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.
Rebirth....No doubt many of you have been down this path before! (pun intended)
The main treatment of DO in the suttas is in SN12, so that might be a good place to start.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
Ptolemy had a system for explaining how the sun and planets moved in relation to (around) the Earth, and it worked... it was wrong and messy, but it was mathematically predictive and logically consistent with thinking the Earth was the center of the universe. If you believe in literal rebirth and Dependent Origination's three-lifetime model, it will seem logically consistent and proper to you. The problem is that logic alone doesn't prove this, just like Ptolemy's model didn't prove that the sun orbited the Earth.
First and foremost I think our knowledge about procreation has advanced to the point where there's no causal need for someone's craving at the point of death to explain the arising of new life (I'm not sure how that was ever an explanation, LOL). Adding literal rebirth to the picture is very similar to what Intelligent Design does with Evolution... it's an unnecessary complication, making a mess out of something that is otherwise simple and straightforward. We do this with lots of things, and should learn from that behavior.
Adding literal rebirth to the picture is very similar to what Intelligent Design does with Evolution... it's an unnecessary complication,
It may be an unnecessary complication, but it is in the suttas. So it's a case of taking it away rather than adding it in, which is the secular approach.
There are different interpretations of DO, I'd suggest the best approach is to examine them objectively without trying to prove one or disprove another. Are they internally consistent? Are they consistent with the sutttas as whole? Which aspects can we relate directly to experience? It shouldn't be about belief or disbelief, that's completely missing the point.
And of course the principle of DO ( this-that conditionality ) can operate at many levels.
2
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@SpinyNorman I'll probably have to explain this each time, but I'm not talking about what is/isn't in the suttas (or sutras). I'm almost never talking about mere content, because something being written down doesn't make it true (or false). I'm talking about our understanding of reality; what we can test and know. It's not about belief, except where people believe things without sufficient justification (making those beliefs as ungrounded in reality as the "soul" notion).
If you understand Evolution by Natural Selection and then someone comes along and say "Yes, but that doesn't work without the guiding hand of God.", and you accept that, you've just had something unsubstantiated added to your understanding of Evolution (that moreover contradicts the scientific understanding).
The same holds true for Procreation if someone says "Yeah, but the sperm and egg aren't enough... someone has to die with craving for continued existence or you're shooting blanks!". There's never been any demonstrated mechanism or need for this, and we know a helluva lot more about procreation than anyone did 2500 years ago. There's no "God of the Gaps" opening for literal rebirth to reside in.
This concludes all my talking about rebirth. I forgot I wasn't going to get involved.
A very interesting article I found on incarnation, and it does correlate with many religious beliefs, including some stated in buddhism.
It is about the correlating story's of thousands of clients experienced in deep hypnosis.
"The Earth is going through a major transformation, one that Dolores’s clients state has never happened before. For the first time, an entire planet is shifting it’s vibration into a new dimensional frequency. Many souls or groups of souls have experienced a shift like this in the past, (i.e., the Mayans) but never has an entire planet shifted at once. Therefore, Dolores explains, the entire Universe has front row seats to one of the grandest shows ever seen. However, help is needed, because man has polluted the planet with a vibration so dense that it threatens the survival of the planet as a whole. Dolores reveals that if the planet blows itself up, it will reverberate throughout the universe affecting and disturbing all beings. Therefore, the call for help was made, and the souls quickly jumped on the wagon to assist.
In The Three Waves of Volunteers and The New Earth, Dolores elaborates on the three different classes of souls incarnating on Earth:
The First Wave: Now in their late 40s to early 60s, these volunteers are disturbed by the violence, anger and hate that they experience on Earth. They have had the hardest time adjusting to life as humans, and many of them try to commit suicide.
The Second Wave: Now in their late 20s and 30s, these volunteers are more comfortable in bodies and are said to be beacons or channels of energy who can affect others just by being near them. Their mission of just sharing their energy with others means they don’t have to do anything but just be.
The Third Wave: The new children, many of whom are now teenagers, have all the knowledge needed to exist on the planet after the dimensional shift and transformation takes place. Their DNA is more advanced, and the greatest challenge they face is being misunderstood by humans as having a condition (ADHD) that needs to be medicated.
Interestingly, through her many client sessions Dolores has also written extensively on the lost civilization of Atlantis. She discovered that, like Atlantis, there have been numerous civilizations that have been destroyed in the past."
@AldrisTorvalds said:
The same holds true for Procreation if someone says "Yeah, but the sperm and egg aren't enough... someone has to die with craving for continued existence or you're shooting blanks!". There's never been any demonstrated mechanism or need for this, and we know a helluva lot more about procreation than anyone did 2500 years ago. There's no "God of the Gaps" opening for literal rebirth to reside in.
This concludes all my talking about rebirth. I forgot I wasn't going to get involved.
I am not entirely sure where Torvalds got this from but I am guessing it is from here
"Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba [8] is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
A former member of this site, pretty brilliant person, gave a alternate, but not endorsed, explanation to the word gandhabba as semen.
I would second him since the word gandha means smell (as in "what is that smell!?") in my native language (related to pali and sanskrit)
It does make sense no?
.
EDIT: Note the immediately preceding paragraph...
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in reference to this that it was said.
No it doesn't make sense, because semen is covered by the "union of mother and father".
It looks to me like another weak attempt to explain away rebirth in the suttas.
Also this passage from DN15 is quite clear on the process:
_Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
_
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I really wouldn't waste time and energy trying to write rebirth out of the suttas, or explaining it way, whatever. It's a fruitless task.
Just put it to one side.
Not really since I am a whole hearted believer in reincarnation. And its written in so many places in the suttas that changing one place does not really matter. Does it?
EDIT: The one you quoted is a good one for instance.
In this case it is only an attempt as seeing translations shifted. Which is interesting.
After this I have found a couple of more places myself in the suttas where meaning seems to have been shifted or lost.
gandhbba is patisandhi citta or relinking mind but not semen
rebirth = chuti citta (the last conciousness in the last moment of old life) change to patisandi citta (first consciousness in the first moment of the new life)
reincarnation = believing the person in old life comes back to new life with another shape
here kamma and kamma vipaka involves and the same person changing into different shapes
this same person borns reborns again and again means there is a self (Atta-vada concept)
but in rebirth there is no self (anatta)
this is the difference between Buddha's Teaching and other religions
Gandhabba generally refers to a class of devas or 'heavenly being,' and the term in relation to rebirth isn't thoroughly explained anywhere in the Suttas. In fact, it only occurs in two places in that context as far as I'm aware, MN 38 and MN 93.
Some, such as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, translate it here as 'sperm' or 'seed' based on its association with fragrant substances like flowers (the stem gandha meaning 'scent'); but that's not how it's traditionally been defined in this context.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, believes that the traditional interpretation of gandhabba as the being-to-be's 'stream of consciousness' (vinnanasota) is a reasonable one, mostly stemming from the passage in DN 15 that mentions consciousness "descending into the mothers' womb" (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, n. 411).
Out of the two, I tend to side with Bhikkhu Bodhi on the issue, though I find the use of the term itself rather strange regardless of interpretation. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu offers a helpful explanation in his intro to his translation of MN 38, however:
The sutta then turns to the path of practice by which an understanding of dependent co-arising can gain the power and focus needed to put an end to suffering. It begins with an account of birth, noting that the birth of a human being requires not only that the parents have intercourse when the mother is in her season, but also that a "gandhabba" is present. Usually in the Canon, the term gandhabba means a being on the lowest level of the celestial devas — devas who are often represented as obsessed with lust. However, the Commentary notes that gandhabba in this context means a being whose kamma enables it to take birth on that occasion, an interpretation supported by a discussion in MN 93.
By introducing a being into the discussion, the Buddha might be suspected of introducing a "what" into his discussion of birth. However, on the level of dependent co-arising, the Buddha did not treat the concept of a being as a "what." His definition of a "being" shows that he recommended that it, too, be regarded as a process:
As he was sitting there, Ven. Rādha said to the Blessed One: "'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Rādha: When one is caught up [satta] there, tied up [visatta] there, one is said to be 'a being [satta].'
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Rādha: When one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'"
— SN 23.2
Thus the Buddha advocated viewing a "being" simply as a process of attachment to desire, passion, delight, and craving. And it is precisely this attachment to craving that allows for rebirth after death:
[The Buddha:] "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."
[Vacchagotta:] "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."
— SN 44.9
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
If we consider that sperm appear to be conscious in similar fashion to tadpoles, that ties it together even better. Our level of consciousness is complex and bolstered by an advanced neural network, but consciousness doesn't require a human-sized brain to exist. People back then had no idea what was "in" ejaculate; they were largely reliant on guessing causal mechanisms based on the things they did know (such as the need for sex). Consciousness "descending" into the womb can be the mother's egg coming into contact with the father's sperm (the single sperm that makes it), which is exactly what we've discovered happens. Any other proposed mechanism would need to be demonstrated, and be a better explanation than what we already know.
No. I wouldn't know where to start looking. I'm not a sutra scholar, so I'm leaving it to those who are, to contribute that. All I know is, when we had one of those debates about this question, and the KS, Jeffrey found a passage in another sutra that taught about questioning and testing the teachings. I thought perhaps one of the mods might know where it is.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
You have to be kidding! The search facility is up the junction at the moment....I thought for one moment you had access to a private stash!!
@federica said:
You have to be kidding! The search facility is up the junction at the moment....I thought for one moment you had access to a private stash!!
No, I wish! All I can say is, I've learned a lot about the sutras here on this forum, it's been wonderful! But I'm not a pro. .
People back then had no idea what was "in" ejaculate; they were largely reliant on guessing causal mechanisms based on the things they did know (such as the need for sex).
Oh come on, they weren't that primitive. They might not have understood the genetics but they would have clearly understood that a mans "seed" was necessary for conception.
And do you really think semen smells of fragrant flowers?!
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@SpinyNorman Necessary yes, but I mean what individual sperm within the semen look like... and move like! They'd have had no idea there's something "living" there, even moving about with purpose. We're very fortunate to have a much broader, and more specific, understanding.
It's completely understandable that they'd think some kind of additional "life spark" was necessary for conception. Even the Abrahamic traditions held that a soul was a necessary precursor to new human life. I think other religions had their own ideas about that "spark", but that they've been rendered unnecessary now. Medical science, at least, has overcome this common ancient ignorance.
@AldrisTorvalds said:
SpinyNorman Necessary yes, but I mean what individual sperm within the semen look like... and move like! They'd have no idea there's something "living" there.
No idea about smells; that's someone else's.
Like I said, trying to re-write the suttas to conform to modern understanding is pointless.
This little Advaita book that I am reading has an interesting remark on reincarnation.
The writer does not support the idea of personal rebirth, but being an Advaita teacher believes in a universal undivided Self.
Ian Stevenson is mentioned and other apparent examples of past-life memories.
He argues that when a memory pops up in my head and it is accurate in the sense that it can be verified as a historic event; all that it proves is exactly this. The conscious experience of an event can survive the event, and pop up somewhere (anywhere) else in consciousness.
In the right circumstances (we don’t know what they are) a memory from the life of General Custer can pop up in my mind. But that doesn’t mean that “I “was him. Because under the right circumstances, a memory from the life of Sitting Bull can also pop up in my mind, and I cannot have been both of them when they lived at the same time.
The point of Advaita is that our separate “self” is an illusion. We all are the one undivided “Self”.
So the alien memory only proves that there’s a crack in my illusion of being a separate identity. It does not necessarily suggest a personal link to the other illusionary separate identity.
Memories could pop up from a transpersonal consciousness reservoir.
Stevenson did realize he didn’t prove reincarnation.
Putting the problems of validating a memory aside, there still are many questions to be answered before a theory of rebirth has any meaning at all.
1
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@SpinyNorman And as I've explicitly said (so we'd not come back to this misunderstanding again), I'm not trying to rewrite anything. I'm not trying to rewrite the Holy Bible either when I point out that the evidence contradicts Noah's Flood. I'm talking about reality. The scriptures of any religion are not true by default (not even Buddhism's), and in fact seem to be false much of the time when it comes to things people couldn't have known at the time.
I'm going to quote myself to prove it.
@AldrisTorvalds said: @SpinyNorman I'll probably have to explain this each time, but I'm not talking about what is/isn't in the suttas (or sutras). I'm almost never talking about mere content, because something being written down doesn't make it true (or false). I'm talking about our understanding of reality; what we can test and know. It's not about belief, except where people believe things without sufficient justification (making those beliefs as ungrounded in reality as the "soul" notion).
@upekka said:
problem is that talk is in sri lankan language
It might be a problem if it is in Formal Singhala. But I can give it a try if you have a link?
If you find the text I will be grateful but otherwise it is alright anyway.
I do not think it will change much in my understanding of reincarnation. I have applied myself and seen my past lives too. So...
@AldrisTorvalds said:
SpinyNorman And as I've explicitly said, I'm not trying to rewrite anything. Why do you keep failing to understand I'm talking about reality and not the suttas?
You're trying to impose a modern understanding on an ancient text, which is pointless and inappropriate. That's why I keep saying, just put it to one side and move on.
By "reality" I assume you're talking about your current personal assumptions and understanding, and those are likely to change. The whole point of Buddhist practice is that they do change, and being strongly attached to one's personal opinions can be an obstacle.
@Jason said:
Gandhabba generally refers to a class of devas or 'heavenly being,' and the term in relation to rebirth isn't thoroughly explained anywhere in the Suttas. In fact, it only occurs in two places in that context as far as I'm aware, MN 38 and MN 93.
Atanatiya Sutta describes the heavenly beings but not in relation to rebirth.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
edited August 2014
@SpinyNorman said: You're trying to impose a modern understanding on an ancient text
@SpinyNorman Other way around! Buddhist scriptures are attempting, and succeeding, to impose an outdated understanding on you. Not that they are the actor. Anyway I'm done with this, it's one misunderstanding after another, and I'm being quite clear so it's not me. This thread is dead to me, so I don't return to it and waste more of my time.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Nothing is 'outdated' if it's still current and pertinent.... It may be ancient, but it's still relevant, rather like the basic premise and main tenets of TCM. In spite of THAT being a practice that has archives dating back over 4000 years, it is still widely implemented and used beneficially, today...
But as you've left the thread, I won't get an answer, and that's ok.....
@Victorious said:
Atanatiya Sutta describes the heavenly beings but not in relation to rebirth.
Yes. As I said, there are a number of suttas that mention gandhabbas (see the Gandhabbakaya-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, for example), but only two in the context of rebirth, MN 38 and MN 93.
@SpinyNorman said:
You're trying to impose a modern understanding on an ancient text, which is pointless and inappropriate. That's why I keep saying, just put it to one side and move on.
On the contrary the Dhamma is timeless. Didn't you know? .
And according to the Kalama Sutta we are supposed to apply our current minds to understanding the Dhamma.
And if we are not then how are we supposed to understand them at all. Better close shop and go home?
I think it is pointless debating this with you since it seems to be a very strong fabrication with you. I think you really need to review it.
I plainly wrote a Humongous IMO in my first post and I am not forcing anything down anybodies throat. But you want me to "put it aside and carry on"? lol.
@Jason said:
Yes. As I said, there are a number of suttas that mention gandhabbas (see the Gandhabbakaya-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya.
Yepp will do.
Thanks.
/Victor
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Rebirth doesn't conflict with any scientific findings at all so cannot be compared to something like a world wide flood.
If the idea of rebirth doesn't work for your world view, put it aside. It works better than pretending the concept is outdated or that it goes against scientific findings.
Rebirth would have to be rephrased as a falsifiable theory before it can contradict the facts.
When we can think of an observation that contradicts the idea of rebirth and that isn’t explained away by it, it’s time to consider it seriously.
Until then the stories of rebirths are not stronger than accounts of alien abductions.
@woah93 What do you think about the article you shared with us? Every time I read something like that, my mind starts singing the 60s hit, "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius..." by the 5th Dimension. I bet everyone reading this has that opening lyric going through their head right now.
Not saying I've seen it all before, but I've heard it all before. It's how the "New Age" crowd got their name. We are reaching some new age on earth where people are going to lay down their arms and work together. It's all to do with vibrations somehow.
I love talking to those folks. I frequent rock shops where most of the customers are after crystals for healing, and we hold a lot of conversations. They're so darned cheerful and optimistic. They know the world is messed up and in big trouble with global warming and all, but we're going to pull through because the next generation is going to get into harmony. Or become bright. Or something. As for the old generation, I suppose they'll hand the keys over to their kids and find a nice retirement home.
And it struck me, this is the other side of the apocalyptic coin. The New Age vision is as apocalyptic as the Fundamentalist "War, famine, pestilence and death ride out on horses" vision. I have to listen to that version when I visit my family. Only, the New Age version is a vision of healing a sick world instead of putting it out of its misery. Given a choice, I'd go with the New Age.
Of course, the prophets of the New Age vision have been telling us it's about to arrive since the 60s. They're practically babies in the prophet business. The prophets of the violent end version from Revelations have been around much longer.
@ourself said:
Rebirth doesn't conflict with any scientific findings at all so cannot be compared to something like a world wide flood.
If the idea of rebirth doesn't work for your world view, put it aside. It works better than pretending the concept is outdated or that it goes against scientific findings.
I can't let that go without comment. Reincarnation or rebirth, unless you broadly define it as our very molecules and atoms being recycled into the general universe, very much goes against the scientific model of how the universe operates. There's no pretending about it. Science is more than a collection of "findings". It us using our tools, including the human invention of the language of mathematics, to map the universe. From the grandest cosmic feature to the tiniest subatomic particle, we are building a model of how the parts of this thing called reality fit together, move and change over time.
There are fundamental observations that are built into the heart of science. One of them is that we are a tiny spec in the vast reality of the universe, and have existed for a tiny drop of time compared to the ocean of time we float on. We cannot comprehend how insignificant we are in the grand universe. Therefore, any belief that points to the universe being created or designed for or for the purpose of humanity cannot fit into the scientific model. Science has observed that the mind cannot exist without a physical brain and changes to that physical brain change who we are. Death is the end to our memories and pattern of thinking we call a mind, and that's it. That fits the rest of the scientific model of reality.
Reincarnation assumes the universe is designed for our benefit, that it is a testing ground upon which the human mind is repeatedly tested until each individual gets it right. Saying it's the universe itself instead of some God that is responsible is just swapping names.
But I am preaching. People will believe what they will. And, perhaps the universe really is designed for our benefit, or the benefit of of intelligent beings in countless worlds. I think what I'm trying to say, if reincarnation is finally proven against all logic to exist, all I can say to those who believe in it right now and say "Told you so!" is: "Lucky guess."
Comments
Uh oh... someones in trouble...
try to understand Dependent Origination
at least start a thread about DO with your (our) own understanding after reading suttas related DO
@pegembara could help find the relevant suttas
There are an awful lot of relevant suttas though.
i know there are
but
i do not know the exact suttas
if you know, please provide one or two
thanks @Spiny in advance
The main treatment of DO in the suttas is in SN12, so that might be a good place to start.
Ptolemy had a system for explaining how the sun and planets moved in relation to (around) the Earth, and it worked... it was wrong and messy, but it was mathematically predictive and logically consistent with thinking the Earth was the center of the universe. If you believe in literal rebirth and Dependent Origination's three-lifetime model, it will seem logically consistent and proper to you. The problem is that logic alone doesn't prove this, just like Ptolemy's model didn't prove that the sun orbited the Earth.
First and foremost I think our knowledge about procreation has advanced to the point where there's no causal need for someone's craving at the point of death to explain the arising of new life (I'm not sure how that was ever an explanation, LOL). Adding literal rebirth to the picture is very similar to what Intelligent Design does with Evolution... it's an unnecessary complication, making a mess out of something that is otherwise simple and straightforward. We do this with lots of things, and should learn from that behavior.
Adding literal rebirth to the picture is very similar to what Intelligent Design does with Evolution... it's an unnecessary complication,
It may be an unnecessary complication, but it is in the suttas. So it's a case of taking it away rather than adding it in, which is the secular approach.
There are different interpretations of DO, I'd suggest the best approach is to examine them objectively without trying to prove one or disprove another. Are they internally consistent? Are they consistent with the sutttas as whole? Which aspects can we relate directly to experience? It shouldn't be about belief or disbelief, that's completely missing the point.
And of course the principle of DO ( this-that conditionality ) can operate at many levels.
@SpinyNorman I'll probably have to explain this each time, but I'm not talking about what is/isn't in the suttas (or sutras). I'm almost never talking about mere content, because something being written down doesn't make it true (or false). I'm talking about our understanding of reality; what we can test and know. It's not about belief, except where people believe things without sufficient justification (making those beliefs as ungrounded in reality as the "soul" notion).
If you understand Evolution by Natural Selection and then someone comes along and say "Yes, but that doesn't work without the guiding hand of God.", and you accept that, you've just had something unsubstantiated added to your understanding of Evolution (that moreover contradicts the scientific understanding).
The same holds true for Procreation if someone says "Yeah, but the sperm and egg aren't enough... someone has to die with craving for continued existence or you're shooting blanks!".
There's never been any demonstrated mechanism or need for this, and we know a helluva lot more about procreation than anyone did 2500 years ago. There's no "God of the Gaps" opening for literal rebirth to reside in.
This concludes all my talking about rebirth. I forgot I wasn't going to get involved.
"We are living in the most important time in the history of the universe."
A very interesting article I found on incarnation, and it does correlate with many religious beliefs, including some stated in buddhism.
It is about the correlating story's of thousands of clients experienced in deep hypnosis.
"The Earth is going through a major transformation, one that Dolores’s clients state has never happened before. For the first time, an entire planet is shifting it’s vibration into a new dimensional frequency. Many souls or groups of souls have experienced a shift like this in the past, (i.e., the Mayans) but never has an entire planet shifted at once. Therefore, Dolores explains, the entire Universe has front row seats to one of the grandest shows ever seen. However, help is needed, because man has polluted the planet with a vibration so dense that it threatens the survival of the planet as a whole. Dolores reveals that if the planet blows itself up, it will reverberate throughout the universe affecting and disturbing all beings. Therefore, the call for help was made, and the souls quickly jumped on the wagon to assist.
In The Three Waves of Volunteers and The New Earth, Dolores elaborates on the three different classes of souls incarnating on Earth:
The First Wave: Now in their late 40s to early 60s, these volunteers are disturbed by the violence, anger and hate that they experience on Earth. They have had the hardest time adjusting to life as humans, and many of them try to commit suicide.
The Second Wave: Now in their late 20s and 30s, these volunteers are more comfortable in bodies and are said to be beacons or channels of energy who can affect others just by being near them. Their mission of just sharing their energy with others means they don’t have to do anything but just be.
The Third Wave: The new children, many of whom are now teenagers, have all the knowledge needed to exist on the planet after the dimensional shift and transformation takes place. Their DNA is more advanced, and the greatest challenge they face is being misunderstood by humans as having a condition (ADHD) that needs to be medicated.
Interestingly, through her many client sessions Dolores has also written extensively on the lost civilization of Atlantis. She discovered that, like Atlantis, there have been numerous civilizations that have been destroyed in the past."
@SpinyNorman
Hi dudes.
I am not entirely sure where Torvalds got this from but I am guessing it is from here
A former member of this site, pretty brilliant person, gave a alternate, but not endorsed, explanation to the word gandhabba as semen.
I would second him since the word gandha means smell (as in "what is that smell!?") in my native language (related to pali and sanskrit)
It does make sense no?
EDIT: Note the immediately preceding paragraph...
A former member of this site, pretty brilliant person, gave a alternate, but not endorsed, explanation to the word gandhabba as semen.
Hmmm.
See note 8 on the sutta, towards the bottom here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html
Also see the PTS dictionary here, where for "gandhabba" there seem to be several references to devas but none to semen:
http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=pali&query=Gandhabba&matchtype=exact&display=utf8
And the PTS dictionary for the root "gandha", which appears to mean sweet-smelling:
http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=pali&query=Gandha&matchtype=exact&display=utf8
So gandhabba seems to be something to do with sweet-smelling devas. I suspect the semen idea is another example of elemental wishful thinking.
Dude I know what a Gandabba is. They are the beings in retinue of one of the four heavenly Kings.
They are connected to procreation. Which I think is a pretty important clue.
They are the same I think as the Vanir is Asabelief or Faerys in old keltic custom?
But as I said that sutta would make a lot more sense using the word semen.
No it doesn't make sense, because semen is covered by the "union of mother and father".
It looks to me like another weak attempt to explain away rebirth in the suttas.
Also this passage from DN15 is quite clear on the process:
_Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
_
>
Yes, still waiting for @Dakini to come up with the goods, as it were.
I really wouldn't waste time and energy trying to write rebirth out of the suttas, or explaining it way, whatever. It's a fruitless task.
Just put it to one side.
Chill dude.
Not really since I am a whole hearted believer in reincarnation. And its written in so many places in the suttas that changing one place does not really matter. Does it?
EDIT: The one you quoted is a good one for instance.
In this case it is only an attempt as seeing translations shifted. Which is interesting.
After this I have found a couple of more places myself in the suttas where meaning seems to have been shifted or lost.
Pretty interesting.
I think you have to look at the motivation for proposing different meanings in particular places.
If I wanted to do it for others I would have to be much more strict yes.
For myself it is enough to see that meaning falls into place.
gandhbba is patisandhi citta or relinking mind but not semen
rebirth = chuti citta (the last conciousness in the last moment of old life) change to patisandi citta (first consciousness in the first moment of the new life)
reincarnation = believing the person in old life comes back to new life with another shape
here kamma and kamma vipaka involves and the same person changing into different shapes
this same person borns reborns again and again means there is a self (Atta-vada concept)
but in rebirth there is no self (anatta)
this is the difference between Buddha's Teaching and other religions
From what text can that be deduced Akka?
Kindly
Victor
Gandhabba generally refers to a class of devas or 'heavenly being,' and the term in relation to rebirth isn't thoroughly explained anywhere in the Suttas. In fact, it only occurs in two places in that context as far as I'm aware, MN 38 and MN 93.
Some, such as Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, translate it here as 'sperm' or 'seed' based on its association with fragrant substances like flowers (the stem gandha meaning 'scent'); but that's not how it's traditionally been defined in this context.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example, believes that the traditional interpretation of gandhabba as the being-to-be's 'stream of consciousness' (vinnanasota) is a reasonable one, mostly stemming from the passage in DN 15 that mentions consciousness "descending into the mothers' womb" (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, n. 411).
Out of the two, I tend to side with Bhikkhu Bodhi on the issue, though I find the use of the term itself rather strange regardless of interpretation. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu offers a helpful explanation in his intro to his translation of MN 38, however:
If we consider that sperm appear to be conscious in similar fashion to tadpoles, that ties it together even better. Our level of consciousness is complex and bolstered by an advanced neural network, but consciousness doesn't require a human-sized brain to exist. People back then had no idea what was "in" ejaculate; they were largely reliant on guessing causal mechanisms based on the things they did know (such as the need for sex). Consciousness "descending" into the womb can be the mother's egg coming into contact with the father's sperm (the single sperm that makes it), which is exactly what we've discovered happens. Any other proposed mechanism would need to be demonstrated, and be a better explanation than what we already know.
No. I wouldn't know where to start looking. I'm not a sutra scholar, so I'm leaving it to those who are, to contribute that. All I know is, when we had one of those debates about this question, and the KS, Jeffrey found a passage in another sutra that taught about questioning and testing the teachings. I thought perhaps one of the mods might know where it is.
You have to be kidding! The search facility is up the junction at the moment....I thought for one moment you had access to a private stash!!
No, I wish! All I can say is, I've learned a lot about the sutras here on this forum, it's been wonderful! But I'm not a pro.
.
malli, i knew i have done something good in the past when i read your post because it gave me a pleasure and brought me a smile on to my face
i mean reading the word Akka
i will find out the text and let you know
for the moment i listened to 'malimbada pannanasara' hamuduruwo's dhamma talk yesterday and it cleared my understanding of rebirth and reincarnation
problem is that talk is in sri lankan language
Care to translate? That would be good....
.
@federica, if you refer to my post
malli = my little brother
Akka = elder sister
hamuduruwo =monk
People back then had no idea what was "in" ejaculate; they were largely reliant on guessing causal mechanisms based on the things they did know (such as the need for sex).
Oh come on, they weren't that primitive. They might not have understood the genetics but they would have clearly understood that a mans "seed" was necessary for conception.
And do you really think semen smells of fragrant flowers?!
@SpinyNorman Necessary yes, but I mean what individual sperm within the semen look like... and move like! They'd have had no idea there's something "living" there, even moving about with purpose. We're very fortunate to have a much broader, and more specific, understanding.
It's completely understandable that they'd think some kind of additional "life spark" was necessary for conception. Even the Abrahamic traditions held that a soul was a necessary precursor to new human life. I think other religions had their own ideas about that "spark", but that they've been rendered unnecessary now. Medical science, at least, has overcome this common ancient ignorance.
No idea about smells; that's someone else's area.
Like I said, trying to re-write the suttas to conform to modern understanding is pointless.
This little Advaita book that I am reading has an interesting remark on reincarnation.
The writer does not support the idea of personal rebirth, but being an Advaita teacher believes in a universal undivided Self.
Ian Stevenson is mentioned and other apparent examples of past-life memories.
He argues that when a memory pops up in my head and it is accurate in the sense that it can be verified as a historic event; all that it proves is exactly this. The conscious experience of an event can survive the event, and pop up somewhere (anywhere) else in consciousness.
In the right circumstances (we don’t know what they are) a memory from the life of General Custer can pop up in my mind. But that doesn’t mean that “I “was him. Because under the right circumstances, a memory from the life of Sitting Bull can also pop up in my mind, and I cannot have been both of them when they lived at the same time.
The point of Advaita is that our separate “self” is an illusion. We all are the one undivided “Self”.
So the alien memory only proves that there’s a crack in my illusion of being a separate identity. It does not necessarily suggest a personal link to the other illusionary separate identity.
Memories could pop up from a transpersonal consciousness reservoir.
Stevenson did realize he didn’t prove reincarnation.
Putting the problems of validating a memory aside, there still are many questions to be answered before a theory of rebirth has any meaning at all.
@SpinyNorman And as I've explicitly said (so we'd not come back to this misunderstanding again), I'm not trying to rewrite anything. I'm not trying to rewrite the Holy Bible either when I point out that the evidence contradicts Noah's Flood. I'm talking about reality. The scriptures of any religion are not true by default (not even Buddhism's), and in fact seem to be false much of the time when it comes to things people couldn't have known at the time.
I'm going to quote myself to prove it.
It might be a problem if it is in Formal Singhala. But I can give it a try if you have a link?
If you find the text I will be grateful but otherwise it is alright anyway.
I do not think it will change much in my understanding of reincarnation. I have applied myself and seen my past lives too. So...
Thank you.
/Victor
You're trying to impose a modern understanding on an ancient text, which is pointless and inappropriate. That's why I keep saying, just put it to one side and move on.
By "reality" I assume you're talking about your current personal assumptions and understanding, and those are likely to change. The whole point of Buddhist practice is that they do change, and being strongly attached to one's personal opinions can be an obstacle.
Atanatiya Sutta describes the heavenly beings but not in relation to rebirth.
>
No. I mean translate THE TALK itself.
In any case semen still doesn't smell of flowers.
@SpinyNorman Other way around! Buddhist scriptures are attempting, and succeeding, to impose an outdated understanding on you.
Not that they are the actor. Anyway I'm done with this, it's one misunderstanding after another, and I'm being quite clear so it's not me. This thread is dead to me, so I don't return to it and waste more of my time.
Nothing is 'outdated' if it's still current and pertinent.... It may be ancient, but it's still relevant, rather like the basic premise and main tenets of TCM. In spite of THAT being a practice that has archives dating back over 4000 years, it is still widely implemented and used beneficially, today...
But as you've left the thread, I won't get an answer, and that's ok.....
Yes. As I said, there are a number of suttas that mention gandhabbas (see the Gandhabbakaya-samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, for example), but only two in the context of rebirth, MN 38 and MN 93.
On the contrary the Dhamma is timeless. Didn't you know?
.
And according to the Kalama Sutta we are supposed to apply our current minds to understanding the Dhamma.
And if we are not then how are we supposed to understand them at all. Better close shop and go home?
I think it is pointless debating this with you since it seems to be a very strong fabrication with you. I think you really need to review it.
I plainly wrote a Humongous IMO in my first post and I am not forcing anything down anybodies throat. But you want me to "put it aside and carry on"? lol.
Cheers
/Victor
This thread is dead to me, so I don't return to it and waste more of my time.
Good. My work is done here.
Yes, put it aside and carry on. Stop beating dead horses.
Yepp will do.
Thanks.
/Victor
Rebirth doesn't conflict with any scientific findings at all so cannot be compared to something like a world wide flood.
If the idea of rebirth doesn't work for your world view, put it aside. It works better than pretending the concept is outdated or that it goes against scientific findings.
Rebirth would have to be rephrased as a falsifiable theory before it can contradict the facts.
When we can think of an observation that contradicts the idea of rebirth and that isn’t explained away by it, it’s time to consider it seriously.
Until then the stories of rebirths are not stronger than accounts of alien abductions.
I wonder why a newborn baby can’t count to ten.
@woah93 What do you think about the article you shared with us? Every time I read something like that, my mind starts singing the 60s hit, "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius..." by the 5th Dimension. I bet everyone reading this has that opening lyric going through their head right now.
Not saying I've seen it all before, but I've heard it all before. It's how the "New Age" crowd got their name. We are reaching some new age on earth where people are going to lay down their arms and work together. It's all to do with vibrations somehow.
I love talking to those folks. I frequent rock shops where most of the customers are after crystals for healing, and we hold a lot of conversations. They're so darned cheerful and optimistic. They know the world is messed up and in big trouble with global warming and all, but we're going to pull through because the next generation is going to get into harmony. Or become bright. Or something. As for the old generation, I suppose they'll hand the keys over to their kids and find a nice retirement home.
And it struck me, this is the other side of the apocalyptic coin. The New Age vision is as apocalyptic as the Fundamentalist "War, famine, pestilence and death ride out on horses" vision. I have to listen to that version when I visit my family. Only, the New Age version is a vision of healing a sick world instead of putting it out of its misery. Given a choice, I'd go with the New Age.
Of course, the prophets of the New Age vision have been telling us it's about to arrive since the 60s. They're practically babies in the prophet business. The prophets of the violent end version from Revelations have been around much longer.
..........accounts of alien abductions.
I don't mind the travelling into space, it's all the probing that bothers me.
I can't let that go without comment. Reincarnation or rebirth, unless you broadly define it as our very molecules and atoms being recycled into the general universe, very much goes against the scientific model of how the universe operates. There's no pretending about it. Science is more than a collection of "findings". It us using our tools, including the human invention of the language of mathematics, to map the universe. From the grandest cosmic feature to the tiniest subatomic particle, we are building a model of how the parts of this thing called reality fit together, move and change over time.
There are fundamental observations that are built into the heart of science. One of them is that we are a tiny spec in the vast reality of the universe, and have existed for a tiny drop of time compared to the ocean of time we float on. We cannot comprehend how insignificant we are in the grand universe. Therefore, any belief that points to the universe being created or designed for or for the purpose of humanity cannot fit into the scientific model. Science has observed that the mind cannot exist without a physical brain and changes to that physical brain change who we are. Death is the end to our memories and pattern of thinking we call a mind, and that's it. That fits the rest of the scientific model of reality.
Reincarnation assumes the universe is designed for our benefit, that it is a testing ground upon which the human mind is repeatedly tested until each individual gets it right. Saying it's the universe itself instead of some God that is responsible is just swapping names.
But I am preaching. People will believe what they will. And, perhaps the universe really is designed for our benefit, or the benefit of of intelligent beings in countless worlds. I think what I'm trying to say, if reincarnation is finally proven against all logic to exist, all I can say to those who believe in it right now and say "Told you so!" is: "Lucky guess."
Have a good day.