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.
What is Rebirth?
My take: Every moment of consciousness that has passed is dead. The folding paper doll corpse-row of memory impressions is a part of the necessary condition for new moments to arise and develop into present of the next and on and on; the boundary cannot be discerned. All there is is the present. Death in the colloquial sense is just that of one of an innumerable series of interrelated conscious moments that coincides with the dissolution of the body.
What is rebirth in Buddhism?
What is rebirth in Buddhism?
0
Comments
As Voltaire said:
"It should be no more suprising to be born twice, as it was to have been born once...."
still really trying to get to grips with it, but I'm easy on it. Not stressed.....
I'm no Buddhist scholar and there will be some who might correct this, but, in a word rebirth is UNFINISHED BUSINESS or desire revisiting significant scenes or places one has known in a prior life.
In a sense it is the basis of a very nonjudgmental philosophy that tells you that you have many lifetimes to do what you have to do and there is no condemnation in not getting everything completely squared away right the first hundred lifetimes or whatever.
In that sense rebirth is a very generous conceptualization, also. The good news is that Reality is not so stingy as to allow you only one chance and one set of physical circumstances and that you are thereby freer to be less attached to your phenomenal self. It's that "clutching" to things that binds us.
Even Judaeo-Christian thought has precedents for reincarnation. Remember the Levites asking John the Baptist if he was Elias (reborn)?
Just a few, short words. More will follow by others.
But it would be rather difficult to squeeze through at this point.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
My view is a definite "no" to your question. However, this is a contentious answer. To avoid debate, I am happy to answer your question if you post it at buddhaforum.org.
Kind regards
DDhatu
Reincarnation figures in Tibetan Buddhism because advanced Lamas are said to be able to control their own re-births and accurately direct their consciousness to manifest within another being. They make a decision of what body to manifest in.....
The subsequent search and analysis of this newborn being can take years, and there are scrupulous and exhaustive tests to determine the accuracy of the divination of the person being the re-born Lama. (called a Tulku).
But the re-born lama is also a being in his - or her - own right. So it is not a complete and identical duplicate, as in genetics.... There is no physical connection at all...
I think I am correct in saying other schools do not ascribe to this process of re-incarnation.
Certainly Theravada does not.
Not exactly. The Buddha didn't reject that specific mental events are contingent upon corresponding physical events in the brain, but he didn't explicitly promote it either. In The Buddha and His Teachings, for example, Narada Thera notes that, "In the Patthana, the Book of Relations, the Buddha refers to the seat of consciousness, in such indirect terms as 'yam rupam nissaya—depending on that material thing', without positively asserting whether that rupa was either the heart (hadaya) or the brain. But, according to the view of commentators like Venerable Buddhaghosa and Anuruddha, the seat of consciousness is definitely the heart. It should be understood that the Buddha neither accepted nor rejected the popular cardiac theory" (425).
But even though the Buddha detailed the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15), he wasn't a strict materialist either. In regard to name-and-form (i.e., mentality-materiality), he didn't see consciousness as merely the byproduct of matter; he saw them as mutually sustaining immaterial and material phenomena, and used an analogy of two sheaves of reeds leaning against one another to illustrate their relationship (SN 12.67).
That being said, rebirth is essentially renewal of existence. As with most Eastern philosophies and religions, Buddhism does not view death as the final end of phenomena. In Buddhism, only nibbana is said to be the final end of phenomena in regards to the arising and passing away of beings (AN 10.58). According to the teachings on 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).
The last consciousness of a being at the time of death, with the presence of craving, is said to be the cause for the arising of a new consciousness. In the human realm, this would be in combination with the union of a healthy sperm and egg, although the Buddha often mentioned various other forms of birth in other realms of existence—none of which are free from suffering. 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.
Jason
The above sutta is mistranslated. If one reads it with some logic, it makes so sense. For example, it states "all things are rooted in desire". Now a rock or block of cement is part of "all things" but it has no desire.
The Pali in this sutta is "sabbe dhamma". Sabbe means "all". The word dhamma is translated in many ways. Here, the word dhamma does not mean phenomena. It means dhamma practices, in the same manner as the quote below: This, the sutta you have quoted states: "All dhamma practices culiminate in Nibbana". "All dhamma practises have Nibbana as their fulfilment".
Similary, the first teaching in this sutta is about "chanda". The Pali states: "Sabbe dhamma mulaka chanda - all practises are rooted in chanda". Chanda is the first of the iddhapada, as listed in many suttas, such as the Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta. Chanda is more correctly translated as "zeal". Chanda here is a wholesome dhamma and a factor of the path.
About Nibbana, as you are aware, the suttas state Nibbana is the cessation of greed, hatred & delusion here & now.
With metta
DDhatu
The first teaching of the Buddha was the Four Noble Truths. Here, when ellucidated the origin of suffering, the Buddha said: "It is craving, which leads to new existence or new becoming (bhava), with lust & delight, liking this and liking that".
Becoming is something mental. The mind becomes angry, sad, a Buddhist, an American, a mother, a father, etc. This is simple for us to comprehend.
Thus, when Buddha states: "when consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of new becoming", this can be taken to merely mean consciousness becomes absorbed or fixated upon a certain sense experience. This is the meaning of the word "delight", namely nandi in Pali. This obsessiveness is stated in the sutta quoted: Thus we can view these various teachings in a psychological way or in a physical way, depending on our inclinations.
With metta
DDhatu
In the Parileyyaka Sutta, the birth of the assumption of 'self' is mentioned, where it states: Therefore, we can view these various teachings in a psychological way or in a physical way, depending on our inclinations. We can view 'birth' as something mental or something physical.
For example, even in our ordinary language, we use phrases such as "a star is born", "a nation is born", "the birth of an idea".
With metta
DDhatu
That's an interesting possibility, and it's not the first time I've seen it suggested, but I'm not convinced that your interpretation is the correct one. To be honestly, DD, I see little reason to doubt Thanissaro's translation or the ancient commentary's position (which can be found at the bottom of the page) on this particular issue.
Bhava is quite an interesting word. In his translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, for example, Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:
Additionally, in his book, The Paradox of Becoming, Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives a pretty detailed analysis of this term.
Of course, I think that the teachings apply equally to both, not just one or the other.
I am convinced I am completely correct because none of the sutta makes sense. Rocks and blocks of cement do not "converge on feelings". However, all skilful dhammas converge on feelings because all skilful dhammas have the goal of establishing sati-sampajanna (mindfulness & clear comprehension) on feelings so craving does not arise, as discussed in countless suttas such as MN 37 and 38. In AN 3.61, the Buddha states:
MN 37 states: Similarly, all phenomena do not have release as their heartwood. In fact, all phenomena are not even possessed of wisdom or concentration.
'All phenomena [such as rocks and blocks of cement] have mindfulness as their governing principle.' Think about it. How could one not be convinced?
Isn't it more about the person who laid the blocks of cement and the rocks? Isn't it about having feelings anbout the inanimate structure, taking pride in it and loving it, forgetting that it too will crumble into dust?
You know, I am as basic in my knowledge and understanding as anyone who has never studied or even heard of Buddhism. I make no secret of my ineptitude. But sometimes, i think if words are taken too literally as being simply black and white, we could lose the essence of the message.
Of course, I could be talking total and utter claptrap. Wouldn't be the first time. I am at the level of the doofus given the job of sweeping and cleaning, with one difference. I don't see me being enlightened by my inability to grasp things.
Elohim, if I'm talking turdish, just let me know, there's a good lad.....
To begin with, the term "dhammā," often translated as "phenomena," can mean anything that arises in our experience or anything that is directly experienced in and of itself.
Furthermore, in the context of this sutta, the ancient commentary equates the phrase "all phenomena" with the five aggregates, which Thanissaro Bhikkhu notes is most likely "an expansion on MN 109, in which the five clinging-aggregates are said to be rooted in desire, an assertion echoed in SN 42.11, which states that suffering & stress are rooted in desire."
And as far as I can see, there's nothing inconsistent about Thanissaro's translation:
"All phenomena [the aggregates] come into play through attention.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have contact as their origination.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have feeling as their meeting place.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have concentration as their presiding state.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have mindfulness as their governing principle.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have discernment as their surpassing state.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have release as their heartwood.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] gain their footing in the deathless.
"All phenomena [the aggregates] have Unbinding as their final end."
In fact, that's how Nyanaponika Thera translates it:
"If thus questioned, monks, you should reply in the following way:
"'All things are rooted in the will. All things come to actual existence through attention. All things arise from contact. All things converge on feelings. Of all things the foremost is concentration. All things are mastered by mindfulness. Of all things the highest is wisdom. In all things the essence is liberation. All things merge in the Deathless. And Nibbaana is the ending of all things.'"
As well as Bhikkhu Bodhi:
If you are thus questioned, monks, you should reply as follows: "All things are rooted in desire. They come to actual existence through attention, originate from contact, and converge on feelings. The foremost of all things is concentration. All things are mastered by mindfulness. Their peak is wisdom, their essence liberation. All things merge in the Deathless, and Nibbana is their culmination."
Further support of this interpretation is the fact that the original Pali being translated as "phenomena" is the plural form of dhammā (ending with a long ā):
Bhagavammūlakā no bhante dhammā, bhagavanenattikā, bhagavaṃpaṭisaraṇā sādhu vata bhante bhagavantaṃ yeva paṭihātu etassa bhāsitassa attho. Bhagavato sutvā bhikkhu dhāressantīti.
Tena hi bhikkhave suṇātha, sādhukaṃ manasikarotha, bhāsissāmī ti. Evaṃ bhanteti kho te bhikkhu bhagavato paccassosuṃ bhagavā etadavoca:
[BJT Page 192]
Sace bhikkhave aññatitthiyā paribbājakā evaṃ puccheyyuṃ: kimmūlakā āvuso sabbe dhammā, kiṃsambhavā sabbe dhammā. Kiṃsamudayā sabbe dhammā, kiṃsamosaraṇā [PTS Page 107] sabbe dhammā, kiṃpamukhā sabbe dhammā, kiṃādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, kiṃuttarā sabbe dhammā, kiṃsārā sabbe dhammā, kiṃogadhā sabbe dhammā, kiṃpariyosānā sabbe dhammāti. Evaṃ puṭṭhā tumhe bhikkhave tesaṃ aññatitthiyānaṃ paribbājakānaṃ evaṃ vyākareyyātha:
Chandamūlakā āvuso sabbe dhammā, manasikārasambhavā sabbe dhammā, phassasamudayā sabbe dhammā vedanā samosaraṇa sabbe dhammā, samādhipamukhā sabbe dhammā, satādhipateyyā sabbe dhammā, paññuttarā sabbe dhammā, vimuttisārā sabbe dhammā, amatogadhā sabbe dhammā, nibbāna pariyosānā sabbe dhammāti. Evaṃ puṭṭhā tumhe bhikkhave tesaṃ aññatitthiyānaṃ paribbājakānaṃ evaṃ vyākareyyāthāti.
Although I'm no expert in Pali, my understanding is that the plural form "dhammā" is almost never used to refer to teachings. That is more commonly found with the singular form "dhamma" (ending with a short a).
I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong, it's certainly plausible, but considering all of the above, I'm still not convinced that your interpretation is the correct one.
Jason
It be difficult for some to acknowledge the translators and the commentators may have misunderstood.
The above makes perfect sense.
As Thanissaro makes clear in his note, as well as the other translators in theirs and Buddhaghosa's commentary to AN 10.58, the term "all phenomena" isn't referring to the form aggregate alone but the five aggregates of clinging—the combined physical and mental phenomena of experience.
It's not difficult for me acknowledge when I disagree with the traditional commentaries or translators; I simply don't disagree with them on this particular point.
Moreover, I've provided three sources — including three separate translations by some of the foremost translators today, the commentarial gloss and basic Pali grammar — to support my interpretation; and it's going to take a bit more than what you've provided thus far to convince me that they've misunderstood the meaning of this sutta.
Believe me, DD, I'm not adverse to contradictory opinions and/or evidence if they have merit. I just haven't seen enough to convince me that your admittedly plausible interpretation is the correct one.
Jason
Because we are the creatures that we are, with the senses that we have, we experience time as a moving flow from past to present. The past can only be 'visited' by memory and the future by imagination. If, however, we view time as a dimension in the field of the space/time continuum, past, present and future co-exist. Coming to birth and to death are simply points on that field, existing as long as the field itself and all co-existent.
Or should tyhis comment be on the thread about death?
No, I think it applies to both.
Another point I forgot to mention is the different usages of the the Pali term "sabba."
In general, the term means "all," but in SN 35.23 the Buddha defines precisely what he means by "sabba." There he defines "the all" as "the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas."
To me, this further supports the traditional interpretation, albeit indirectly, which equates the phrase "sabbe dhamma" (all phenomena) with the five aggregates.
Jason
Hello Lornwight
I have decided to provide my view to you.
In Buddhism, the are basically two views: the view of the Buddha reported in the scriptures & the view of the Commentators who arose after the Buddha.
The Buddha taught there is no consciousness independent of a sense organ however the Commentators developed terms such as 're-linking consciousness' & 'continuum of consciousness', which the Buddha never used. The Commentators hold there is a consciousness that can be separate from the body & brain function. However, in the scriptures, the Buddha defined consciousness as thus:
The foremost scripture on this subject is the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, which states: Therefore, in Buddhism, one can find a variety of views to suit one's inclinations. It is like a supermarket.
Kind regards
DDhatu
P.S. Sorry about the large font. I have lost control of the page and must give up.
It is true, for example, that the Pali term "patisandhi-citta" (re-linking consciousness) is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a "re-linking" consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "... 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."
But as you so aptly put it, "... in Buddhism, one can find a variety of views to suit one's inclinations. It is like a supermarket." That's what keeps it interesting, right?
As a side note, this discussion reminds me of Peter Harvey's The mind-body relationship in Pali Buddhism: A philosophical investigation, which I find interesting and well worth reading. From the abstract:
Best wishes,
Jason