Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
To describe Ajahn Buddhadasa's ( or Dogen's or Nagarjuna's ) exposition of Dharma as 'purely psychological ' indicates a basic and fatal misunderstanding of that exposition.
All three are saying that any attempt to reduce Dharma to a description of a series of temporal events that unfold in a linear way is to reduce the majesty of the Buddha's vision to a mere timetable.
He was, as he himself said, pointing to the ' Unborn, Unmade, Unmanifest.'
But I will leave others to read the material and reach their own conclusions.
The idea that there is a consensus , even within the Theravada, concerning the Pali Canonical view of Paticcsamuppada and Punabhava is easily disproved by visiting forums like Dhamma Wheel, which is a specialist Theravadin forum, where long standing students of the Pali Dhamma fail to agree on a wide variety of issues within the parameters of those subjects.
In particular a literalist interpretation of Pali terms is invariably a cause of much discussion which normally fails to find resolution.
When we then turn our attention to the Mahayana the spectrum of views becomes even wider.
We like the idea that we can turn to a translation of an ancient text and find an unamibiguous answer to life's questions, or a black and white interpretation of the Buddha's teaching.
@hermitwin said:
I have not encountered the separation of rebirth and reincarnation in Asia.
It is only in the west that this distinction is made.
Once again, it boils down to westerners find the idea of reincarnation
hard to swallow. @hermitwin said:
I have not encountered the separation of rebirth and reincarnation in Asia.
It is only in the west that this distinction is made.
Once again, it boils down to westerners find the idea of reincarnation
hard to swallow.
Actually, I don't think that's it. I think the reason they're one and the same in Asia is due to the influence of folk beliefs, as in Tibet. I think the reason many (not all) Westerners differentiate between rebirth and reincarnation is that they tend to be more conscientious of issues regarding translation, and trying to remain true to what the Buddha taught.
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
@Dakini said:
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
Split ends are not a problem for the sangha, many who have debated this to such an extent that all their hair has fallen out . . .
@Dakini said:
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
'Reincarnation ' is a folk belief that carries with it the implication of an 'atta ', a soul , which goes from body to body. From ' carne ' flesh. To become re-enfleshed.
The Buddha's teaching of punabhava ( again becoming ) by contrast, takes its stance from his teaching of 'anatta '.
And describes what happens as we constantly reassert our false sense of self.
Whether this also happens post-mortem is another subject for discussion.
@Dakini said:
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
Well our history should be a 1500+ year warning of the danger of creative interpretation of religious texts in translation! That is why we try to be precise.
As for the OP, I wouldn't worry too much about specifics - find a sangha you like and learn as much as you can. It is perfectly acceptable in most sangha to debate such things when the time is appropriate. I hold slightly differing views on one or two matters to my teacher and she hasn't kicked me out yet. Nor do we ever come to blows on such matters but she has sharpened my debating skills somewhat
@Citta said:
To describe Ajahn Buddhadasa's ( or Dogen's or Nagarjuna's ) exposition of Dharma as 'purely psychological ' indicates a basic and fatal misunderstanding of that exposition.
Buddhadasa's interpretation of dependent origination is purely psychological. I didn't make any reference to Dogen or Nagarjuna here.
@Dakini said:
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
There are some westerners who regard the suttas as the most reliable source of what the Buddha actually taught. There are other westerners who are uncomfortable with some of what the suttas describe, and who therefore look to contemporary interpretations.
@Citta said:
The idea that there is a consensus , even within the Theravada, concerning the Pali Canonical view of Paticcsamuppada and Punabhava is easily disproved by visiting forums like Dhamma Wheel, which is a specialist Theravadin forum, where long standing students of the Pali Dhamma fail to agree on a wide variety of issues within the parameters of those subjects.
I didn't say there was a concensus. I said that Buddhadasa's interpretation of DO isn't consistent with what the suttas describe.
I repeat , the assertion that Buddhadasa is stating a ' psychological ' view is a complete misunderstanding of both his position and for that matter a misunderstanding of the term 'psychological'.
As far as I make any sense of your use of the word you seem to be saying that he sees DO as purely mental events.
In fact he sees it in terms of all of the skandhas and their simultaneous arising in and with time.
To take a term from western culture like 'psychology' and apply it willy-nilly to constructs that owe nothing to western culture does no service to any debate.
@SpinyNorman said:
There are some westerners who regard the suttas as the most reliable source of what the Buddha actually taught. There are other westerners who are uncomfortable with some of what the suttas describe, and who therefore look to contemporary interpretations.
And there are others who go back beyond both contemporary interpretations, and beyond the Theravada in its present modern form as it evolved in the last 150 years ..Ajahn Buddhadasa is one such. Ajahn Chah is another.
@SpinyNorman said:
I didn't say there was a concensus. I said that Buddhadasa's interpretation of DO isn't consistent with what the suttas describe.
It is entirely consistent with what the Suttas describe.
There is no single interpretation of DO which is held by a majority.
It is widely accepted that the the 12 links ( nidanas ) are a later interpolation, as Pali students on Dhamma Wheel have told you.
Your views actually represent a minority of current Theravadins Norman.
And I was schooled in these matters by Dr H Saddhatissa Mahathera, acknowledged by many as the greatest Pali scholar of modern times.
I'm curious about people's interpretations of the following excerpt from the Lion's Roar sutta, which I think is pretty representative of the material which leads many people to conclude that some kind of post-mortem rebirth is important to the Buddhist cosmology. It doesn't matter for my practice, but it is a source of occasional discomfort to me.
17. (8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a Tathagata's power...
18. (9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, [71] after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power...
Some folks have extensive experiences with past lives and other folks don't.
The first point I'd like to mention is that having had close contact with both groups, I have seen no evidence that one group holds anymore spiritual credentials than the other.
The second point is that usually those folks who have had experiences with past lives simply experience the karmic unfolding as if through another's sense gates of an ignorance that they themselves are also susceptible to. To a Buddhist practitioner, it is both the opportunity to see the consequences of being subject to this shared ignorance and a motivation to resolve ones contribution to it's existence.
The third point is that experiencing a pantheon of endless lives forming and dissolving again, only showed me a view of how we are all just temporary manifestations of unresolved karma. Taxi cabs that can choose to either ferry our life loads along for the next cab to pick up or to find some respite for the passengers that are currently part of our ride.
So Fivebells...What particular part of the Lions roar sutta, disturbs you?
@SpinyNorman said:
Not according to the suttas - that's a modern interpretation.
No, it's a particular interpretation that some people accept and some people don't. Even the ancients had this debate and abhidhamminkas seem to fall on the side of seeing rebirth as both a moment-to-moment process as as well as broader, life-to-process. I know you don't agree with it, and we've never seen eye-to-eye on this issue, but I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Neither interpretations is 'new,' and they're not mutually exclusive either.
@Jason said:
No, it's a particular interpretation that some people accept and some people don't. Even the ancients had this debate and abhidhamminkas seem to fall on the side of seeing rebirth as both a moment-to-moment process as as well as broader, life-to-process. I know you don't agree with it, and we've never seen eye-to-eye on this issue, but I don't don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be.
Absolutely.
While acknowledging that a large swathe of Theravadin opinion supports the 'Three Lives Model ' , another large swathe sees that as being speculative at best.
And as @Jason says it does not divide neatly into ancient and traditional views versus modernist views. Neither does it divide along Sangha/ Lay scholastic lines.
All views have always been represented since the beginning.
My own view is..that I simply don't know.
I have had first hand knowledge of the moment-to -moment process.
I have not had first hand knowledge of a post mortem process.
And until I have first hand knowledge by direct perception of the truth of Post Mortem punabhava
I am not going to form a belief system based on a particular interpretation of ancient texts which originate from an culture far removed from us in place and time which were delivered in one ancient language which is extinct ( Magadhi ) before being translated into an artificial language ( Pali ) and from there to modern languages which may or may not convey their subtleties.
We simply cannot say with certainty that we know what was being conveyed in those areas which depart from the observable..
However we can put the experiential knowledge of the Sangha into practice, and we can see the result.
None of this affects at all what I actually practice on a daily basis.
A fascinating example of punabhava in action.
If you follow Jason's link above you come to exchanges being made in November 2012 which are IDENTICAL to the debate being carried out over the last few days.
There appears to be a lot of emotional investment in speculative views going on.
And unless Someone is prepared to say that they have first hand recall of post mortem punabhava ,
speculative they remain.
Well ?
The plain fact is I do not need post mortem punabhava in order to make sense of Dharma.
I acknowledge that for others, without post mortem punabhava it all falls apart.
I actually meant to post this here but posted it in the karma thread. It seems to fit in both so I'll copy it here too.
How do we know, 100% without a doubt, that the sutras/suttas we are reading in English are direct, exactly translations of Sanskrit/Pali? It's rather impossible that they are, since many words in other languages do not exist in English. Even only looking at things from that angle, we pretty much have to admit that what we read now is not precisely what the Buddha taught. And just like the Bible (though seemingly to a lesser degree) even the monks who started to write things down and pass them along likely go some of their perceptions and ideas into things, because I doubt 100% of all monks were infallible in that regard. So I think like any religious text, it takes some reading between the lines and investigating yourself what seems to be the truth. Along with the help of a trained teacher this is, it seems, the best we can do. And we are STILL going to get different interpretations. It seems a bit foolish to hinge ones entire belief of a wisdom tradition on what happens after death since not a one of us here knows what that is.
We know they are not 100 % translations of the Buddhas words @karasti, because the Buddha did not speak Sanskrit or Pali, which latter in any case is not a language that was ever spoken as a means of day-to-day communication.
It is an artificial language formed to convey particular concepts.
The Buddha actually spoke a language called Magadhi, which became extinct nearly 2000 years ago. No documents in Maghadi still exist.
His teachings were first written down 500 years after his death and by then had been translated into Pali.
The technical terms for the difference between the two languages is that Magadhi was a vernacular language, while Pali was a literary language.
A vernacular language is one that is spoken on the streets. A literary language is the language of scholars...like latin was to 18th century scientists.
The real authority in Buddhadharma is the range of practical teachings in becoming aware, rather than in a set of much translated scriptures which stem from an ancient culture far different to ours.
For anyone on the Buddhist path who's practice is not faith/devotional.
While I think it is important to school oneself in the teachings of those folks who have dedicated their lives to Buddhist practice, I think one only needs to consider it as library reference material until your practice corroborates it's truth.
The sincerity of your own practice, will in it's own time, prove the worth of any ancient scribbles, regardless of whoever might of penned them.
In addition to translation and interpretation issues, it seems it would be pretty hard to put words to such vast experiences. We focus a lot on the words when we discuss here, but when you experience various things that the words are meant to portray you get an idea of how miserably the words really fail (most of the time). That's why I increasingly put the unknowables aside.
@Jason said:
No, it's a particular interpretation that some people accept and some people don't. Even the ancients had this debate and abhidhamminkas seem to fall on the side of seeing rebirth as both a moment-to-moment process as as well as broader, life-to-process.
The Abbhidamma refers to mind-moments but there is no support there for the idea of "moment-to-moment" rebirth. And there is no support for it in the suttas either.
@SpinyNorman said:
The Abbhidamma refers to mind-moments but there is no support there for the idea of "moment-to-moment" rebirth. And there is no support for it in the suttas either.
Oh yes there is...look behind you.
We can either accept that there are a spectrum of informed views on the matter.
Or if you prefer we can continue to play the " he said/she said " pantomime by making absolutist statements.
^^^^^ I'm in agreement with the former. My view come via teachers I admire and trust, whose credentials are impecible, and surpass anyone on this board in terms of knowledge and understanding. I'll go with what they say ... sorry norm, nothing personal.
I appreciate someone having the time and inclination to study sutra in depth. I do not have such luxury, and must, therefore, rely on excellent teachers. That much, at least, is supported by sutta.;-)
@SpinyNorman said:
The Abbhidamma refers to mind-moments but there is no support there for the idea of "moment-to-moment" rebirth. And there is no support for it in the suttas either.
@SpinyNorman, does Dependent Origination inform your practice at all, in the sense of taking things apart in terms of the factors of name & form, and so on?
@fivebells said:
SpinyNorman, does Dependent Origination inform your practice at all, in the sense of taking things apart in terms of the factors of name & form, and so on?
Norman will correct me if I misrepresent him, I think he does, but he sees DO in a mechanistic way which unfolds in way that is , or should be, observable.
In other words he sees paticcsamuppada as being as deducible and as observable as is idapaccayata .
That's how I see it too. I just can't see how you work with that on a practical level, if you only accept the three-lives model and have no recollection of past lives. (Perhaps he does.)
@karasti said:
Isn't it the idea that the 12 nidanas of dependent origination all occur within 3 lifetimes?
It is saying that the previous life gives rise to this one which will give rise to the next one.
Another widely held and traditional view says that this is speculative.
NB it is not saying that the 3 lives model schema doesn't happen , simply that it is not necessary in order to see for ourselves the way that the nidanas arise. We can do that in one life, indeed its possible do that in one microsecond.
So, the moment-to moment model does not say that post-mortem punabhava ( rebirth ) does not happen..it says that we do not know whether it does or not.
But what we can absolutely see for ourselves is moment-to moment punabhava happening in this life here and now.
There is the further issue that the presence of material that appears to codify the nidanas and their workings is thought by many authorities to be a later interpolation that has been added to the Pali canon.
Probably by the school of Buddhaghosa who lived between 5 and 6 centuries after the Buddha and who formalised the Canon.
@Citta said:
So, the moment-to moment model does not say that post-mortem punabhava ( rebirth ) does not happen..it says that we do not know whether it does or not.
Yes, and it challenges our habitual patterns of thought regarding living and dying and just what that is and means.
But what we can absolutely see for ourselves is moment-to moment punabhava happening in this life here and now.
Yes from the arising of ignorance all the way through birth and death.
It doesn't matter to me what someone says about what the suttras support or not. I find the moment-to-moment model blameless, skillful, praised by the wise, supports practice and leads to happiness. I'll abide in that.
If you have a minute, could you offer a synopsis of each of those references? I don't have time to study them right now and I'd like to know what find helpful.
@Chaz this was for @buddhagrace to look at if she so desired, as you all seem to know what you are talking about. I thought it might help her if she had something to look at other than much of the incomprehensible stuff in this thread.
I bring your attention to the last paragraph of the first link.
The second link is simply this:
Over and over, the seeds all get planted;
Over and over, the rain-god sprinkles rain.
Over and over, the farmer farms the field;
Over and over, the food grows in the realm.
Over and over, beggars do their begging;
Over and over, the givers give out gifts.
Over and over, the giver who has given;
Over and over, goes to a better place.
Over and over, he tires and he struggles;
Over and over, the fool goes to the womb.
Over and over, he's born and he dies;
Over and over, they bear him to his grave.
But one who's wisdom is wide as the earth
Is not born over and over,
For he's gained the path
Of not becoming over again.
That's not really very much to read and a synopsis is not really needed is it now. LOL
I also think that you don't need me to summarise the buddhas teaching of his own enlightenment as a Truth and so ended his rebirth @Chaz?
But here you go: hey you guys I'm fully awakened and no longer suffering, and it came to me in this way with a moderate approach: with vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. And you can do it too. And you'll know it because an immeasurable glorious radiance will appear in the world.
The world is here for a billion years. It was here since imemorial times, many things have occurred before me, this person who is here now.
Countless lives before "mine" have come and gone in millions, countless years.
And yet "I" am the one here, in this very moment, with a life-span of 100 years, if so.
"I" am the one aware of the present moment. No one of the previous beings is here no more to witness it.
So why "I" am the one who witness here and now? Why am I not part of those who are dead now from 100, 500, 1.000, 10.000, 1 million years? The odds are far fewer than winning the lottery.
Is this then because "I" am "lucky"?
No.
I am here because I've come here.
--
On a related thought, one who can remember past lives may know it better. But why bother? It may be the same thing over and over. If you despair in this life, why another one lived/to live would mean the end of this despair? That happens only if you guide yourself by the practice.
Sometimes, it seems to me that if we have nothing to add that actually helps the understanding of the OP maybe it's time to let it go. Of course, I best do the same, lol. Giving information or opinion is one thing. Going around and around trying to prove a point seems to be mostly ego.
While reading the last section of this, I got this stuck in my head
The circle of samsara goes round and round
Round and round
Round and round
The circle of samsara goes round and round
All through the town
The people in samsara go up and down
Up and down
Up and down
The people in samara go up and down
All through the town
Comments
And my comments stand.
To describe Ajahn Buddhadasa's ( or Dogen's or Nagarjuna's ) exposition of Dharma as 'purely psychological ' indicates a basic and fatal misunderstanding of that exposition.
All three are saying that any attempt to reduce Dharma to a description of a series of temporal events that unfold in a linear way is to reduce the majesty of the Buddha's vision to a mere timetable.
He was, as he himself said, pointing to the ' Unborn, Unmade, Unmanifest.'
But I will leave others to read the material and reach their own conclusions.
Not really. You are merely continuing to assert your position, without a great deal of support I might add. Thus, nothing to "stand" on.
Better to say you stand by your assertion, which, after all, is exactly what you're doing.
The idea that there is a consensus , even within the Theravada, concerning the Pali Canonical view of Paticcsamuppada and Punabhava is easily disproved by visiting forums like Dhamma Wheel, which is a specialist Theravadin forum, where long standing students of the Pali Dhamma fail to agree on a wide variety of issues within the parameters of those subjects.
In particular a literalist interpretation of Pali terms is invariably a cause of much discussion which normally fails to find resolution.
When we then turn our attention to the Mahayana the spectrum of views becomes even wider.
We like the idea that we can turn to a translation of an ancient text and find an unamibiguous answer to life's questions, or a black and white interpretation of the Buddha's teaching.
However the reality is rather different.
Actually, I don't think that's it. I think the reason they're one and the same in Asia is due to the influence of folk beliefs, as in Tibet. I think the reason many (not all) Westerners differentiate between rebirth and reincarnation is that they tend to be more conscientious of issues regarding translation, and trying to remain true to what the Buddha taught.
Of course, what it is the Buddha actually taught can be debated endlessly. But there are Westerners that examine the sutras almost obsessively, and split hairs on that basis.
Split ends are not a problem for the sangha, many who have debated this to such an extent that all their hair has fallen out . . .
. . . and now back to the final rinse . . .
Absolutely spot on @Dakini at all points Dakini.
'Reincarnation ' is a folk belief that carries with it the implication of an 'atta ', a soul , which goes from body to body. From ' carne ' flesh. To become re-enfleshed.
The Buddha's teaching of punabhava ( again becoming ) by contrast, takes its stance from his teaching of 'anatta '.
And describes what happens as we constantly reassert our false sense of self.
Whether this also happens post-mortem is another subject for discussion.
Well our history should be a 1500+ year warning of the danger of creative interpretation of religious texts in translation! That is why we try to be precise.
As for the OP, I wouldn't worry too much about specifics - find a sangha you like and learn as much as you can. It is perfectly acceptable in most sangha to debate such things when the time is appropriate. I hold slightly differing views on one or two matters to my teacher and she hasn't kicked me out yet. Nor do we ever come to blows on such matters but she has sharpened my debating skills somewhat
Buddhadasa's interpretation of dependent origination is purely psychological. I didn't make any reference to Dogen or Nagarjuna here.
There are some westerners who regard the suttas as the most reliable source of what the Buddha actually taught. There are other westerners who are uncomfortable with some of what the suttas describe, and who therefore look to contemporary interpretations.
I didn't say there was a concensus. I said that Buddhadasa's interpretation of DO isn't consistent with what the suttas describe.
I repeat , the assertion that Buddhadasa is stating a ' psychological ' view is a complete misunderstanding of both his position and for that matter a misunderstanding of the term 'psychological'.
As far as I make any sense of your use of the word you seem to be saying that he sees DO as purely mental events.
In fact he sees it in terms of all of the skandhas and their simultaneous arising in and with time.
To take a term from western culture like 'psychology' and apply it willy-nilly to constructs that owe nothing to western culture does no service to any debate.
And there are others who go back beyond both contemporary interpretations, and beyond the Theravada in its present modern form as it evolved in the last 150 years ..Ajahn Buddhadasa is one such. Ajahn Chah is another.
It is entirely consistent with what the Suttas describe.
There is no single interpretation of DO which is held by a majority.
It is widely accepted that the the 12 links ( nidanas ) are a later interpolation, as Pali students on Dhamma Wheel have told you.
Your views actually represent a minority of current Theravadins Norman.
And I was schooled in these matters by Dr H Saddhatissa Mahathera, acknowledged by many as the greatest Pali scholar of modern times.
I'm curious about people's interpretations of the following excerpt from the Lion's Roar sutta, which I think is pretty representative of the material which leads many people to conclude that some kind of post-mortem rebirth is important to the Buddhist cosmology. It doesn't matter for my practice, but it is a source of occasional discomfort to me.
@Fivebells
Some folks have extensive experiences with past lives and other folks don't.
The first point I'd like to mention is that having had close contact with both groups, I have seen no evidence that one group holds anymore spiritual credentials than the other.
The second point is that usually those folks who have had experiences with past lives simply experience the karmic unfolding as if through another's sense gates of an ignorance that they themselves are also susceptible to. To a Buddhist practitioner, it is both the opportunity to see the consequences of being subject to this shared ignorance and a motivation to resolve ones contribution to it's existence.
The third point is that experiencing a pantheon of endless lives forming and dissolving again, only showed me a view of how we are all just temporary manifestations of unresolved karma. Taxi cabs that can choose to either ferry our life loads along for the next cab to pick up or to find some respite for the passengers that are currently part of our ride.
So Fivebells...What particular part of the Lions roar sutta, disturbs you?
I welcome people's interpretation of the portion of the sutta I quoted.
It explains everything already. We don't have a "divine eye" to know if this is possible.
No, it's a particular interpretation that some people accept and some people don't. Even the ancients had this debate and abhidhamminkas seem to fall on the side of seeing rebirth as both a moment-to-moment process as as well as broader, life-to-process. I know you don't agree with it, and we've never seen eye-to-eye on this issue, but I don't think it's as black and white as you make it out to be. Neither interpretations is 'new,' and they're not mutually exclusive either.
Absolutely.
While acknowledging that a large swathe of Theravadin opinion supports the 'Three Lives Model ' , another large swathe sees that as being speculative at best.
And as @Jason says it does not divide neatly into ancient and traditional views versus modernist views. Neither does it divide along Sangha/ Lay scholastic lines.
All views have always been represented since the beginning.
My own view is..that I simply don't know.
I have had first hand knowledge of the moment-to -moment process.
I have not had first hand knowledge of a post mortem process.
And until I have first hand knowledge by direct perception of the truth of Post Mortem punabhava
I am not going to form a belief system based on a particular interpretation of ancient texts which originate from an culture far removed from us in place and time which were delivered in one ancient language which is extinct ( Magadhi ) before being translated into an artificial language ( Pali ) and from there to modern languages which may or may not convey their subtleties.
We simply cannot say with certainty that we know what was being conveyed in those areas which depart from the observable..
However we can put the experiential knowledge of the Sangha into practice, and we can see the result.
None of this affects at all what I actually practice on a daily basis.
A fascinating example of punabhava in action.
If you follow Jason's link above you come to exchanges being made in November 2012 which are IDENTICAL to the debate being carried out over the last few days.
There appears to be a lot of emotional investment in speculative views going on.
And unless Someone is prepared to say that they have first hand recall of post mortem punabhava ,
speculative they remain.
Well ?
The plain fact is I do not need post mortem punabhava in order to make sense of Dharma.
I acknowledge that for others, without post mortem punabhava it all falls apart.
I actually meant to post this here but posted it in the karma thread. It seems to fit in both so I'll copy it here too.
How do we know, 100% without a doubt, that the sutras/suttas we are reading in English are direct, exactly translations of Sanskrit/Pali? It's rather impossible that they are, since many words in other languages do not exist in English. Even only looking at things from that angle, we pretty much have to admit that what we read now is not precisely what the Buddha taught. And just like the Bible (though seemingly to a lesser degree) even the monks who started to write things down and pass them along likely go some of their perceptions and ideas into things, because I doubt 100% of all monks were infallible in that regard. So I think like any religious text, it takes some reading between the lines and investigating yourself what seems to be the truth. Along with the help of a trained teacher this is, it seems, the best we can do. And we are STILL going to get different interpretations. It seems a bit foolish to hinge ones entire belief of a wisdom tradition on what happens after death since not a one of us here knows what that is.
We know they are not 100 % translations of the Buddhas words @karasti, because the Buddha did not speak Sanskrit or Pali, which latter in any case is not a language that was ever spoken as a means of day-to-day communication.
It is an artificial language formed to convey particular concepts.
The Buddha actually spoke a language called Magadhi, which became extinct nearly 2000 years ago. No documents in Maghadi still exist.
His teachings were first written down 500 years after his death and by then had been translated into Pali.
The technical terms for the difference between the two languages is that Magadhi was a vernacular language, while Pali was a literary language.
A vernacular language is one that is spoken on the streets. A literary language is the language of scholars...like latin was to 18th century scientists.
The real authority in Buddhadharma is the range of practical teachings in becoming aware, rather than in a set of much translated scriptures which stem from an ancient culture far different to ours.
For anyone on the Buddhist path who's practice is not faith/devotional.
While I think it is important to school oneself in the teachings of those folks who have dedicated their lives to Buddhist practice, I think one only needs to consider it as library reference material until your practice corroborates it's truth.
The sincerity of your own practice, will in it's own time, prove the worth of any ancient scribbles, regardless of whoever might of penned them.
In addition to translation and interpretation issues, it seems it would be pretty hard to put words to such vast experiences. We focus a lot on the words when we discuss here, but when you experience various things that the words are meant to portray you get an idea of how miserably the words really fail (most of the time). That's why I increasingly put the unknowables aside.
The Abbhidamma refers to mind-moments but there is no support there for the idea of "moment-to-moment" rebirth. And there is no support for it in the suttas either.
Oh yes there is...look behind you.
We can either accept that there are a spectrum of informed views on the matter.
Or if you prefer we can continue to play the " he said/she said " pantomime by making absolutist statements.
No skin off my nose.
^^^^^ I'm in agreement with the former. My view come via teachers I admire and trust, whose credentials are impecible, and surpass anyone on this board in terms of knowledge and understanding. I'll go with what they say ... sorry norm, nothing personal.
I appreciate someone having the time and inclination to study sutra in depth. I do not have such luxury, and must, therefore, rely on excellent teachers. That much, at least, is supported by sutta.;-)
That's one opinion.
@SpinyNorman, does Dependent Origination inform your practice at all, in the sense of taking things apart in terms of the factors of name & form, and so on?
Norman will correct me if I misrepresent him, I think he does, but he sees DO in a mechanistic way which unfolds in way that is , or should be, observable.
In other words he sees paticcsamuppada as being as deducible and as observable as is idapaccayata .
That's how I see it too. I just can't see how you work with that on a practical level, if you only accept the three-lives model and have no recollection of past lives. (Perhaps he does.)
Perhaps.
Color me clueless, but will somone summarize the three lives model for me?
Isn't it the idea that the 12 nidanas of dependent origination all occur within 3 lifetimes?
This looks like a good summary of the dichotomy.
I like this discussion - it's made my mind go blank - thanks guys!
It's an opinion which is supported by what the suttas describe.
Sorry I don't agree, it seems to me quite amateurish and written with a clear agenda.
In other words he sees paticcsamuppada as being as deducible and as observable as is idapaccayata .
The first is an example of the second.
And there Norman we reach the limit of any informed debate.
Even the majority of Theravadins would disagree with that statement.
It is saying that the previous life gives rise to this one which will give rise to the next one.
Another widely held and traditional view says that this is speculative.
NB it is not saying that the 3 lives model schema doesn't happen , simply that it is not necessary in order to see for ourselves the way that the nidanas arise. We can do that in one life, indeed its possible do that in one microsecond.
So, the moment-to moment model does not say that post-mortem punabhava ( rebirth ) does not happen..it says that we do not know whether it does or not.
But what we can absolutely see for ourselves is moment-to moment punabhava happening in this life here and now.
There is the further issue that the presence of material that appears to codify the nidanas and their workings is thought by many authorities to be a later interpolation that has been added to the Pali canon.
Probably by the school of Buddhaghosa who lived between 5 and 6 centuries after the Buddha and who formalised the Canon.
Yes, and it challenges our habitual patterns of thought regarding living and dying and just what that is and means.
Yes from the arising of ignorance all the way through birth and death.
It doesn't matter to me what someone says about what the suttras support or not. I find the moment-to-moment model blameless, skillful, praised by the wise, supports practice and leads to happiness. I'll abide in that.
Got a better one?
Plus, what you posted is a clear ad hom against the page's author. Can you rebut the ideas presented, except to say that it's not supported by sutra?
I have found these resources useful, perhaps they might come in handy
http://www.metta.lk/english/punabbhava.htm
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.012.olen.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
Mettha
If you have a minute, could you offer a synopsis of each of those references? I don't have time to study them right now and I'd like to know what find helpful.
@Chaz this was for @buddhagrace to look at if she so desired, as you all seem to know what you are talking about. I thought it might help her if she had something to look at other than much of the incomprehensible stuff in this thread.
I bring your attention to the last paragraph of the first link.
The second link is simply this:
Over and over, the seeds all get planted;
Over and over, the rain-god sprinkles rain.
Over and over, the farmer farms the field;
Over and over, the food grows in the realm.
Over and over, beggars do their begging;
Over and over, the givers give out gifts.
Over and over, the giver who has given;
Over and over, goes to a better place.
Over and over, he tires and he struggles;
Over and over, the fool goes to the womb.
Over and over, he's born and he dies;
Over and over, they bear him to his grave.
But one who's wisdom is wide as the earth
Is not born over and over,
For he's gained the path
Of not becoming over again.
That's not really very much to read and a synopsis is not really needed is it now. LOL
I also think that you don't need me to summarise the buddhas teaching of his own enlightenment as a Truth and so ended his rebirth @Chaz?
But here you go: hey you guys I'm fully awakened and no longer suffering, and it came to me in this way with a moderate approach: with vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. And you can do it too. And you'll know it because an immeasurable glorious radiance will appear in the world.
Hope this was useful.
On reincarnation/rebirth, I had an insight:
The world is here for a billion years. It was here since imemorial times, many things have occurred before me, this person who is here now.
Countless lives before "mine" have come and gone in millions, countless years.
And yet "I" am the one here, in this very moment, with a life-span of 100 years, if so.
"I" am the one aware of the present moment. No one of the previous beings is here no more to witness it.
So why "I" am the one who witness here and now? Why am I not part of those who are dead now from 100, 500, 1.000, 10.000, 1 million years? The odds are far fewer than winning the lottery.
Is this then because "I" am "lucky"?
No.
I am here because I've come here.
--
On a related thought, one who can remember past lives may know it better. But why bother? It may be the same thing over and over. If you despair in this life, why another one lived/to live would mean the end of this despair? That happens only if you guide yourself by the practice.
Sorta..
Thanx
Sometimes, it seems to me that if we have nothing to add that actually helps the understanding of the OP maybe it's time to let it go. Of course, I best do the same, lol. Giving information or opinion is one thing. Going around and around trying to prove a point seems to be mostly ego.
@Citta, thank you for the information.
While reading the last section of this, I got this stuck in my head
The circle of samsara goes round and round
Round and round
Round and round
The circle of samsara goes round and round
All through the town
The people in samsara go up and down
Up and down
Up and down
The people in samara go up and down
All through the town