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- I have mixed feelings...
(Fair Warning...this is a long post) Ok basically...I've been studying all about Buddhism for a while now. I know about the Theravada and Mahayana Sects. I understand (at least at an intellectual level) The doctrines of Anatman (though spelling may still leave something to be desired), The 4 noble truths (including the 3 different kinds of suffering and the noble 8-fold path), Shunyatta (emptiness) and so on and so fourth.
I've also taken classes Buddhism's history and a compare and contrast of the different schools. My dilemma lies in the realm of rebirth. I find myself very much drawn to the idea...However, I fear the source of that attraction may be a tainted one. Recently I've been reading many books and articles in an attempt to figure out what it is that causes consciousness (Is it physical or not? Buddhism says no...but according to science-based on what I've read- consciousness is actually a function of the brain...so when the brain dies...that's it).
I've heard that Zen is not too heavy on the doctrine of rebirth...But I find myself caught between Tibetan Buddhism and Zen...I personally greatly dislike the idea that all conscious beings end up meeting the same fate...But if my yearning to believe in rebith is in fact a reflection of my own attachment to this false ego identity, that's contradictory to Buddhist goals anyway!
I guess what I'm asking is...What do you guys think? What made you decide to go with whatever persuasion you chose? Any information that I might be overlooking? Any help would be greatly appreciated ^^
I've also taken classes Buddhism's history and a compare and contrast of the different schools. My dilemma lies in the realm of rebirth. I find myself very much drawn to the idea...However, I fear the source of that attraction may be a tainted one. Recently I've been reading many books and articles in an attempt to figure out what it is that causes consciousness (Is it physical or not? Buddhism says no...but according to science-based on what I've read- consciousness is actually a function of the brain...so when the brain dies...that's it).
I've heard that Zen is not too heavy on the doctrine of rebirth...But I find myself caught between Tibetan Buddhism and Zen...I personally greatly dislike the idea that all conscious beings end up meeting the same fate...But if my yearning to believe in rebith is in fact a reflection of my own attachment to this false ego identity, that's contradictory to Buddhist goals anyway!
I guess what I'm asking is...What do you guys think? What made you decide to go with whatever persuasion you chose? Any information that I might be overlooking? Any help would be greatly appreciated ^^
0
Comments
Once I used to be a very logical person, demanding a reason for everything. Then I hit a place where I saw life as absurdity, that things just didn't fall into place. There was no firm ground to say "I am this", or "you are that" or "I am gonna do this" or "this is gonna happen" or "I know all about this". I realized that, even if we don't acknowledge it consciously, there are a lot of things in our life depending on beliefs, and I didn't like that. I thought I should just face the fact that life is hollow, very much like the story of Sisyphus (He was punished by the gods to roll a stone up the mountain, just to see it roll down again, and than he would go back and push it to the mountain top again for all eternity. His punishment was to be without meaning.)
Living with that belief was tough, but hey I had read about Buddhism and it was OK because life is suffering right? That seemed very logic indeed. But I wanted to be happy, and I was depressed. how could I? So I would just accept it? I supposedly had a great life, so why couldn't I be happy? Than I came to the conclusion that the beliefs we hold do have a point in them, and I chose to believe in a lot of things.
I started deeply believing in good things, great things, and that made me feel happy. I know, for a fact, that my belief in rebirth and karma is something I chose to believe, and I am very satisfied with it.
But even though the Buddha detailed the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15), he wasn't a strict materialist. In regard to name-and-form (nama-rupa), for example, he didn't see consciousness as merely the byproduct of matter; he saw mentality and materiality as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, using the analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their relationship (SN 12.67).
While not as familiar with Tibetan or Zen, in Theravada, the literal interpretation of rebirth is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness (kind of like "spooky action at a distance" where two entangled particles communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances).
According to the teachings on dependent origination — a process of conditionality that's understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes (non-literalists simply disregard the "three-life" model, e.g., see Paticcasamuppada: Practical Dependent Origination) — if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving (tahna) plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
To illustrate how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel.
In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). Hence, the Buddha states, "Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence" (SN 12.38). The Buddha never really got more specific than that, though.
As for myself, however, I'm agnostic when it comes to rebirth. I'm open to the possibility, but I don't consider it a fact. That said, I do think that rebirth can be a useful teaching. Being open to teachings on rebirth, for example, has the potential to lead to skillful actions. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Faith in Awakening:
But luckily you don't have to believe in postmortem rebirth to be a Buddhist. As far as I know, there's no sort of Buddhist excommunication if you don't. You can be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth, or you can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they want. The teachings are open to either interpretation.
For example, on one level, rebirth and kamma (literally "action") deal with the framework of morality and ethical conduct in general. In this sense, I understand rebirth to signify the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results — one that does not necessarily end at death — and kamma to represent the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience.
This corresponds to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]" (MN 117). Here, morality and ethical conduct are associated with intentional actions and their corresponding results — which aren't just limited to those within the present lifetime — and the continuous cycle of birth and death (which can also be taken metaphorically).
On another level, rebirth and kamma deal with the framework of what I'd call psychological processes, which corresponds to what the Buddha called "noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path" (MN 117).
Here, rebirth still signifies the Buddha's observation that there’s a type of continuity that underlies experience in the form of our actions and their results, and kamma still represents the intentional element of our psyche that goes into experience, but they’re placed within the context of the four noble truths and the noble eightfold path. In this context, the emphasis is on things such as recognizing and understanding the mental processes by which we construct our sense of self, as well as how to utilize those processes in more skillful ways.
Looking at it from a more non-literalist perspective, however, I think that the teachings on dependent co-arising, the aggregates and not-self are quite insightful in that they're the parts of Buddhism that correspond to parts of modern psychology. For one thing, they basically detail the process by which we construct our sense of self, i.e., our ego or identity, and, ultimately, how to utilize that process in more skillful ways.
The aggregates themselves, for example, aren't simply descriptions of what constitutes a human being as some people mistakenly think—they're one of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.). But more importantly, they represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, "I-making" and "my-making" (e.g., MN 109). I think that Thanissaro Bhikkhu sums up the relationship between the teachings on not-self and the process of I-making and my-making very well in his essay "The Problem Of Egolessness."
Our sense of self is quite fluid — it's always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli — and it's often hard to observe this process in action. Nevertheless, there are times when our sense of self causes us a great deal of suffering, times when we cling very strongly to that momentary identity and the objects of our sensory experience on which it's based in ways that cause a great deal of mental stress.
But if we can learn to be more aware of these mental processes, we can learn to master them through a combination of mindfulness training and other techniques. I imagine that there are methods found within modern psychology that are comparable and equally as effective, but many people still find Buddhist methods helpful (and even some modern psychologists are finding them useful). So I can definitely understand the difficulty in accepting concepts such as rebirth, but there are plenty of other things in Buddhism that can potentially have an immediate impact on our mental well-being in the here and now.
However, in the end, I don't think it really matters which view of rebirth one holds because the actual practice is still the same. What truly matters is what you do with the teachings, not what you believe about them. That's why I think the Buddha likened his teachings to a raft in MN 22:
However, to comment objectively rather than subjectively, in Buddhism, rebirth is a mundane or worldly doctrine. The Buddha himself advised the rebirth teaching sides with merit but it is not a factor of the path.
(See link to MN 117 in Jason's post above).
Every religion has different teachings for worldlings (puttujana) and for serious practitioners.
Best wishes
DDhatu
Your explanation here appears contrary to the Buddha.
Dependent origination is merely about the origin of suffering, which is something mental.
Ignorance, which includes all kinds of emotional tendencies, conditions the kaya, vaca & citta sankharas, which condition consciousness and the mind body.
For example, when teenagers enter puberity, due to hormonal changes in their bodies, all they can see is sex. Their consciousness is tainted or coloured by sexual or reproductive mental tendencies.
This build of ignorance & craving then leads to suffering, such as heartbreak, due to loss. Loss is aging & death. Birth is full blown self-definition and acquisition of the five aggregates, such as "I am her boyfriend, she is my girlfriend".
In brief, the Buddha called Dependent Origination "the Dhamma". The Buddha said: "He who sees Dependent Origination sees the Dhamma".
This is a matter to be seen but you still appear to be promoting speculative views.
Your explanation of Dependent Origination is not the same as the Buddha's, who advised all of the various conditions of Dependent Origination arise and cease "when the eye sees the form, when the ear hears the sound, etc".
Therefore, if you wish to quote suttas about rebirth, it is best to stick to those which the Buddha gave to Brahmins and other Hindus.
Kind regards
It's probably a mark of what a bad Buddhist I am and how caught up in intellectual attainment I am that I'm impressed. But that doesn't alter the fact that I'm impressed.
I'd go with DD's advice. Even if you eventually reject the idea, it's worth exploring the idea that this stream of consciousness could be me, or Mother Teresa, or Adolf Hitler, or God, or a feces-eating maggot. What this stream of consciousness is has implications for liberation, but other than that it's not terribly important. Realizing that has implications.
Attraction itself is a taint. So is repulsion, and so is neutrality. On the other hand, if you are attracted to right view, it doesn't matter how perverted the source of that attraction is.
Assuming that Zen is what Zen Buddhists do and not an idealized notion in some Zen Buddhist's mind, it really depends on which Zen Buddhist you talk to. (Speaking as a Zen Buddhist.) If you're attracted to Tibetan Buddhism, find a Tibetan teacher who doesn't care whether you believe in rebirth or not. I don't know how common they are, but they do exist.
Buddhism sort of assumes that your starting point is attachment to your false ego identity. If it's not, let me know and I'll come study at your feet.
I treat rebirth the same way I treat god-belief. I don't believe that it has any affect on my practice, so I don't need to take a position on it. If rebirth were proven to be true, my practice wouldn't change. If it were proven to be false, my practice wouldn't change.
The thing that I'm being torn by is...on the one hand, if I don't reach liberation in this lifetime, the idea of a physical rebirth is comforting to me (I would still have other opportunities). On the other, I'm afraid that the idea might also inhibit me as well....because so far in my own train of thought...there has been quite a few "I's". If I consciously hold such views as an attempt to hold on to this false "self"...well that's not being very Buddhist.
I think part of me wants to except the idea so I can identify as a Buddhist...(and no offense, I know that one is free not to except the idea of physical rebirth and still be considered a Buddhist).
Yet, I also fear the idea of being ridiculed and shunned by my peers for excepting such beliefs (Although, being an out and proud homosexual...I should be used to that by now, right?)
As always, there is also the fear of being wrong...Which I think most of us have (unless I'm once again trying to bring myself comfort).
I also find myself thinking, "If I'm reborn...it won't matter too hard...as most of us seem to have no recollection of past lives." and "If I'm not reborn and there is nothing after this...well I think I'd have little choice then to be cool with it.
(My mom's boyfriend was legally dead for like 2 mins and he says to him it was just like being asleep...but that raises the question of did he or did he not actually enter the intermediate state?...but that would be another long and debate-ridden thread...).
Now I'm not even sure of what it was I was originally trying to ask...Ultimately I think my own disposition is, "If other people are cool with it, it's alright. I'm not stupid just because I except this...plenty of people except this." <= None of that is Buddhist! ><
In these ways I see myself with defeatist tendencies...I look at my family and friends (99% of which are not Buddhist. They mainly are either not-religious or have Christian influences...Which I rejected a long time ago...I'm proud that I can at least make up my mind that far) and wonder why it is that I concern myself and cause myself so much stress over such things when others don't? They seem much happier then I am (even though they have more issues then Time magazine...trust me).
Help?
The human body is 60% water.
We are all part of the process of life. The components of our bodies have literally been through millions of incarnations. The water on earth is the same water that's been here about 4.5 billion years. That's a lot of time to cycle around. So in at least a biological sense, the concept of "rebirth" is not mystical at all. It is scientific fact.
As for an eternal, invisible consciousness that transcends the physical body, and goes on and on throughout the ages? I haven't a clue. I'm not particularly concerned about it one way or another. What I know and understand to be true is quite enough to dispel the fear of death. Death is a natural process, a transition into the unknown, strikingly similar to birth. Both are painful. Both are frightening. Both are uncertain. Both are inescapable. It is only human to fear the unknown; this is understandable. Dwelling upon it, however, is irrational. Does the wave, seeing the rocky shore, fear its impending demise?
My rational understanding of rebirth allows me to accept the more esoteric versions without much ado. The only means of actually testing those theories, however, is, in fact, to die. Therefore, I feel quite at ease with putting such exploration off, for a while, and remaining happily agnostic.
In the meantime, I am perfectly at peace with both living and dying. They are, after all, inseparable from ourselves. Every moment of life, is also a moment of death.
Chew on that for a while.
You need to start practicing now.
Let me tell you something, After you have practiced for a while, you may come to the realization that "waking up" is not something that happens after years of arduous hard work. If you want, you can wake up right now. In fact, there is no other way to wake up. The only way to wake up, is to wake up right now. This is why it is so important for you to start practicing now. If you think to yourself, "Oh, I'll just go next year." Or anything that looks to the future, you will fail.
Indeed, if your goal is to end suffering, your goal should be to end suffering right now.
And yet the Buddha himself also advised that his teachings have one taste—the "taste of liberation" (Ud 5.5). So unless everyone you're preaching to is an arahant, I'd submit to you that "mundane" teachings are just as relevant as "supramundane" teachings.
The Buddha advised in MN 117 the rebirth teachings do not side with liberation.
The Buddha advised of his core teachings in many places but never included rebirth in this list.
If I am enlightened and explain the Bible clearly to Christians, this does not mean the Christian teaching forms part of my core doctrine.
The same. When Buddha taught more clearly the pre-existing Brahministic views, this does not mean the Brahministic teachings formed part of his core doctrines.
Not directly, no, but he also advised in Ud 5.5 that his teachings have one taste, the "taste of liberation." So while I think you make a good point, unless it can be shown that his teachings on rebirth — or any other "mundane" teachings for that matter — aren't considered Dhamma, I will continue to consider his mundane teachings as relevant to the path as his supramundane teachings.
The interdependence of all becomes increasingly evident with each passing day. I don't need to know what will happen beyond the demise of my physical body and mind as long as I know that the universe and all of existence that has produced me will continue.
You have already reached what you call liberation an infinite number of times in this very life. The moments were so brief, that you just didn't recognize it.
You can be more mindful of these moments in meditation. They will get longer... and longer... you'll start to learn to recognize these moments in everyday life, and carry your practice into daily life.
If you're searching for something outside of yourself then you're searching in the wrong places.
A good place to start, is to understand what it truly means to be Awakened (or "liberated"). What are you looking for from Buddhism, from Enlightenment?
I agree with Thought of Thought to this extent.
In MN 117, the Buddha stated the rebirth teachings sides with asava. Asava means effluents or pollution; toxic outflows or sewerage.
That rebirth has the flavour of liberation is impossible.
I think I personally might have deeper reasons as to why I, in a sense, hope for physical rebirth...But it's not just for my own sake.
I hear stories the same stories on the news that I'm sure you all have heard as well...'This person was raped and then murdered' 'These people are starving'...I can't even watch the news anymore because it just...aches...to hear these kinds of stories.
Also on a personal level...I have a family that is-I'm sure like most families- completely insane. My brother has been arrested a few times and kicked out of several schools. He's been heavily involved with drugs and alcohol as well. He also has a serious problem with rage. He's put someone in the hospital before. He's also nearly committed physical violence towards my grandparents because they tried to get him to calm down when he didn't pass a driving exam...he's 18 and going for his license. (My mom, brother and I live with my grandparents).
My mom at least got a high school education...but she has had kind of a similar story. She's had serious issues with drugs (and to some extent, still does), and she also has such a serious shopping addiction (her room is so cluttered you can only open the door a good 45 degrees). She never really got over the divorce...and now she's with a guy that...well sucks. She might actually end up becoming mortally ill because of him (I really don't care to elaborate too much further on that).
I see my dad sometimes (I work full-time and so does he and we live about 20 miles apart. We don't often get time to see each other. But we use the telephone).
I'm not telling this because I want sympathy (at least I hope not...maybe on some not-too-helpful level I do). Buddhism has helped me to have a much more positive outlook in these situations though. I guess the belief in rebirth makes me feel like...There will always be hope for me and the ones I love to recognize the peace that is right here.
I know I can't force the Dharma on anyone The little bits I've tried to explain to my mom...she just doesn't get....not at all actually. (She says it's way too deep for her)
My brother just doesn't care...
I guess I don't even know what I'm asking for now...I guess...is there any hope for them...Or are we all, regardless of our actions...bound to meet the same fate? -Don't be afraid to be honest. Any help/guidance/plain old advice...would be greatly appreciated.
On the other hand, the peace that is right here, is always right here, and nothing fancy is needed to access it. Everything everybody does is chasing after that peace in some way. Your family members access it all the time, just not very stably.
I'm sorry your family's having a tough time. I hope you all find peace.
You must give your consent to have a problem, whether the problem is yours or that of another. Granted, there is much suffering in the world. It is wonderful to pour your compassion out to those in need. If their suffering causes you to suffer, however, you have failed them. As Dr. Wayne Dyer pointed out, no amount of feeling bad will make another happy. No amount of disease will cure disease, no amount of hunger will cure hunger, no amount of hate will cure hate. "Only love conquers hate," said the Buddha. Only eating cures hunger, only "ease" cures "dis-ease," only happiness cures sadness. Choose happiness and you will bring happiness to those around you.
Some people will never attain lasting peace in a single lifetime. It's okay. At least on a biological level, rebirth is fact. If it comforts you to believe in a metaphysical rebirth, as well, then there is no harm in it. I don't know what happens after the death of the body, but I know for certain something happens. That's enough for me. In the meantime, just enjoy your family while you have them, even if they make you crazy. Accept them as they are, even the parts that hurt you. You will suffer more if you want or expect them to be something different.
"If you look at a mountain and say, 'There is a mountain,' you have created a mountain. Likewise, if you look at a situation and say, 'This is a problem,' you have created a problem. Guard your thoughts with great care, lest you create chaos where there is only peace." ~ Heather Haze (http://BorromeanRings.com)
It's actually the smartest thing you can do. Exactly as Arietta said. If George Bush says something brilliant one day (ha. ha.) that benefits you, take it for what it is and leave the rest of his crap behind.
I agree that the teachings are about ending suffering, which is something mental, but after contemplating what you said a bit more, I'm still not convinced that his teachings on rebirth aren't considered Dhamma.
While it's true that the teachings on kamma and rebirth correspond to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]," they're still a part of right view. Moreover, the view that there is "no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings," etc. is considered wrong view. Therefore, the teachings on kamma and rebirth are considered Dhamma.
As for Ud. 5.5, I'm not sure how I'm misrepresenting it. The passage I referred to states:
The teachings on kamma and rebirth, even though they correspond to what the Buddha called "right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]," are still a part of right view, and right view, being part of the noble eightfold pat, leads to liberation. And as the Buddha illustrates in Ud 5.5, his teachings have the single taste of liberation, i.e., he taught only what was conducive to liberation.
So perhaps you could explain to me why you think rebirth isn't considered Dhamma, how I'm misrepresenting Ud 5.5, etc.
The assertion that there is literal rebirth, and the assertion that there is not literal rebirth, are both just beliefs. The Buddha taught to abandon all beliefs, because they are not Dhamma. "Right View with no effluents" has no mention of either, because these beliefs are irrelevent to the Buddha's teachings, which lead to Nibbana. Whereas it says that "Right View with Effluents" leads to future becoming ("There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]") - you can take that literally or in the sense of the ego, but either way, the point remains the same.
"I reached the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming." (MN 26)
Some beliefs may be helpful and lead someone to a better life, but ultimately, they aren't necessary/relevent to the Buddha's own teachings on the cessation of suffering and ultimately must be let go as well (Nibbana = no asava). And some beliefs, like those mentioned in Wrong View ("there is no such thing as literal karma or rebirth and therefore my actions do not have consequences"), aren't helpful, period.
Perhaps you might enjoy:
Toward the First Revolution in the Mind Sciences - Alan Wallace, Ph.D
In either case, rebirth is not something to believe in. The goal as stated by the buddha is the cessation of birth, death, sickness, and old age. The only way to bring that cessation about is by realizing the Four Noble Truths through you yourself becoming an Arya (stream enterer).
Belief doesn't cut it, we need to keep studying and meditating.
You've definitely been thinking a lot, haven't you? It sounds like there's a lot going on in your mind at the moment and you're probably looking for a little peace and quiet and maybe some measure of certainty.
Unfortunately questions about rebirth are very much like questions about the existence of a creator god or the origins of the universe etc; there just aren't any certain answers.
The good news is that we don't need answers to questions like those in order to be happy. All we need to do is practice and happiness will follow. For many of us that means putting aside these kinds of questions for now and focusing our minds on what we can understand and verify for ourselves. For example, we could concentrate on developing more compassion and empathy for ourselves and others. I'm sure you already know what sort of results you'll get from that kind of practice. Or we could work on developing more patience when faced with potentially stressful situations or people. Or we could simply meditate and focus our minds on the breath. Or we could practice mindfulness while we wash the dishes. Or we could read or listen to Dhamma teachings and when something comes up that we don't understand we can put it aside for the time being and focus on the things we do understand. More understanding will come in time. Remember when you first started to study Buddhism? There were a lot of things you didn't understand then that you understand now. You don't have to have all the answers right this minute in order to develop spiritually. Take it slowly and carefully. Simplify...and be patient.
And definitely don't bother comparing your happiness with the happiness of others. We can't know what's going on in other people's minds and hearts so it's pointless to compare our happiness (or lack thereof) with the happiness we think other people enjoy. Maybe they're absolutely miserable but put on a good show. Who knows except them? It's impossible to get an accurate measurement and it will just frustrate and annoy you and make you feel bad about yourself and that's just counterproductive. Don't measure your happiness at all. Just practice. Happiness will follow inevitably.
I think that's a good way of breaking it down, o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o. That's pretty much what I was trying to get at when I said:
I can't say that I disagree, NamelessRiver. I've had to do the same myself. Well said.
I can see it both ways, but only one I can directly verify without supramundane vision is the moment-to-moment aspect of rebirth. Now, I've studied the pali suttas a good deal, though, and I at least take it that the Buddha intentionally taught literal rebirth and that it is of some significance. It is 2/3 of the "three kinds of knowledge" that a Buddha possesses:
http://www.tbsa.org/articles/BuddhaQualities.html
Now, you may argue that the 3rd is the only important knowledge one needs for liberation, but, according to the actual suttas which discuss these 3 knowledge in any detail, that 3rd knowledge dependent upon the previous 2. This suggests that the buddha not only teaches rebirth, but that his direct knowledge of it was at the base of his realization. Also, the Buddha uses rebirth in other sutras not directy about rebirth. For example, in the Brahmajala Sutta in the sections on the sixty-two wrong views, he uses it to explain how some of the wrong views come about:
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/theravada/brahma1.htm
There are a few other examples in that section of other wrong views being based on recollections of previous incarnations.
So, I guess I have to kind of agree with Jason when he said that the Buddha did, in fact, teach rebirth as Right View. Now, you could perhaps argue it's not necessary to believe in literal, post-mortem rebirth to progress on the path, but I think you're being disingenuous if you think the sutras did not present such a teaching. Personally, I have no idea. I don't believe in anything I haven't seriously attempted to verify and I am aware of how strong any personal evidence I have found may or may not be. Belief is not a black-white dichotomy, but a spectrum. I have strong confidence that the suttas are our best representation of what the Buddha taught and that they were not altered to add rebirth since the time of the Buddha. From there, I have a moderate belief that the Buddha did what he said he did and strong belief that his prescribed practices can lead to greater understanding of life and more internal peace.
Anyway, there's my $0.02 for the day.
I am sure it was presented in the suttas as literal, my problem is that I can't put it into practice, that is all (not in meditation, but it has implications on other parts of the path), so while meditating on the nidanas I have to use the reinterpretation many people make.
At the beginning, I also had the view that rebirth was presented literally in most contexts, but people like DhammaDhatu have made some good arguments against this. And the more I think about it, the more those argument make sense to me. I'm still not convinced that rebirth isn't considered Dhamma, but as o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o said, some beliefs [like rebirth] may be helpful and lead someone to a better life, but ultimately, they aren't necessary for achieving liberation.
So I guess I half agree with DhammaDhatu that the teachings on rebirth aren't as relevant to the path as his supramundane teachings, I'll concede that much. But I still think they can be useful to a certain extent (e.g., as motivation), and I still consider them Dhamma, otherwise the Buddha wouldn't have taught them at all, let alone include them under right view.
In the suttas the Buddha no doubt discusses literal rebirth; this is not argued by anyone here (the only one you will find arguing this is a certain Kevin
In MN12, which is what this is referencing, what is often translated as "recollects his past lives" is pubbenivasanusattinyana which means "recollection of past dwellings."
In the case you describe, he doesn't appear to be speaking in the literal sense.
What suttas say that? Also, these "powers" are of a Tathagata, i.e. one already Awakened, so how could they be a factor to the path to Awakening? These things are synonymous with Nibbana, not steps leading it.
What I wonder, though, is if he had been in a place where, say, Catholicism was common, would have taught rebirth, or would he have made use of their preexisting beliefs? Brahmans often came to him believing things like if they killed however many people in battle, they would be rewarded with being reborn with the gods. The Buddha would deny this, and use their beliefs of karma and literal rebirth to direct them in a more moral direction. But once you get down to the heart of the Dhamma, you find these sorts of beliefs are not necessary to lead such a life, and find reasons beyond fear of consequence to act with compassion. Can't any similar belief, though, be used in such a way, and as motivation?
That's why I said I see it as both. I have no issue whatsoever reflecting on the teachings of rebirth and paticca samupada in both literal and metaphorical/allegorical/psychological language and honestly, the latter is much more helpful to reflect upon in my day-to-day, moment-to-moment practice. Honestly, I have no idea the veracity of literal, post-mortem rebirth, and it doesn't personally affect my practice that much one way or the other. Perhaps if I had more faith in this idea, I would practice a little harder, but I don't really know.
Mundus,
The teaching of the three-knowledges corresponds with the standard run-down of the night of the Buddha's awakening. This is from MN 36:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html
Passages such as these makes me hesitant to accept your translation of former lives as former dwellings. I guess I just don't think that the context of the language indicates what you are arguing. How does your version translate "many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion"? What about where it says:
"'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance.
How does your version translate that? Even if the sutta you provided was meant to mean dwellings, rather than lives, there are a lot of others we'd have to analyze before accepting that your argument somehow knocks down literal rebirth as an explicit teaching of the scriptures.
1. Establish what the sutras actually say to the best of our abilities
2. Evaluate the certainty we have of whether these scriptures faithfully represent the original teachings.
3. Determine the degree to which we can verify the claims of the sutras.
4. Observe and consider how much each individual argument enables practice and how much it improves results
5. Observe and consider how consistent our personal experience of practice is with the claims of the scriptures
6. Leave aside issues that cannot be properly evaluated in favor of those that can and research matters further until you are able to better evaluate them.
There may be more steps that I personally use, but that is the basic idea.
P.S.-this is an open-ended process and I am constantly re-evaluating my position on this when new information is presented.
I just want to be clear that it's not my translation or anything. Even those who hold the literal translation sometimes use that term. You can look it up if you'd like, that is in fact what it means. I don't refer to one translation soley, either--you can find various translations through Google beyond what's available on accesstoinsight.
But:
as I agree with this entirely, I am going to reference the Pali, discuss a few particular terms from this sutta with those well-versed in the language, and let you know tomorrow. Late here, so I'm off to bed for now. Good night~
I know it's not 'your' translation, as in 'you wrote it.' I hope my language did not suggest that. But just because you've presented a translation where they render the pali into 'dwellings' rather than 'lives' does not properly explain away passages such as the ones I posted from MN 36 and the Brahmajala Sutta. If the translations you use do anything, they expand upon the meaning, not limit it. Many Pali and Sanskrit terms do not directly translate into English and so we seem multiple renderings that highlight different aspects of the original word. Dukkha can be translated as stress, pain, suffering, anxiety and perhaps other words as well. Also, somebody recently said that 'samsara' can be translated as circling, but based on subsequent searches on the term, I found that 'wandering-on' is considered a literal translation. I'm sure other examples of this exist, and the point is that just because we can render a translation one way it does not mean that alternative translations are invalid. Usually it just means that the original word has multiple nuances.
The way I see it is that there is not as much conflict in the multiple renderings as people make things out to be, but rather the teachings become richer and more full of implications than when we only use a single rendering. Also, when we analyze the original texts in their original languages, we can evaluate the extent that each translation is valuable based on the etymological breakdowns. We can also compare term usage between different contexts to get a fuller idea of the original terms. So, I will welcome your contribution tomorrow or whenever you have the time to post it, but don't expect me to take away the same conclusions as you.
_/\_
"No, friend."
"So just now, friends, didn't you make that declaration without having attained any of these Dhammas?"
"We're released through discernment, friend Susima."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.070.than.html
Here the monks became enlightened through insight.
Presumably the recollections of past lives are part of the Jhanic attainments which they didn't have. So until one has these jhanic abilities there can be no direct experience unless you consider experiences of past life regressions or spontaneous past life recall as valid.
The belief of literal rebirth does not seem to be a requirement for enlightenment. "It's true but you don't have to belief it" according to a Tibetan practitioner.
But
Surely here past lives do not refer to previous dwellings.
It would be nice to know the range of meanings for the word translated as "clan," because that is the only aspect of these evolutions of personal identity which doesn't seem to fit perfectly with the shifts in Siddartha's life described elsewhere in the sutra.
People who don't understand or want to listen to the buddha's explanations of the mind can probably still make decent progress just by examining the momentary nature of external objects. If they ever get good enough at it and then change their object of focus to the mind itself they will quite quickly cognize their past lives - if their capacity to establish impermanence of for example touch or thoughts is truly great.
The problem is this type of person with such nihilistic tendencies is not likely to ever reach that level of concentration because they have no reason to.
You asked for another translation: http://www.levityisland.com/buddhadust/www.buddhadust.org/ThePaliLine/The10thQuestion_1.htm
This is a translation coming from someone who sides with the literal interpretation, which is interesting.
I'm saying, that is what it actually means, according to dictionaries. Please feel free to look this up yourself. The Pali term is pubbenivasa:
pubbe: former, earlier, prior
Nivāsa: stopping, dwelling, resting-place, abode; living, sheltering
Translations of "past lives" seems to be taking liberties. But if you don't get too hung up on this, you'll realize that "past-dwellings" could theoretically extend to literal past lives as well, so there is no conflict here.
SN 22.79 suggests that when recalling past clingings to "self," whether in this life or seemingly in another, that what we recall are all within the khandhas and, as he explains, these are not "self."
It's very easy to say and understand that the "me" of past and future lives is not the same "me" as right now... the khandas of the past and future lives are not "me"... but what about the past and future khandas and birth of the false "I" within this life, and even in this very moment? That's the important message to take from this in my opinion, and what needs to be directly realized to make progress.
Many people claim to be able to recall past lives, including those within Buddhism who take part in practices specifically for this purpose and yet, they are not Enlightened. The passage doesn't suggest that they were the base of his realization at all. SN 12.70 suggests that these things (such as recollection of past lives), in any sense, are not necessary to Awakening:
And AN 9.44 explains what "released through discernment" means. This term comes from pannavimutti. Vimutti is synonymous with Nibbana.
Are you speaking from personal experience?
I'm hoping DD will chime in. However I was talking to Stuka about that sentence specifically and he pointed out that in other passages the Buddha sometimes refers to others (Stuka noted that many times even hypothetical persons) as being "clansmen." He noted that "various ascetics and wanderers not of his group [are refered to] as "clansmen" as well." As a quick example, in MN 140, Pukkusati.
He said: "I think that this "clansmen" designation is a lot looser than is often represented in support of reincarnation-only positions, and also includes such things as gatherings of ascetics under this-or-that doctrine, tribes, occupational guilds, and such.. basically, "I was this-or-that such of person, I classified myself this or that way"."
The term in the scriptures here is (evam)gotta which I assume comes from gotto. There is apparently "no perfect English equivalent" and it seems to most often be translated as "clan." But, again, hopefully Dhamma can help out here.
Likewise what is translated as "name" (nama) seems to have the broader definition of appellation.
Edit -
Haha no where near.
LOL I wasn't around here when Stuka was (i.e. before the ban), but I personally haven't noticed anything like that from him. xD
Thanks for your response. The translation you provided still seems to indicate a literal teaching of rebirth here, so I'm not entirely sure where we're clashing on this issue. I stand by my previous statement that there may, on occasion, be multiple valid ways of rendering words in given contexts. Once again, I feel that this enriches our understanding of the sutras and I have no issue reflecting on multiple renderings.
Now, you make some good arguments in regard to discernment leading to release and I don't think I have a whole lot of basis to argue in those regards beyond what I've already said. While the section from MN 36 does indicate that the Buddha gained crucial insight by his direct perception of rebirth that led to his illumination, that does not necessarily mean that perception of rebirth will lead to liberation in every case. I imagine that regardless of how many lives one is capable of perceiving, liberation necessitates realization in regard to the causes of dukkha and the release of dukkha. Perhaps I've come across a little too strongly in my language about this and I hope this clarifies my stance.
take care
Yeah, he is. Were you trying to get in touch with him? PM me if you'd like.
I personally am not sure what happens after death, but for the moment I just keep my self in now and try to lead a beneficial life.