviour and social construction of behavior patterns. Maybe. In what sense are you using the word 'spirit'? As an animating force or ghost that resides in the body? Metaphorically? Something else?

Time needed to digest this concepts... Years, for me.


True but with certain caution. Effects are not so stable or completely under accurate prediction. Like Milinda case number 8, as far as I understand it. True again. It's not a form of determinism. It's conditioned co-arising. Things "tend to" arise under certain prevailing conditions, rather than the deterministic "do arise".

I'm really enjoying this conversation, Kaarine!

[tilmprarnerit]

5. The king said: 'Where there is no transmigration, Nâgasena, can there be
rebirth?'

'Yes, there can.'

'But how can that be? Give me an illustration.'

'Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp from another lamp, can it be
said that the one transmigrates from, or to, the other?'

'Certainly not.'

'Just so, great king, is rebirth without transmigration.'

This passage is has become a standard citation for folks who claim a "reincarnation-that-is-not-reincarnation". How do you address that?

[EzequielTMann]

This passage is has become a standard citation for folks who claim a "reincarnation-that-is-not-reincarnation". How do you address that?

Honestly, I just don't see how anybody can get anything like transmigration from that. I read it and come to the opposite conclusion, especially when taken in context (which many fail to do) with the rest of the relevant passages, including the one about the teacher teaching a poem to a student. Dunno. I guess people see what they want to see, interpret what they want to interpret. It's no skin off my teeth what other people think, really.

[spineeupsenry]

Ah. I should have been more careful with my wording. Not "found nothing", but found nothing except the body, the various sensations and what we make of them, and the ongoing stream of consciousness. No spirit, soul, homunculus or anything that can zip out of the body at death and enter another body.

Maybe this is the main aspect to be considered. As far as I have understood, what we are is a compound of the five khandas which in the unaware mind takes them as a self as it happens with the six senses where the unaware mind thinks, for example, that the eye is myself. Same happens with the mind, mind contact and mind consciousness taken as self.

I think that the idea of stream of consciousness has never been taught in the [main?] Nikayas. What I see are moments not a flow. Very tiny moments of consciousness, its object and its sense organ: An idea-the mind-contact=consciousness. Right View or Samadhitti is developed to contemplate that moments. An idea arise and fade with no trace in our mind until we grasp, crave and cling. IMO, there is no such thing as a stream.

After the disruption of the body, where there is no more contact of the sense organ with its object, consciousness ceases. Or, where does such a stream goes?

The case of the poem... The poem is an idea, be it written or be it spoken, that makes contact with the sense organ called mind where this contact is the birthplace of mind consciousness of the poem which can be taken as mine or my self which can lead to the idea of a flow.

And yet, this life is not impotent. What we do here has countless effects into the future, so we need to behave ethically if peace is to be achieved. What then, carries on if it's not one's consciousness or spirit?

I'm really enjoying this conversation, Kaarine! That is great, I am enjoying it too!

[TerAlelmlor]

Greetings,

Source; http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index...d=44&Itemid=72

Na ca so na ca añño, 'Neither he nor another'. This often-quoted dictum occurs in the Milindapañha somewhere, as the answer to the question 'When a man dies, who is reborn—he or another?'. This question is quite illegitimate, and any attempt to answer it cannot be less so. The question, in asking who is reborn, falls into sakkāyaditthi. It takes for granted the validity of the person as 'self'; for it is only about 'self' that this question—'Eternal (so) or perishable (añño)?'—can be asked. The answer also takes this 'self' for granted, since it allows that the question can be asked. It merely denies that this 'self' (which must be either eternal or perishable) is either eternal or perishable, thus making confusion worse confounded. The proper way is to reject the question in the first place. Compare Anguttara VI,ix,10 , where it is said that the ditthisampanna not only can not hold that the author of pleasure and pain was somebody (either himself or another) but also can not hold that the author was not somebody (neither himself nor another). The ditthisampanna sees the present person (sakkāya) as arisen dependent upon present conditions and as ceasing with the cessation of these present conditions. And, seeing this, he does not regard the present person as present 'self'. Consequently, he does not ask the question Who? about the present. By inference—
atītānāgate nayam netvā having induced the principle to past and future
(cf. Gāmini Samy. 11 )[a]—he does not regard the past or future person as past or future 'self', and does not ask the question Who? about the past or the future. (Cf. Māra's question in line 2 of PARAMATTHA SACCA §1.)

(The Milindapañha is a particularly misleading book.) Metta,
Retro.

[VtLe67WR]

Maybe this is the main aspect to be considered. As far as I have understood, what we are is a compound of the five khandas which in the unaware mind takes them as a self as it happens with the six senses where the unaware mind thinks, for example, that the eye is myself. Same happens with the mind, mind contact and mind consciousness taken as self.

Sounds like a good way to phrase it to me.

I think that the idea of stream of consciousness has never been taught in the [main?] Nikayas. What I see are moments not a flow. Very tiny moments of consciousness, its object and its sense organ: An idea-the mind-contact=consciousness. Right View or Samadhitti is developed to contemplate that moments. An idea arise and fade with no trace in our mind until we grasp, crave and cling. IMO, there is no such thing as a stream. I agree. It's a metaphor. Streams aren't genuine entities any more than people.

After the disruption of the body, where there is no more contact of the sense organ with its object, consciousness ceases. Or, where does such a stream goes? Where does a song go when it ends? Again, it's just a metaphor. Not to be taken literally.

The case of the poem... The poem is an idea, be it written or be it spoken, that makes contact with the sense organ called mind where this contact is the birthplace of mind consciousness of the poem which can be taken as mine or my self which can lead to the idea of a flow.

What is felt by others are the consequences of actions but once a person has gone there is no way that the death person can still act over others. Or am I wrong? A person has hurt you in the past. The person harm your feelings and you have cling into such feeling tightly. The person is gone to another country or has died. That person can not harm you any more. Where the harm is, is in the mind that has cling tightly to the feeling of having being harmed.[/quote]

No, a dead person is no longer capable of creating new phenomena that could affect anything, as far as I know. Like you said, we harm ourselves by clinging to past experience and recreating the harm in our minds.

Consequences of past actions that will be experienced by others. Yes.

I think we are subject to consequences of past actions. Isn't this slightly different: actions from consequences? I think that's what the sutta is calling rebirth instead of transmigration. The actions of the teacher who taught the poem having consequences on the student, who subsequently tells the poem to others, etc, etc.

Once the person that loved me has gone there is no more love from that loved person. Just the feeling of having being loved and, IMO, the clinging to this feeling can lead to the ideas of "streams of consciousness" and other speculative issues. I think "stream of consciousness" describes something a little different. Keep in mind that it is a metaphor, not intended to claim that there is actually a "stream" that really exists somewhere. Present conditions are brought about by past conditions, and future conditions arise from the present ones. There is a quasi-causal continuum of phenomena, but phenomena are not entities. The mind evolved to be what is is because it helped our ancestors survive. The mind is less concerned with truth than survival. A useful fiction will survive as long as it aids survival and reproductive competitiveness. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of understanding what the mind is doing and seeing the fiction for what it is, I think. And I think that's what the Buddha was trying to teach us how to do.

[7HlBQS8j]

Greetings,

Source; http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index...d=44&Itemid=72


Metta,
Retro.

Hmm. I deeply respect what Nanavira Thera wrote, but I'm not sure where he's coming from in this respect.

Na ca so na ca añño, 'Neither he nor another'. This often-quoted dictum occurs in the Milindapañha somewhere, as the answer to the question 'When a man dies, who is reborn—he or another?'. This question is quite illegitimate, and any attempt to answer it cannot be less so. The question, in asking who is reborn, falls into sakkāyaditthi. It takes for granted the validity of the person as 'self'; for it is only about 'self' that this question—'Eternal (so) or perishable (añño)?'—can be asked. The answer also takes this 'self' for granted, since it allows that the question can be asked. 6. The king said: 'Is there such a thing, Nâgasena, as the soul 1?'

'In the highest sense, O king, there is no such thing 2.'



p. 112

'Very good, Nâgasena!'

____________________

7. [72] The king said: 'Is there any being, Nâgasena, who transmigrates from this body to another?'

'No, there is not.'

[Hmwmzian]

He gives similes about how rebirth can happen without transmigration

Hi FBM,
It makes perfect sense to me. I would say that what we are discussing forms the basis for Buddha's direct insight into anatta. Where is the atta or self within the 12 links? nowhere to be found. Buddha must have seen this when recalling past abidings. The process unfolds of itself without the necessity of a 'being' to jump from life to life.

As to the process itself I have encountered two different takes; the first that it is a kind of linear event with craving, ignorance etc. at its root. The second that it is simultaneously and dualistically dependent-arisen. The two do not contradict each other in my opinion, yet I tend to incline to the latter as it more completely resolves the issue for me.

Namaste
Kris

[Hftqdxpm]

Hi FBM,
It makes perfect sense to me. I would say that what we are discussing forms the basis for Buddha's direct insight into anatta. Where is the atta or self within the 12 links? nowhere to be found. Buddha must have seen this when recalling past abidings. The process unfolds of itself without the necessity of a 'being' to jump from life to life.

As to the process itself I have encountered two different takes; the first that it is a kind of linear event with craving, ignorance etc. at its root. The second that it is simultaneously and dualistically dependent-arisen. The two do not contradict each other in my opinion, yet I tend to incline to the latter as it more completely resolves the issue for me.

Namaste
Kris

Thanks for that, Kris. I have to admit that I don't have enough background on those two different takes to understand what processes you're getting at. If you have the time, would you mind filling in more of the details?

[dXI9XFOA]

It makes perfect sense to me.

Why not explain to the forum then, without using similes, how it all happens. This is a good place to start:
"A being has died... "

I don't understand this whole thing as clearly as you do just by reading a simile of lighting a candle using another candle or teacher-student knowledge migration. They are vague and unclear examples - beating around the bush without directly explaining how Mr.A dies and (his citta? nama/rupa? consciousness? kamma?) reappears or continues to any form of existence.

[HassFks]

"Of course you are befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you are uncertain. When there is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises. I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without sustenance. Just as a fire burns with sustenance and not without sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance and not of one without sustenance."

SN 44.9

"But, Master Gotama, at the moment a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a flame is being swept on by the wind and goes a far distance, I designate it as wind-sustained, for the wind is its sustenance at that time."

"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Discuss.

[krasniyluch]

I think "stream of consciousness" describes something a little different. Keep in mind that it is a metaphor, not intended to claim that there is actually a "stream" that really exists somewhere. Present conditions are brought about by past conditions, and future conditions arise from the present ones. There is a quasi-causal continuum of phenomena, but phenomena are not entities. The mind evolved to be what is is because it helped our ancestors survive. The mind is less concerned with truth than survival. A useful fiction will survive as long as it aids survival and reproductive competitiveness. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of understanding what the mind is doing and seeing the fiction for what it is, I think. And I think that's what the Buddha was trying to teach us how to do.

It is still difficult to point to a stream of consciousness any time that consciousness is a point discrete moment which arise in contact with its object. Eye-consciousness is a discrete moment as mind-consciousness is. Once the object is absent and contact fades, consciousness ceases. It can't continue in a way of a stream.

Mindfulness, meditation discovers that discrete and point aspect of a moment of consciousness with out leaving an stream. IMO, clinging and craving leads to the idea of a stream that sound like something everlasting, when it is not.

[8Zgkdeee]

Why not explain to the forum then, without using similes, how it all happens. This is a good place to start:
"A being has died... "

It is a good idea.

[Jambjanatan]

It is still difficult to point to a stream of consciousness any time that consciousness is a point discrete moment which arise in contact with its object. Eye-consciousness is a discrete moment as mind-consciousness is. Once the object is absent and contact fades, consciousness ceases. It can't continue in a way of a stream.

Mindfulness, meditation discovers that discrete and point aspect of a moment of consciousness with out leaving an stream. IMO, clinging and craving leads to the idea of a stream that sound like something everlasting, when it is not.

I did mention that it's just a metaphor, didn't I? And that a stream is no more an entity than a person?

[66paptroump]

I did mention that it's just a metaphor, didn't I?

Sure.

And that a stream is no more an entity than a person? What I found difficult why the idea of a stream when, as far as my understanding goes, I haven't noticed it suggested in the Nikayas.

[fiettariaps]

"Of course you are befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you are uncertain. When there is a reason for befuddlement in you, uncertainty arises. I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance, Vaccha, and not of one without sustenance. Just as a fire burns with sustenance and not without sustenance, even so I designate the rebirth of one who has sustenance and not of one without sustenance."

SN 44.9



Discuss.

The sustenance is the illusion born of ignorance, as is the "being":

"And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"

"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

Craving leads to the illusion of being a discrete, enduring entity. Craving is not a substance, but a behavior. As long as one craves future existences, one is caught up in the illusion of transmigration and cannot/will not understand that rebirth is not reincarnation. Once one is rid of attachment to being and becoming, one stops craving for future being and can see rebirth for what it is. It is not the continuation of the self, for there was never a self to begin with, only arising and ceasing phenomena.