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.
Buddha taught rebirth -- and he meant it!
Daozen
Veteran
People, please don't question whether or not Buddha taught rebirth. He did. And he meant it. And NOT just metaphorically, and NOT just as a 'lesser teaching' for those students who couldn't understand the tricky stuff. On the evidence of the suttas, he literally believed that we are reborn after we die.
Keep it real.
Namaste
***
The Buddha's Words on Kamma (MN 57, 135, 136, 41)
General principles of kamma and rebirth
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel248.html
Brahmans of the Western land (SN 42.6)
The inviolability of rebirth after death according to kamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.006.than.html
Lohicca Sutta (DN 12)
On recollecting past lives
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html
There are MANY more …
Keep it real.
Namaste
***
The Buddha's Words on Kamma (MN 57, 135, 136, 41)
General principles of kamma and rebirth
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel248.html
Brahmans of the Western land (SN 42.6)
The inviolability of rebirth after death according to kamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.006.than.html
Lohicca Sutta (DN 12)
On recollecting past lives
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.12.0.than.html
There are MANY more …
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Namaste
We'll find no harmony in this thread; only conflict.
Namaste
Whether we believe in rebirth is a potentially divisive debate.
BUT-- whether Buddha taught rebirth should not be divisive. It's not "just my opinion", it's a fact that he did teach this, as the suttas show. Honestly, why is this topic controversial? It's there for any who can read to see.
Namaste
To what extent can we be 'Buddhists' if we find that we cannot accept or experience the reality of certain things that Buddha did teach -- like rebirth. Can we reconcile the two?
I hope people can see the distinction i am making. This thread is NOT about whether rebirth is true. It is about the fact Buddha DID teach it, and as i say above, about how we as Buddhists can live with this fact, whether we believe or not.
Namaste.
Nobody doubts whether Buddha taught rebirth. The question is what he meant by rebirth. Since you assert literal rebirth, you violate the precept of non-self.
Buddha makes it clear what he means by rebirth.
"There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words."
"Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existent entities. Thy heart, O Brahman, is cleaving still to self; thou art anxious about heaven but thou seekest the pleasures of self in heaven, and thus thou canst not see the bliss of truth and the immortality of truth.
"I say to thee: The Blessed One has not come to teach death, but to teach life, and thou discernest not the nature of living and dying. This body will be dissolved and no amount of sacrifice will save it. Therefore, seek thou the life that is of the mind. Where self is, truth cannot be; yet when truth comes, self will disappear.
Kutadanta: "Tell me, O Lord, if there be no atman [soul], how can there be immortality? The activity of the mind passeth, and our thoughts are gone when we have done thinking."
Buddha replied: "Our thinking is gone, but our thoughts continue. Reasoning ceases, but knowledge remains."
"Since, then, O bhikkhus, there is no self, there can not be any afterlife of a self. Therefore abandon all thought of self."
Direct Sources: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg54.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg41.htm
**Edit: I have deleted the controversial quote, but please note that the remaining quotes are legitimate.**
.
Seriously, please at least show some integrity and make it clear what you're actually quoting, for the sake of not misleading newcomers in their studies...
NOT that I don't think it's a good and proper message... just that, it's not really fair to put quotes around it and say "the Buddha said"...
By 'literal rebirth' i didn't mean rebirth of an atman, soul etc. I understand the concept of anatta, and how it relates to rebirth. I simply meant to emphasise that rebirth for Buddha was not just a metaphor, not just something that we experience within this life -- but that he taught we have had an infinite number of previous lives, and that we will have future ones until enlightenment.
I'll also say once again to be clear, it's not much whether you believe/accept rebirth personally (as it happens, i have troubles with it!) but that we must at least accept the fact that Buddha taught it, and not simply pretend Buddhism is whatever we want it to be.
People say they like choices, but in fact, choices are stressful.
I just would like more rigour about what Buddha actually taught. The replies so far have mainly been talking about talking about rebirth, rather than actually ... talking about it.
At least no one has said Buddha didn't teach rebirth, so i guess maybe we do agree after all.
Namaste
Fascinating, isn't it?
I can sympathise with that as I have made a similar point quite recently in another thread and I even quoted more suttas than you.
Just for the record, I did not intend the dharma lite topic as a defence of rebirth, but as an analysis of the cultural paradigms that lead to certain deep-rooted philosophical views about the world. It turned out to be somewhat of a rebirth defence thread, unfortunately.
So, there seem to be these two camps among Western Buddhists, and that is OK, because everyone is free to practice and to believe what suits him/her best.
However, you are certainly right in saying that it would be non-factual to deny the presence (and the importance) of the concept of rebirth in the Pali canon.
I would go even further and admit the word "reincarnation" as being synonymous with rebirth. Deplorably, the Anglo-Saxon world disagrees because reincarnation has often been used in the sense of transmigration, so native English speakers tend to protest despite the etymology of the word. It clearly means "becoming flesh again" and there is no more suggestion of transmigration than in the word "rebirth". Therefore, I pledge that reincarnation should be acquitted of being a bad word in Buddhism, alas, the non-rebirthers disagree, because the word obviously points to literal rebirth.
Ultimately, I don't really care much. Let everyone enjoy his/her favourite dharma cocktail. The important thing is to cultivate morality, mindfulness, compassion, and wisdom on basis of whatever one holds to be true.
Cheers, Thomas
Why can't rebirth be interpreted as either a moment-to-moment re-arising or an event after death, depending on which sutta we're reading? Surely, our imagination has room for both and it's more enjoyable if we let the story do its job, that is, to capture our imagination.
I second this.
Transmetaphysical, if you're going to bandy quotations around, please at least make them scholarly, reliable and from some respectable source.
This is a bit like the song "I danced with a man, who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales"....
Chinese whispers, anyone.....?
Quotations should come from respected and verifiable sources, not some online comic mouthpiece.....
There is evidence to suggest that he taught rebirth, evidence he was agnostic about it and evidence he taught not rebirth. Each view is compatible with dharma, what is not compatible with Dharma is dogma.
namaste
So you are saying that Buddha was completely inconsistent on one of the major components of his teachings? Why? Any evidence?
Namaste
Recollecting past lives [literally 'past dwellings' or 'homes'] is taught in different ways.
The supramundane meaning is found in the Khajjaniya Sutta.
Thanks for the quotes, but they are quite a 'mixed bag', and i'm unsure of your intended message. Can state your point/s in a line or two of your own?
Namaste
Each person can read the sutta for themself.
The sutta speaks metaphorically.
The mind of the person reappears in an afflictive state. Notice they do not go to 'hell' or 'heaven' but instead experience the pain or pleasure "as in the case" of beings in hell or heaven.
This statement is 'metaphorical' according to the meaning of the word.
:smilec:
Now let us return to the suttas cited by DaoZen:
So which world is the being reborn in above???
Human, heaven or hell???
The Buddha said he reappears experiencing all three worlds.
:eek:
These suttas about rebirth are for a moral purpose.
I asked you to quote a sutta where rebirth & emptiness are taught together.
Also, please quote a sutta where rebirth & not-self are taught together.
Also, please quote a sutta where rebirth & the three characteristics are taught together.
I am still waiting for a reply.
:coffee:
DaoZen
In the excerpt above, when & where does the exhaustion of kamma occur?
The sutta states: "any volition in abandoning"...
If so, does this exhaustion of kamma occur here & now???
How can there be volition after death???
It matters a lot.
Who wants their mind to fall into the state of hell, hungry ghost or an animal state?
:smilec:
:cool:
Reading is done with the physical eye whereas seeing is done with the spiritual eye (dhamma chakku).
:om:
As most conversations on Rebirth do, I believe this conversation is exceeding the bounds of the Buddhism for Beginners thread...
I have a simple question... Is it possible that the realization of a literal Rebirth might for some come at the tail end of the path to enlightenment as opposed to some for whom it comes at the beginning or even somewhere else along the path...
All this absolutist debate of trying to convince others what is and what isn't seems centered in the ego and of concepts of attachment... When I read threads like this (and this one is rather mild compared to some) it brings images of 2 or more people beating each other around the ears with a stick where the beating will only stop if one party finally says, I give up... you are right...
Buddhism is about the individual path, at least that's what I have come to believe, perhaps I'm wrong...
IMO, discussions like this move us farther from enlightenment and strengthens the grip of ego...
As I've quoted before, the Buddha said:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
If one is to come to believe in any aspect of Buddhism it is only going to happen when they have taken the opportunity to observe and analyze that aspect with reason and found it conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, at which point they will accept it and live up to it... Not because someone continually pounds their point of view into them...
However, the Dhamma also advises:
I am not the one yet stuck in certain views... is this your way of stating that you are a beginner? your reference to sotapanna is a fine example of how you do not understand what the term "Beginner" means in context of "Buddhism for Beginners sub-board"...
I read your link but your point is not clear... perhaps it is because i am a beginner... perhaps I'm just stupid... mind dumbying up your responses a bit in order to make yourself understood?
Or does it inflate your ego to speak above us regular folk who have no idea what your talking about? I find many who attain university degrees do much the same when they speak to those ignoramuses who only went to high school... It serves two purposes... it creates a feeling of superiority and it also creates a scenario where they can't be called on something by those they are speaking to because they haven't a clue what you said let alone call you on it...
Could a site moderator please provide a site definition of what a beginner is...
It is possible it is I who am posting in the "Buddhist for Beginners" threads mistakenly...
I'm also curious about what the difference then is between the "Buddhism for beginners" sub-board and the "Buddhism for the Experienced Practitioners" is...
It seems to some that these should all fall under one sub-board...
A beginner is somebody new to the forum, who openly states that they are a beginner, and openly state they know very little about Buddhism, having recently decided to either investigate it further, or come to it with the intention of following it (often both) and who asks what more experienced practitioners would deem sometimes repetitive, basic or usual questions.
About different schools, about language, about the four noble truths.... that kind of thing.
They are most certainly not familiar (usually) with Pali or sanskrit terminology, and in-depth discussions on suttas/sutras, the veracity/authenticity of same, or discussions on anatta, enlightenment, rebirth and Nibbana.
These discussions - particularly when begun by Established Members - would be better discussed in the "Experienced" Forum.
On the basis of the above clarification, it's very likely most people are.
Hopefully, my clarification above will make that more easy for you.
It might be we need an "Intermediate" forum.
Or it might be that those posting should be more mindful of discussion, and try to watch where they post the topic.
Or it might be that people should be wary of getting carried away with expounding how profound their own knowledge is, and consider that they're entering the realms of double-dutchedness. For beginners, that is.
Much as has happened in this thread in fact, which is why so much superfluous chit-chat, off-topic posting and verbal spats have been deleted.
And will continue to be deleted, until people stick to topic, maintain an appropriate input of posting for the level of forum and thread, and remember that hot air rises, but a Mod erases.
This suggests life is inherent suffering. I have never seen the Buddha state this. I have never seen him state that to cease being born again is the crux of Buddhism. I think it's fair to ask for a citation when such a claim is made.
No one wants to fall into a hell, hungry ghost or an animal state of course. But, does knowing whether or not rebirth is true or false or whether or not the Buddha taught this particular thing or not, is that a prerequisite for being able to have correct understanding, knowledge or wisdom of action & result? But then again, I guess it would depend on what one's definition of "rebirth" is. Does it mean "what happens after the body dies" or does it mean something else that can be observed from moment to moment to moment in daily life or in meditation, etc.? I don't think one would NEED to know what happens after the body dies in order to have a correct understanding, knowledge or wisdom of action & result?
Right on my mean butsudo brother.
I am just gonna say one thing.
MN 117
Word.
/Victor
PS.
I am not black. Just got carried away.
DS.
all i can say is DaoZen is not a beginner and to me DaoZen was just evangelising
they were not asking 'beginners' questions but instead, exhorting the 'people'
i recall DaoZen at other forum (BWB) evanglising supreme emptiness
i am sorry you disagreed with my fun
I never said that quote was from BuddhaNet. I said it was from the Gospel of Buddha which most of is directly taken from the Pali Canon.
You are getting confused with the quote concerning rewards in the next life which was taken from buddhanet, though the direct source is uncertain.
.
[Sati:] Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Sāti, how is that consciousness? Venerable sir, this uttering and feeling one, that reaps the results of actions good and evil done here and there.
[The Buddha]: Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven't I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time.
Source: http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/038-mahatanhasankhaya-sutta-e1.html
.
Federica, is it possible that you underestimate beginners? While they might not be familiar with the Pali and Sanskrit terms, most of them have heard about karma, rebirth, and nirvana, in fact these terms have already found their way into popular culture, but they might not know of the specifics.
Rebirth in particular seems to be a topic of interest for Westerners, probably due to movies such as Little Buddha and Seven Years in Tibet. However, beginners often don't know the details and are not able to distinguish the concept of rebirth in Buddhism from the concept of rebirth in Hinduism or other religions.
Perhaps a newbie thread should then clarify these basic differences and give a few pointers to suttas that deal with rebirth. It may also be useful to put birth and rebirth into the context of karma and dependent origination to understand the unique Buddhist perspective. Furthermore, one might mention various Buddhist nations and cultures and their traditional beliefs and attitudes towards rebirth.
Nevertheless, this thread didn't start with a question, but with an assertion, so it quite naturally led to debate. Perhaps this is more typical for the intermediate level.
Cheers, Thomas
Yeah but seriously. You do not think Right View is a factor of the path?
/Victor
On what grounds do you equate loka with "state"?
/Victor
I agree. MN 117
Here is a pretty good translation of a part of it.
Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view.
And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
But I would make the following changes to that translation.
According to my own humble opinion next world should be future life (see my post here )
And according to DD:s opinion the next should be the other world.
/Victor
Heaven, hell... the various realms are here-and-now, mental states.
Think this one gives a pretty accurate reply though.
/Victor
Note that the format is interestingly identical to the 4NTs of dukkha, with asava in its place.
Noble Right View which is "a factor of the path" is listed in MN 117 as well.