Reborn as human?

andyn

In the Sutra, Buddha said "Those whose in human form die and reborn as human can be compared to the dirt in my finger, while those in human form die and reborn in the realm of hungry ghosts, animals, and hells can be compared to the dirt in of the whole earth". If this is to understand literally, the ratio of dirt in the whole earth is more than billions of billions of dirt in finger, that means if our current earth population of 6.9 billion people die, then nobody will be reborn as human? Thus, doesn't making so much sense, since then our cultivation would be wasted? Unless, the meaning is not to be taken literally? But in the Diamond Sutra, it is said that Buddha's words are true and honest, they are frank and to the point. Then, how would this be interpreted?

Cloud

Take it to mean you're lucky to be able to comprehend and practice the Buddha's teachings.

ShiftPlusOne

Disclaimer: I don't believe in reincarnation.

Well look our culture...
Compare the components of stupidity, prejudice, materialism and hatred to the components of passion, desire, doubt and pride. How often do you see the latter without any of the former? So yeah, the way most people live their lives would mean that they aren't coming back to the human realm any time soon.

So, is our cultivation wasted? No, if anything that's what makes it so much more important, because every little bit counts.

DhammaDhatu

One of my favourite sutta series. My advice is it is best to not take them literally, otherwise one's head may burst into many pieces.

This series of suttas, the very last in the Samyutta Nikaya, offer the same discourses for all realms.

For example, they state very few animals will be reborn human due to not realising the Four Noble Truths. Now how can a literal animal realise the Four Noble Truths? That is impossible.

This series of suttas simply states for those who do not realise the Four Noble Truths, they will be reborn in, that is, experience, hell.

Hell is suffering.

So a human being that lives their whole life immoral & uncontrolled, that is, as an "animal", may, at some point in their life, realise the Four Noble Truths. When this former animal dies, they will die at peace, without dukkha, because their mind has realised craving & attachment are dukkha.

Whereas a human being that lives their whole life moral & controlled, that is, as a "human", may, never in their life, realise the Four Noble Truths.

This human being will take birth in hell, generally, at death or at another point when they experience great loss.

Best wishes

DD

Spaceless

Animals, heavenly beings, ghosts, hell beings etc would reborn as human.

fabianfred

The point is to show that human rebirth is rare and precious..... so do not waste this opportunity....study and practice the Dhamma to achieve nibanna.
When we die from the human realm it is not a case of 'all back into the scrabble bag' like a lucky dip.
Although human rebirth is rare (relative to the number of beings altogether trapped in Samsara) we can try our best to get reborn in the human realm by keeping the five precepts.
Training the mind by practicing meditation can help prevent death proximate karma from leading us to a rebirth in the lower realms...... and if practiced to the level of Stream-entry we shall be safe.

Jeffrey

The five precepts are shifty its hard to know exactly what they mean. The starting point is to keep them. And the ending point too. The path is the intent to keep them..

What are they..

1 don't kill
2 no sexual misconduct
3 no stealing
4 no lies
5 no intoxication aeiiii yi yi

sukhita

...... But in the Diamond Sutra, it is said that Buddha's words are true and honest, they are frank and to the point. Then, how would this be interpreted?

I am confident that the Buddha's words would have been true, honest, frank, and to the point. But what we have to go by is the words of his followers - they have conveyed to us the Buddha's teaching in their own style. The people of India, more specifically the greater Ganges plains, had their special way of spreading the Dharma. Many of the accounts recorded in the scriptures have allegorical or symbolic meaning. Like all the other religious traditions in that part of the world, the early Buddhists looked for significance in their sctiptures, rather than historical accurate detail. Therefore, they would have been quite comfortable with even the addition of stories rich in mythological elements, like the earth shakes..gods appear. The accounts of the Buddha were transmitted, from generation to generation, against this back-drop. So, in my opinion, we cannot extract the "actual" words of the Buddha, but we can certainly determine, from the sutras/suttas, the route we need to take to liberate ourselves from suffering.

SherabDorje

I think it's obvious that it's not meant to be understood literally. Even the Buddha would be allowed to use allegorical or metaphorical devices to make a point. Besides, as has already been said, the teachings of the Buddha were recorded after his death, and it is entirely possible that this metaphorical embellishment was added at that time, without taking away from the main point, which is the relative rarity of the precious human rebirth and why it should be taken advantage of.

Cinorjer

Take it as an analogy spoken by someone who had no concept of just how big the earth is, along with a belief in literal reincarnation. The message about how easy it is to fall short of living a meritorious life still comes through.

The Buddha taught suffering, its causes and elimination. He did not teach reincarnation, cosmology, psychology, or even karma. All of that is included in the Sutras, of course. The Sutras have to explain how the Buddha's message makes sense within the world as people of the time experienced it.

The monks of that time, just like the people of today, had certain assumptions about the nature of the world and lots of gaps in their knowledge that we have filled in a bit. For instance, one of the Sutras tries to claim, supposedly in the words of Buddha, that being born dark skinned is because that person in a previous life slandered Buddhism. Nonsense, of course, since we know about genetics and of course that reflects a caste system where dark skinned people are on the bottom (doesn't that sound familiar?). So do we take this literally, or realize the monk writing this way back then had the same struggle we do today, trying to understand how karma and reincarnation fit into Buddhism. If his understanding was a bit incomplete, cut him some slack.

So if you want to hold that the Sutras are all literally true, that the Buddha actually said everything the Sutras claim he said, I won't argue with you. But, Buddhism is a much richer religion if you use the Sutras to peer back into the world where the Buddha lived, and see the humanity involved, the minds of the monks struggling to transmit a precious pearl of wisdom through time.

BonsaiDoug

The point is to show that human rebirth is rare and precious..... so do not waste this opportunity

So very true. This quote kinda sums it up for me:

"Now having obtained a precious human body,
I do not have the luxury of remaining on a
distracted path."
- Tibetan Book of the Dead

caz

In the Sutra, Buddha said "Those whose in human form die and reborn as human can be compared to the dirt in my finger, while those in human form die and reborn in the realm of hungry ghosts, animals, and hells can be compared to the dirt in of the whole earth". If this is to understand literally, the ratio of dirt in the whole earth is more than billions of billions of dirt in finger, that means if our current earth population of 6.9
billion people die, then nobody will be reborn as human? Thus, doesn't making so much sense, since then our cultivation would be wasted? Unless, the meaning is not to be taken literally? But in the Diamond Sutra, it is said that Buddha's words are true and honest, they are frank and to the point. Then, how would this be interpreted?

It is very rare for one to be born as a human, Especially more so with freedoms and endowments as we have to practise Dharma without obstruction. A very precious oppertunity we have indeed.

fabianfred

Take it as an analogy spoken by someone who had no concept of just how big the earth is, along with a belief in literal reincarnation. The message about how easy it is to fall short of living a meritorious life still comes through.
The Buddha taught suffering, its causes and elimination. He did not teach reincarnation, cosmology, psychology, or even karma. .

The buddha was omniscient....he was able to know anything he turned his mind to...that is one great difference between him and his arahant followers. They had both achieved Nirvana and liberation, but because of his vast long time training as a Boddhisattva he had many superior qualities. One day he bent and picked up a handful of leaves asking his companions which was greater, the handful or all the leaves in the forest...then compared his knowledge to all the leaves whilst what he taught was compared to the handful.
He certainly did teach karma & rebirth which are basic tenets of Buddhism....many westerners disbelieve these because they have a hard time trying to find any physical evidence for them...still stuck in their scientific ways which just do not work with most spiritual things. The Buddha stated
“This truth that I have realised is very profound. Though it is sublime
and conducive to inner peace, it is hard to understand.
Since it is subtle and not accessible to mere intellect and
logic, it can be realised only by the wise.”

....it can only be practiced my oneself and any achievements and progress can only be know to ourselves....not provable to others.

One who is enlightened is so far removed from an ordinary person that we cannot comprehend their minds or their knowledge. An Arahant can often see his past lives.... although rarely more than seven of them. On the night of his Enlightenment, the Buddha first recalled his past lives...... in this life I was such a person, living in this place and doing that, dying from this; in another I was........ he looked back and back over many thousands of lives...... and ' a starting point was not evident' His abilities were so far removed from those of an Arahant because he had been perfecting himself for countless billions of aeons..... From seeing these past lives he realised the truth of Rebirth.

Next, he saw the karma of all beings, how they are born,suffer, die and are reborn according to their karma; seeing them live their lives creating karma and the resultant suffering and rebirth in various realms as a result. From this he knew the truth of karma....

Next he saw the sequence of dependant origination...........

All this knowledge he had .... and he only chose to teach what was useful to lead us to Nirvana.

Once we reach Nirvana we also receive knowledge outside of the normal.

SherabDorje

"The buddha was omniscient...."


Fabianfred- how about writing "According to my tradition..." or "I take it as a matter of faith that..."?

Was the Buddha therefore not capable of speaking allegorically? Christians believe Jesus taught in parables and allegories a lot. Are you saying that the Buddha was not capable of speaking in parables or allegories, and that everything he said needs to be taken as literal truth because he was omniscient? Did the Buddha also not teach us to constructively question statements made by him and others?

I just think I perceive you writing that because "the Buddha was omniscient", we have to believe everything he said very literally, and it's odd that it just happens to be what you believe. Just saying.

Cinorjer

Take it as an analogy spoken by someone who had no concept of just how big the earth is, along with a belief in literal reincarnation. The message about how easy it is to fall short of living a meritorious life still comes through.
The Buddha taught suffering, its causes and elimination. He did not teach reincarnation, cosmology, psychology, or even karma. .

The buddha was omniscient....he was able to know anything he turned his mind to...that is one great difference between him and his arahant followers.
(snip)

Fabianfred, I'm not going to say your belief in an omniscient Buddha and an infallible, literal Sutra recounting his words is wrong. As I said, I won't argue with anyone who has the ability to believe this. However, if I were capable of uncritical belief in such supernatural powers as infallibility, I would have been happy staying a Christian. So, this method of looking at the Sutras in historical context is valid and makes sense to me. I didn't invent literary analysis, or pioneer applying it to religious scripture, but it opened a rich spiritual world to me.

Ch-an_noob

Compare to how many planktons, cockroaches and microorganisms are on earth to the human population, then we realise how precious human lives are.