[brraverishhh]

It seems there is some doubt or downright rejection of assertion that the Buddha stated a position on rebirth. Yet, of course, there are various Suttas where the Buddha appears to do just that; so I'm wondering if these Suttas are being given some interpretation I don't know, denied, faulted for bad translation, or perhaps, being interpreted as the Buddha using skillful means to speak to disciples of lower intelligence. Or perhaps certain statements of the Buddha have simply fallen out of favor because it's impossible to confirm the underlying assumptions that are a part of them (such as acceptance of rebirth)?

Not being sarcastic here; I don't understand what this conversation is grounded in other than a conclusion that rebirth can't possibly occur, based on reasoning and on other statements of the Buddha pertaining to anatman, etc.. If you conclude that it can't occur does that mean that the Buddha's statements wherein he specifically refers to his own past lives, others' past and future lives, predictions about future lives, the effect of kamma on future lives, etc. are all to be taken as provisional in meaning, all proffered for the benefit of those of limited faculties?

Now turning to whether the Buddha stated that rebirth exists I think there's no question that he did. This doesn't mean he's correct; however, I certainly give his words a lot of weight, as he correctly (IMO) expounded on suffering, its causes, its cessation and the means to that end.

For example...

In Majjhima Nikaya 136--Mahakammavibhanga Sutta If the Buddha states that such and such action will result in some definite result in this existence, in the next existence, or in some subsequent existence.

When the Buddha states 18. (iv) "Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here...has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.[12] But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has abstained from killing living beings here...has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.[13] are we supposed to question the authenticity of the teaching?, of the translation?, of the seriousness of the Buddha when he stated those words (was it just "skillful means" when speaking to rebirthers like Ananda)? what need is there for interpretation; where is there any ambiguity?

Also birth (jati) is one of the 12 links in the chain of dependent origination, which suggests to me (perhaps it's a radical idea here) that birth is dependent upon prior action. After all they are links; if birth is an entirely adventitious phenomenon, as it relates to kamma, at least, then why is it a link? Each link is both a cause and a result. So birth must be a both cause (of everything that comes after it) and a result of what comes before it, and prior links must be its cause. If not, what is its cause?

The 12 links are a closed system in terms of cause and effect; otherwise, as with any experimental design, there is no force in the teaching (if there are extraneous causes---unaccounted for variables which produce the various links in the chain, the teaching is unpersuasive; other things might then account for each of the links and no thesis could possibly be proven). Can one be a Buddhist and take the position that birth is entirely unrelated to prior actions of body, speech, mind? I don't see how. Seeing the 12 links a representing a single lifespan breaks the chain at death. Since the Buddha specifically taught that actions can manifest in results after death (see above) it makes no sense to turn what is cyclical and logical (in terms of there being a cause, an effect of that cause, that effect becoming the cause for some subsequent effect, etc.) into a a straight line terminating in death.

I don't think one needs to take the position that I am reborn or that MY consciousness is reborn, although the translation here states that "he will feel"; I don't think the Buddha intended for anyone to take that to mean that "I", if I engage in X behavior will personally feel something in "my" future rebirth. We have to stop thinking that way; we don't own our own rebirths but, I think it's fair to say that, assuming that we don't reap the fruits of some act of body speech, mind in this lifetime, some future being will have to suffer (or experience pleasure) based on our present actions. The Buddha is explicit on that point.

It's enough to state that the actions of this body, this speech, this mind lead to suffering, to old age, to sickness, to death, to birth (of a sentient being, obviously), and that the word "birth", as set forth in the teaching on dependent origination can only mean birth that is the result of prior action. I leave it to others to cling to rebirth as "MY rebirth". But I see no reason to try to interpret the Buddhas clear speech as interpretable metaphor. If we have compassion we will hesitate before engaging in actions that cause suffering to anyone, including ourselves, others, and, additionally, future beings which might be influenced by ripenings based on acts committed in this life

[MartZubok]

Also birth (jati) is one of the 12 links in the chain of dependent origination, which suggests to me (perhaps it's a radical idea here) that birth is dependent upon prior action. After all they are links; if birth is an entirely adventitious phenomenon, as it relates to kamma, at least, then why is it a link? Each link is both a cause and a result. So birth must be a both cause (of everything that comes after it) and a result of what comes before it, and prior links must be its cause. If not, what is its cause? The 12 links are a closed system in terms of cause and effect; otherwise, as with any experimental design, there is no force in the teaching (if there are extraneous causes---unaccounted for variables which produce the various links in the chain, the teaching is unpersuasive; other things might then account for each of the links and no thesis could possibly be proven). Can one be a Buddhist and take the position that birth is entirely unrelated to prior actions of body, speech, mind? I don't see how. Seeing the 12 links a representing a single lifespan breaks the chain at death.

Can I suggest that you read this essay "Paticcasamuppada:
Practical Dependent Origination" by the late Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, please tjampel?

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

You might also like to look at PA Payutto's booklet on "Dependent Origination - Chapter 5 Other Interpretations" where we can see it explained over the course of one day.

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

Both of these men are well-known and highly respected Thai Buddhist teachers, by the way.

[feroiodpiop]

...Can one be a Buddhist and take the position that birth is entirely unrelated to prior actions of body, speech, mind? I don't see how. Seeing the 12 links a representing a single lifespan breaks the chain at death. Since the Buddha specifically taught that actions can manifest in results after death (see above) it makes no sense to turn what is cyclical and logical (in terms of there being a cause, an effect of that cause, that effect becoming the cause for some subsequent effect, etc.) into a a straight line terminating in death. I'm not worried about whether or not the "Buddhist" label applies to me, but I do take much of what the Buddha taught as guidance.

If you take 'birth' literally, then the prior actions of one's parents set up the conditions leading to the physical birth. No broken chain, after all. If the literal interpretation includes 'your' body, speech and mind, it's a good chance to look for the owner of the body, speech and mind. Is it a discrete, isolated entity that retains a single identity over time? If so, then how are we to understand anatta? If not, then there's no problem with not injecting 'you' and 'your' into the formula. Body, speech and mind need not be strictly interpreted as 'yours', though linguistic conventions may make it seem otherwise.

If you take it metaphorically, then more possibilities open up. You can see the life experience as a stream of momentary conditions that arise out of previous conditions, uninterrupted by the apparent individuality of those doing the experiencing. That feeling of individuality seems to be the source of the atman error. Rebirth may be the cyclical arising and dissipating of awareness of being (not beings), or of the habitual mental act of identifying oneself as a discrete entity. Each time that happens, the 'entity' that does the act is not the same one as the one it identifies with through memory. That's a perceptual illusion.

Rebirth may even have a more mundane meaning, in the sense that one person plays many different roles in everyday life: sibling, friend, student, parent, worker, etc. If we take out the illusory 'your' of experience, then when the awareness of a farmer fills the consciousness, rebirth as a farmer occurs.

If this formula holds, then there's ultimately nothing supernatural or mystical about seeing "one's former lives". Take the "one" out and the conflict dissolves, I think. It may simply be the arising of the knowledge that those apparently 'others' are not so 'other' at a deeper level of understanding and experience.

9. The king said: 'When you speak of transmigration 1, Nâgasena, what does that mean?'

'A being born here, O king, dies here. Having died here, it springs up elsewhere. Having been born there, there it dies. Having died there, it springs up elsewhere. That is what is meant by transmigration.'

'Give me an illustration.'

'It is like the case of a man who, after eating a mango, should set the seed in the ground. From that a great tree would be produced and give fruit. And there would be no end to the succession, in that way, of mango trees.'

'Very good, Nâgasena!' Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3510.htm

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!' Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3509.htm

[iouiyyut]

When the Buddha states are we supposed to question the authenticity of the teaching?, of the translation?, of the seriousness of the Buddha when he stated those words (was it just "skillful means" when speaking to rebirthers like Ananda)? what need is there for interpretation; where is there any ambiguity?

the authenticity & translation are fine

however, your interpretation is just that...yours

for example, the translation of the following sutta is fine

When he pursues unsuitable forms & sights with the eye... pursue unsuitable ideas with the intellect, lust invades the mind. With his mind invaded by lust, he incurs death or death-like suffering.

With his mind invaded by lust, he incurs death or death-like suffering. For this is death in the discipline of the noble ones: when one renounces the training and returns to the lower life. And this is death-like suffering: when one commits a defiled offense.

MN 105


duve saccāni akkhāsi
sambuddho vadataṃ varo
sammutiṃ paramatthañca
tatiyaṃ nupalabbhati

The Awakened One, best of speakers,
Spoke two kinds of truths:
The conventional and the ultimate.
A third truth does not obtain.

tattha:
saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ
lokasammutikāraṇaṃ
paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ
dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti

Therein:
The speech wherewith the world converses is true
On account of its being agreed upon by the world.
The speech which describes what is ultimate is also true,
Through characterizing dhammas as they really are.

tasmā vohārakusalassa
lokanāthassa satthuno
sammutiṃ voharantassa
musāvādo na jāyatī ti

Therefore, being skilled in common usage,
False speech does not arise in the Teacher,
Who is Lord of the World,
When he speaks according to conventions.

(Mn. i. 95)

[arriftell]

Now turning to whether the Buddha stated that rebirth exists I think there's no question that he did.

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.

Whether we have to take it literally is another question. 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. I think we can gain insight into the Buddha's intent from examining rival teachings which he rejected.

Those of Ajita Kesakambalin, for example:

Another time I approached Ajita Kesakambalin and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, I sat to one side. As I was sitting there I asked him: 'Venerable Ajita, there are these common craftsmen... They live off the fruits of their crafts, visible in the here and now... Is it possible, venerable sir, to point out a similar fruit of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?'

"When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary elements. At death, the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated, destroyed. They do not exist after death.' Now, what I see here are two main concerns. One -- is there a point to morality? Second -- is there a point to the contemplative life? Ajita Kesakambalin says no, it is all meaningless. This to me is the crux of the matter.

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", "the wise and the foolish alike are annihilated" and so on -- in other words, nihilism. To practice the path we have to start with the assumption that there is some purpose to it. Otherwise, why bother? The path is not easy. Sensory pleasures are fun. Bad actions can be enjoyable too, unless you get jailed for them. Generosity is expensive.

Mundane "right view" is the view which is conducive to the ethical life and to the contemplative life. That's how I understand it at least.

[KellyLynchIV]

Why should I interpret these words differently. If the Buddha states that "he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.[13] ", why would you conclude that the Buddha meant something different than what he said. He could have chosen very different words but he chose these. That's why I asked about translation.

BTW my view may not be different than yours. I've never stated that I personally believed in rebirth. I grew up knowing nothing about rebirth and have always found it difficult to accept. It's something I am trying to work through. I am looking for help, but not looking to achieve an understanding by uprooting the clear meaning of properly translated phrases of what you claim is an authentic Sutta. If there are rules of interpretation that I am not seeing then state them. If, when the Buddha states "in the next life" or in his subsequent existence, he intends something different than the most obvious meaning then state the basis for the Buddha's own use of these phrases to ordinary beings. Please address the actual words and tell me why I should not understand them to mean what they appear to mean.

I am trying to make sense of the Jataka portion of the Pali Canon, and the various other Suttas in which the Buddha appears to recount and accept past and future lives, doing so with clear and unmistaken words. Anyone can claim that each moment is a subsequent existence but this is a philosophical position which requires interpretation. The Buddha generally used words in their everyday meaning and not in some coded way. If he says "bring me a mustard seed" we should not need to speculate on why he used "mustard" as the adjective to seed and that the pungency and bitterness of mustard epitomizes the condition of suffering of all beings. We should be able to rely on the fact that the Buddha asked for a mustard seed, period. If the Buddha states that "he" will feel a result in a subsequent life we should NOT have to go through the slightest bit of "meta", wherein we resort to coded language and context to alter the obvious meaning of plain-spoken language.

If you wish to avoid the error of interpolating a continuing "I" into the mix then why not see subsequent rebirth, existences, lives, for a single being as a type of transfer of energy and pattern from something that is not physical (the formulation called "my" mind) to another similar substrate (another being's mind). We have no problem with wave theory; we know that the wave that washes ashore doesn't contain the water of the preceding wave, which produced the final one; it contains the energy distributed in a specific pattern; this is dynamic and transferable. Then it's easy to read "he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.[13] " as referencing the experience of a merely ascribed "self" that experiences certain things due to the previous actions of some merely ascribed self.

In the end it's better to practice as if this in our only life. It's better not to speculate about past and future lives; it's also essential not to ignore the words of the Buddha because he didn't speak them idly or casually. They all were spoken for a purpose. In this case the purpose of the Sutta I quoted is very clear. Kamma/karma is certain, the time of ripening of result is uncertain; can kill people, use harsh speech, lie, steal, etc. in this life and have a comfortable existence in the next; you can serve people your entire life and have a miserable existence in the next. Those who only look a short way down the road (in this Sutta specifically that means the next life) and either see a definite connection with immediate actions or see no connection between actions and consequences are misstating the principles of Kamma, because the time of ripening is uncertain. So it's simply too difficult for me to read this entire Sutta as metaphor.

[MzTT]

BTW my view may not be different than yours

Hi tjampel,

Please pardon my ignorance -but I'm not sure who you are addressing in #26 ?

[AnetTeilor]

Sorry, I am addressing Element. When I click "Reply" I thought that the response would reference the box of the the person I was replying to.
It's more like "Reply to thread" than "Reply", I guess? Correct?

My apologies; I'll remember to add @____ next time I decide not to click quote

[wvbwxol]

Sorry, I am addressing Element. When I click "Reply" I thought that the response would reference the box of the the person I was replying to.
It's more like "Reply to thread" than "Reply", I guess? Correct?

My apologies; I'll remember to add @____ next time I decide not to click quote

Yes, if you're not quoting from someone's post, you need to refer to them by name - or write the number of their post .

Thanks very much

[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

[Zysyewgg]

Why should I interpret these words differently. If the Buddha states that "he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.", why would you conclude that the Buddha meant something different than what he said.

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 reifying a Pali term and creating a materialistic perception of what you regard "rebirth" to be

you seem picture a being being born from a woman's womb

where as i picture a mental state born as a result of kamma (action)




Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

John 3

[leareliovag]

There are sutta passages which present it literally, and I don't see sufficient reason to speculate that he meant them otherwise.

even the Brahmin Buddhaghosa, who wrote the Visuddhimagga for a becoming in the joys of Távatiísá, did not hold such fixed views



Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings.

For in the passage “He recollects … one birth (játi), two births” it is becoming.

In the passage, “Visákhá, there is a kind (játi) of ascetics called Nigaóþhas (Jains)” it is a monastic order.

In the passage, “Birth (játi) is included in two aggregates” t is the characteristic of whatever is formed.

In the passage, “His birth is due to the first consciousness arisen, the first cognition manifested, in the mother’s womb” (Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking.

In the passage “As soon as he was born (sampatijáta), Ánanda, the Bodhisatta …” it is parturition.

In the passage “One who is not rejected and despised on account of birth” it is clan.

In the passage “Sister, since I was born with the noble birth” it is the Noble One’s virtue.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...cation2011.pdf

[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.

[TOD4wDTQ]

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

John 3 Jesus would not have been foolish enough to discuss the concept of being born again within a single lifetime with another being or group of disciples by first stating "after death and dissolution of the body, they are born again (well, unless he was predicting his own future I guess). That would convey precisely what the Buddha conveyed....subsequent rebirth as commonly understood. In other words, your use of this particular scripture illustrates precisely why I firmly believe that the Buddha's discourses asserted rebirth as commonly known and not some special type of rebirth prior to death and dissolution of the body.

[Fgunehjf]

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?

the text is clear, in that due to karma, there is a result

[maxsobq]

I'm not taking some abstraction and groundlessly giving it solidity.

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'

None of these terms in English is an abstractions. They all have commonly accepted meanings.

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

Why not use "in subsequent mental formations" occurring this this current life, or words to that effect;

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

why would the translator use words and phrases which point to one and only one unmistakable conclusion---in English at least.

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

I may not agree but I think the words are clean and so is their meaning.

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

[Veronnisa]

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.

quote below

32. Sariputta, there are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and spontaneous generation.

33. What is egg-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called egg-born generation.

What is womb-born generation? There are these beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born generation.

What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation.

What is spontaneous generation? There are gods and denizens of hell and certain human beings and some beings in the lower worlds; this is called spontaneous generation.

These are the four kinds of generation.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....012.ntbb.html

[Eugen80]

Jesus would not have been foolish enough to discuss the concept of being born again within a single lifetime with another being or group of disciples by first stating "after death and dissolution of the body, they are born again (well, unless he was predicting his own future I guess). That would convey precisely what the Buddha conveyed....subsequent rebirth as commonly understood. In other words, your use of this particular scripture illustrates precisely why I firmly believe that the Buddha's discourses asserted rebirth as commonly known and not some special type of rebirth prior to death and dissolution of the body.

Buddha simply taught the principles of Dependent Origination

again, your interpretation belongs to you

[sttrqiss]

Originally Posted by Element

What is spontaneous generation?There are........and certain human beings Who are these human beings?

[TeemFilla]

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.